DEBASISH RATH vs STATE

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.43 of 2009
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

Debasis Rath Appellant
…….
-Versus-
State of Orissa Respondent
…….


For the Appellant : Ms. Chetna Prakash, Advocate


For the Respondent : Mr. Jateswar Nayak, AGA

CORAM
:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA



Date of Hearing: 30.04.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026


S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant
under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order
dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Phulbani in S.T.
No.75 of 2006, arising out of G.R. 263/2005, whereby the appellant was
convicted for offences under Sections 324 and 354 of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each
count with fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one month on each count.
2.
Heard Ms. Chetna Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State.
3.
The prosecution case, in terse and brief, is that on 20.06.2008 at
about 10:00 A.M., the victim, a 15-year-old girl belonging to the
Scheduled Tribe community, had gone to take her bath in the Salunki
river along with one Sulentina Pradhan. At that time, the accused
allegedly reached the spot and first attempted to catch hold of Sulentina,
who, however, managed to escape by running towards her house.
Thereafter, the accused turned towards the victim, caught hold of her,
and dragged her. When the victim raised alarm, the accused allegedly
held her by the neck and pressed it. In the course of freeing herself from
the clutches of the accused, the victim sustained injuries on her neck and,
as alleged, bleeding from her mouth. She then rushed towards the

Page 2 of 16

riverbank raising alarm, whereupon the accused fled towards the
opposite side of the river.
On hearing the commotion, local persons gathered at the spot,
and some of them chased the accused and succeeded in apprehending
him. Subsequently, the informant, who is the father of the victim,
lodged a written report before the police. Upon completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against
the accused, whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session,
and the accused stood trial for the alleged offences U/S 341/354/324
IPC and U/S 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
4.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine
witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim, while P.W.2, Sulentina Pradhan, was an
eyewitness. P.W.3, Smt. Mitanjali Rout, offered post-incident
testimony. P.W.4, Prakash Sahu, and P.W.6, Swadhina Kumar Swain,
are additional witnesses who pursued and apprehended the accused.
P.W.5, Kishore Chandra Pradhan, is the informant, and P.W.7, Dr.

Page 3 of 16

Shyamasundar Mahapatra, examined the injured party at the police's
request. P.W.8, Sri Arjuna Bhoi, served as the Investigating Officer,
while P.W.9, Sibanarayan Nanda, was the Tahasildar who issued the
victim's father's caste certificate. The defence is one of complete denial
and false implication. No defence evidence was adduced.
5.
The learned trial Court upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record held that the testimony of the victim
(P.W.1), duly corroborated by P.W.2 and supported by the medical
evidence of P.W.7, clearly established that the accused had assaulted the
victim while she was taking bath in the river and caused a nail injury on
her neck. The trial Court found that such conduct, in the given
circumstances, amounted to voluntarily causing hurt and also constituted
an act of outraging the modesty of the victim. Further, relying on the
unchallenged evidence of the Tahasildar (P.W.9), the court concluded
that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and that the act of the
accused was sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the court found no

Page 4 of 16

material to establish wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC and
acquitted the accused of that charge. Accordingly, the accused was
convicted under Sections 324 and 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the
SC & ST Act and sentenced accordingly. The relevant portion of the
aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:-
“ Placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1& 2
and the medical officer, it can safely be concluded
that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the
victim on her neck by nail, which is an instrument
of cutting while the victim was taking her bath in
the river. This conduct of the accused in attacking
the victim while she was taking bath in the river
and causing a simple injury to her by an
instrument of cutting i.e. the nail, clearly suggests
that the modesty of the victim is infringed or
outraged and the intention of the accused is
undoubtedly to dishonor the victim in the public
esteem. So the offences u/s-324/354 I.P.C and sec
3 (1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocity)
Act is well brought home to the accused. The I.O.,
P.W.8 had proved the registration of the case and
his taking up the investigation. He proved that he
seized the bicycle on production by Kulamani
Naik as per the seizure list Ext.6. It is also in his
evidence that he had sent the injured victim girl
for her medical examination under requisition.
Ext.5 is the requisition issued by him, which
corroborates his evidence and also the evidence
of the medical officer. He had also proved the
spot map, which he had prepared as per Ext.3.

