PRAFULLA KUMAR NAG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An appeal U/S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') by the convict Prafulla Kumar Nag challenges his conviction and sentence passed on 1/3/1994 by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in S.C. No. 107 of 1993 convicting him for offences punishable U/Ss. 451/353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) and Sec 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act') with aid of Sec. 34 of IPC and sentencing him to the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for two months for offence U/Ss. 351/353 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC on each count and R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.200.00 in default whereof to undergo R.I. for one month for offence U/S. 3(1)(x) of the Act read with Sec. 34 of IPC with all the sentences directed to run concurrently by giving benefit of set off U/s. 428 of the Code.

(2.) The prosecution case arises out of an FIR Ext.2/3 lodged by P.W.7, the BDO, Tentulikhunta against the appellant and two others before the O.I.C., Tentulikhunta Police Station in the district of Koraput alleging therein that he is a member of scheduled caste community and on 11/1/1992 at about 5.30 P.M. when he was about to leave Development Sec. of his office to do work with Senior Clerk, a group of people came there and of them, one Abhimanyu Nayak drank liquor in front of the door of the office under a mango tree and they all abused him in filthy language by saying 'MAAGHIA MADHAR CHOD, TU ONE SIDED HEICHU, MINISTERKU ANIBU, TUTTE REVIEW KORIBU, F.I.R. DELLE MUDER KHORIBU' and they dragged him by holding his hand to outside the room and threatened to kill him. They also did not allow him to perform his duty either in the Development Sec. or in his office room and one Siba Acharya persuaded him not to take action in the matter. At the time of occurrence, Mr.D.R.K.Rao, Senior Clerk was present in the office. On receipt of Ext.2/3, the OIC-P.W.5 registered Tentulikhuntia P.S. Case No. 04 dtd. 11/1/1992 and took up investigation of the case on the same day, but subsequently handed over the charge of investigation to Circle Inspector P.W.6 who formally placed the charge sheet against the appellant and two others after verifying and ascertaining the caste of the informant, resulting in trial in the present case.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses vide P.Ws. 1 to 7 and relied upon two documents in the shape of injury report and FIR under Ext.2/3 as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial, but the learned trial Court wholly relying upon only the evidence of P.W.7 passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and another for the offences and sentenced them to punishment indicated supra, while acquitting co-accused K.Shiba Prasad Acharya. Hence, this appeal by the convicts, but during pendency of the appeal, co-appellant namely, Abhimanyu Naik died and the appeal by him stands abated vide order No.10 dtd. 6/3/2023.