Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 650 (ORI)

Trinath Panigrahy @ Tunia v. State of Odisha

2019-11-28

A.K.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K. MISHRA, J. 1. In this appeal the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Aska, Ganjam in S.T. Case No. 56 of 2019(T) is sought to be set aside. By that order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Aska has taken cognizance of the offences U/ss. 364, 302, 201, 120-B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 25(I-B)(a) and 27 of the arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PA) Act and found materials to proceed against 9 accused persons, including the present petitioner. In spite of service of notice on opposite party no. 2 being sufficient, he did not choose to appear. 2. The sole contention of learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the order is that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PA) Act, 1989, i.e. the offence was committed in respect of deceased knowing that such person was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is absent for which the order of cognizance is vulnerable under Law. He submits that there is no material available in the statement recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses examined, that the accused knew that the deceased was a member of the Scheduled Caste. The absence of knowledge of the accused as to the caste of the deceased is the crux of the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that in the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer has specifically stated about the caste position and sanction obtained from the District Magistrate as well as information. 4. I also perused the copy of charge-sheet and find that the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned that the deceased belonged to ‘Bauri” by caste which comes under Scheduled Caste category while the accused persons are members of OBC category. 5. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. In the decision reported in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 74 OCR (SC) 131, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, or not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. In the decision reported in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 74 OCR (SC) 131, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, or not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.” 6. In my considered opinion, the knowledge of accused persons is to be ascertained during trial and the same, at this stage, cannot be the basis to quash the cognizance order. Hence I am not inclined to quash the same. 7. Accordingly the CRLA stands dismissed.