Page 5 of 16

8. From the evidence discussed above and relying
on the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3,5,7 to 9
therefore, I conclude that the offences U/S
354/324 I.P.C. and Sec.3 (1)(XI) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (P.A.) Act is well
brought home to the accused. As regards the
offence U/S 341 I.P.C. is concerned, absolutely
there is no evidence to suggest that the accused
had wrongfully restrained the victim. All P.W.1
had stated is that the accused caught hold of her
neck and she got rid of him and ran away to the
bank of the river. So there is no wrongful restraint
and the offence U/S 341 I.P.C. is not brought
home to the accused.

9. Accordingly, I found the accused guilty U/S
324/354 I.P.C. and U/S 3(1)(XI) of S.C. &
S.T.(P.A.) Act and convict him there under and
find him not guilty U/S 341 I.P.C. and acquitted
him from the said charge.
”

6.
Ms. Chetna Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed
the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the prosecution has
failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections
324, 354 and 341 IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is contended that mere proof of the
victim belonging to a Scheduled Tribe is insufficient to attract the said

Page 6 of 16

provision, in absence of any evidence showing that the alleged act was
committed on account of such caste. She placed reliance on a judgment
of this Court, Iswar Chandra Mahanta @ Iswar Mahanta v. State of
Orissa in CRA No. 271 of 1994 , wherein it has been held that the
prosecution must establish that the offence was committed with the
intention to humiliate the victim on the ground of caste, failing which
conviction under the SC & ST Act cannot be sustained. In the present
case, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate such intention or even
knowledge of the caste of the victim on the part of the appellant, thereby
rendering the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act wholly
unsustainable.
7.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
medical evidence completely contradicts the ocular version of the
prosecution. While the prosecution alleges that the victim sustained
bleeding injuries from the nose and mouth due to pressure on the neck,
the doctor (P.W.7) found only a simple abrasion and categorically
opined that such injury could not cause bleeding as alleged. In this
regard, she referred to Aminul Islam @ Amenur Molla v. State of West

Page 7 of 16

Bengal in C.R.A. 520 of 2018 , wherein it has been held that when
medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony on material
particulars, the latter cannot be safely relied upon for conviction.
8.
Ms. Prakash further contends that the ingredients of Sections 354
and 324 IPC are not made out. There is no material on record to establish
the requisite mens rea for outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC, as
emphasized in Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 19 , which mandates clear
evidence of intention beyond vague allegations. Additionally, the injury
allegedly caused by nail cannot be construed as being inflicted by a
dangerous weapon so as to attract Section 324 IPC, as held in Chhota @
Akash v. State of Madhya Pradesh MCRC No. 9404 of 2015
in . The
absence of reliable eye-witnesses, the hostile stance of material
witnesses, contradictions in prosecution evidence, and non-examination
of independent witnesses further weaken the prosecution case.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction is based on unreliable
and insufficient evidence and is liable to be set aside.

Page 8 of 16

9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the
State, and perused the entire lower court records, including the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and
analyzed the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court while
appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution against
the appellant.
10.
The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, when read conjointly, reveals
that P.W.1, the victim, has stated that while she and P.W.2 were taking
bath in the river at about 9.30 to 10.00 A.M., the accused came to the
spot, initially attempted to catch hold of P.W.2 who fled away, and
thereafter caught hold of her neck and pressed it, as a result of which she
claims blood came out from her mouth. She further deposed that she
managed to push the accused, raised alarm, and on hearing her cries,
P.W.3 and others reached the spot, whereafter the accused fled away.
P.W.2, however, has stated that on seeing the accused approach, she
immediately ran away out of fear and did not witness the actual
occurrence thereafter, and only later, upon returning to the river bank,

Page 9 of 16

noticed that P.W.1 had sustained a nail mark injury on her neck and was
allegedly bleeding from the mouth. P.W.3, being a post-occurrence
witness, has deposed that on hearing the cries of P.W.1, she rushed to the
river bank and saw P.W.1 and she was told by P.W.1 that a boy had
caused the injury. Thus, while P.W.1 speaks about the occurrence
directly, P.W.2 is only a partial witness who did not see the actual
assault, and P.W.3 is a hearsay witness to the occurrence, with her
knowledge being derived from what was stated to her by P.W.1 after the
incident.
11.
Upon careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this
Court finds that the medical evidence (P.W.7) assumes significant
importance in the present case. The doctor found only a simple abrasion
on the neck, which was superficial and skin-deep. Extract of P.W.7 ’s
testimony is profitable to be reproduced for true appreciation:
“ 1. On 20.6.2005 I was Medical Officer attached
to Police Hospital at Phulbani. On that day on
police requisition I examined the victim at 12.30
P.M. and found as follows:-

