Court clarifies the necessity of explicit caste-based abuse in evidence, and the imperative to place all incriminating material before the accused during Section 313 CrPC examination. Prior convictions under Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST (PoA) Act and Section 323 IPC may not be sustained where versions differ, are improvised, or the foundational facts are omitted from the accused’s examination—precedent is affirmed and procedural standards stressed. Precedentially binding for criminal practice in Orissa, persuasive to other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/310/1994 of JAYASEN GOUDO Vs STATE |
| CNR | ODHC010054871994 |
| Date of Registration | 06-09-1994 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Orissa; persuasive to other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, explicit reference to caste-based abuse must appear in the earliest report and evidence. Additionally, any incriminating material not put to the accused during Section 313 CrPC examination cannot be used against them. The testimonies that are inconsistent, or are “improvised” during trial, and are not corroborated by contemporaneous documents (such as caste certificate at the time of occurrence), cannot be relied on. The judgment stressed procedural fairness and strict adherence to established principles of criminal evidence and accused’s right to be confronted with all material evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Principle that incriminating evidence not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be relied on for conviction. Importance of consistency between FIR, witness testimony, and procedural fairness. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The prosecution alleged that the accused abused and assaulted the informant, a Sarpanch belonging to a Scheduled Caste, in public view; however, the FIR contained no reference to caste-based abuse, and versions varied at trial, with the caste certificate acquired only during trial. The learned trial court convicted under Sections 3(1)(x) SC & ST (PoA) Act and 323 IPC; the High Court found vital inconsistencies and acquitted the appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Orissa High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; argumentatively relevant for Supreme Court cases involving similar procedural questions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Re-emphasizes that incriminating evidence not placed before the accused during Section 313 CrPC examination is inadmissible for conviction.
- Highlights that courts cannot rely on “improvised” or inconsistent witness versions, especially in cases involving caste-based offences under SC & ST (PoA) Act.
- Reiterates the importance of explicit content in the FIR and early-stage evidence—post facto improvements or strategic acquisition of documents (like caste certificates solely during trial) are not sufficient for conviction.
- Encourages criminal practitioners to scrutinize the procedural steps—especially Section 313 examination—when contesting convictions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court critically evaluated inconsistencies between the FIR, witness testimonies at trial, and evidence on record.
- It found that the FIR made no mention of the accused abusing the complainant by caste name—a central requirement for Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST (PoA) Act.
- Witness P.W.1 “improvised” at trial, and his late-produced caste certificate further undermined credibility.
- Other witnesses (P.W.3, P.W.6) gave diverging and further “improvised” versions.
- The court found that these incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused during his Section 313 CrPC statement, denying him a fair opportunity to respond.
- Citing authoritative precedents (Balaram Bag and Sahadev Karmi), the court confirmed that such procedural lapses bar reliance on those facts for conviction.
- The court also scrutinized the quality of medical and other evidence, finding the corroboration insufficient for conviction even under IPC Section 323.
- Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence.
- The trial court ignored the defence evidence.
- The informant procured the caste certificate after the trial had already commenced, casting doubt on the claim of scheduled caste status.
- Only the informant was sent for medical examination, despite allegations of a scuffle involving multiple parties.
- The investigation was not fair or impartial.
Respondent (State):
- The prosecution witnesses (P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6) are consistent and withstood cross-examination.
- The defence failed to elicit any contradictions in prosecution’s case.
- The conviction and sentence should be upheld.
Factual Background
On 16.01.1993, while the informant (P.W.1), then Sarpanch of Pipalpader Grama Panchayat, was at Laxmipur New Bus Stand, he was allegedly abused and assaulted by the appellant, including being abused in filthy language and threatened. The FIR was promptly lodged, and the prosecution asserted caste-based abuse and voluntary hurt. The accused took a defence of complete denial and alleged he was himself assaulted by P.W.1 and his son. During trial, witness statements diverged, and the caste certificate was obtained by the informant only after his initial court testimony.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act: The provision penalizes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe in public view. The court interpreted this to require specific, explicit mention of caste-based abuse in evidence.
- Section 323 IPC: Deals with voluntary causing hurt. The court stressed that conviction cannot rest on doubtful or inconsistent evidence.
- Section 313 CrPC: Mandates that all incriminating evidence must be placed before the accused for response; the court strictly enforced this protection, holding that failure to do so bars use of such evidence for conviction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None identified in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing procedural law regarding the necessity for incriminating evidence to be put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC prior to being relied on for conviction.