Page 10 of 16

I. Abrasion at the anterior part of the neck
one inch left to the middle and directed
from about down-wards. It is simple injury
and linner in size- half inch length. Skin
deep.
The Injury is simple and caused by sharp and
pointed object, and within six hours of my
examination. Ext. 2 is my report and Ext.2/1 is my
signature. The injury is possible by nail.
Cross-examination:-
2. The injury is possible self infliction. Blood is not
possible to come out of the nose and the mouth
from the amount of the presser on the neck while
causing the injury on the neck.
”
This creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. The
version of P.Ws.1 to 3 that blood was oozing from the mouth stands
contradicted by medical evidence, thereby affecting the credibility of
their testimony on material particulars.
12.
The allegation under Section 324 IPC requires the use of a
dangerous weapon or means. A fingernail, in the ordinary course,
cannot be construed as a dangerous weapon within the meaning of
Section 324 IPC unless used in an exceptionally violent or unusual

Page 11 of 16

manner, which is not established in the present case. The injury being
superficial and minor further weakens the applicability of Section 324
IPC.
13.
Coming to the allegation under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution
must establish that the act was done with the intention to outrage the
modesty of the victim. In the present case, apart from the bare allegation
of catching hold of the neck, there is no clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence demonstrating any overt act suggestive of sexual intent or
indignity to modesty. The conduct alleged appears abrupt and lacks the
necessary mens rea required for constituting an offence under Section
354 IPC. It would be apt to rely on Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar
Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 INSC 19,
reported in
where the honourable Supreme Court held that:-
“12.4 It is well settled that for mens rea to be
established, something better than vague statements
must be produced before the court. As evidenced by
the annexures referred to above, i.e. the FIR, the
preliminary investigation report as also the
concluding portion of the chargesheet, no direct
allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can
be found attributing intent to the appellant. It

Page 12 of 16

cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC is

made out against the appellant.”

It is also pertinent to note that independent witnesses
(P.Ws.4 and 6), who allegedly apprehended the accused, have turned
hostile. Their earlier statements do not inspire confidence, and their
testimony in court does not support the prosecution case. This further
weakens the prosecution case.
14.
With regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST
(P.A.) Act, it is well settled that mere proof of the victim belonging to a
Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient. The prosecution must further establish
that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to
such community, with the intent to humiliate or dishonor her on that
basis. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that
the alleged act was motivated by caste considerations. The prosecution
has failed to prove this essential ingredient. It was determined in the case
of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs State of Maharashtra , reported

in 2000 (3) SCC 557, relevant part of which is extracted herein:-

Page 13 of 16

of the Act provides that whoever,
“Section 3(2)(v)
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under
the Indian Penal Code punishable with
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
against a person or property on the ground that
such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such
member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
life and with fine. In the present case, there is no
evidence at all to the effect that the appellant
committed the offence alleged against him on the
ground that the deceased is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract
the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine
qua non is that the victim should be a person who
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
and that the offence under the Indian Penal
Code is committed against him on the basis that
such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such
ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act arises.
In that view of the matter, we think,
both the trial court and the High Court missed the
essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the
conviction under the aforesaid provision by the
trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be
set aside.”
In this context, it is also pertinent to note that this Court in
earlier decisions in Prodyamn Kumar Sarangi vs. State of Odisha in

CRA No.72 of 1994 and Girish Sathua vs. State of Odisha in CRA

Page 14 of 16

No.306 of 1995 , has consistently held that for attracting the provisions
of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act, mere proof that the victim belongs to a
Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient; the prosecution must further establish
that the alleged act was committed on the ground of such caste, with the
intention to insult, humiliate or dishonour the victim on that basis,
which foundational requirement is conspicuously absent in the present
case.
15.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the injury alleged to have been
caused to the victim is minor, superficial in nature, and not fully
consistent with the prosecution version on material particulars, thereby
creating doubt as to the manner of occurrence. The ingredients
necessary to attract Section 324 IPC are not made out, and the essential
elements required to constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC have
not been satisfactorily established. Further, there is a complete absence
of evidence to show that the alleged act was committed on the ground of
the victim’s caste so as to attract Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the appellant, Debasis Ratha,

Page 15 of 16

is acquitted of all charges. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Phulbani in S.T. No.75 of 2006 is hereby set aside. Bail bond, if any,
stands discharged.
16.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(S.S. Mishra)
Judge








The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
nd
Dated the 22 May, 2026/ Swarna

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-May-2026 20:10:48

Page 16 of 16