JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in G.R. Case No. 694 of 2001 rejecting the petition of the Petitioner praying to recall the order taking cognizance. 2. The facts leading to intiation of the G.R. Case in which the deceased was arrested are that one Chintamani Nath reported in writing at Bhadrak Town Police Station on 5.7.2001 alleging therein that he had boarded Bhadrak-Anandapur Bus at about 3.30 P.M. from Bhadrak Town Bus Stand to proceed to his village. He had an attache and a bag with him. He kept the attache and the bag inside the bus on a seat and had gone out for urination. On return, neither he found the attache nor the person sitting on the seat. When he searched for the man who was sitting on the seat, he found him standing in front of a betel shop. On being questioned, the said man admitted to have taken the attache and handed over to his associate Jagabandhu Naik who had taken it to Chandabali by-pass. The man disclosed his name as Bharat Naik. When the said complainant Chintamani Nath was going to Chandabali by-pass along with the said Bharat Naik, near the Police Station, it is alleged that the said Bharat Naik jumped out of the rickshaw and started running, but he was chased and caught with the help of police and produced before the Town Police Station for necessary action. 3. The facts leading to the present case indicate that the said Bharat Naik was kept in Hajat and was assaulted brutally by the Petitioner and another Officer and at the relevant time in absence of the I.I.C. the Petitioner was in-charge of the Police Station. It further appears that the said Bharat Naik was produced in Court and on the Court verandah he vomited blood where after he was taken to the hospital and he died in the hospital. The present case has been registered on the allegation that because of the assault inflicted by the present Petitioner and another in the Police Station, the said Bharat Naik died. After investigation of the present case, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance has been taken for commission of offences under Sections 342, 330, 348, 302/34 of the Penal Code. The present case has been registered on the allegation that because of the assault inflicted by the present Petitioner and another in the Police Station, the said Bharat Naik died. After investigation of the present case, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance has been taken for commission of offences under Sections 342, 330, 348, 302/34 of the Penal Code. After cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate, it appears the Petitioner filed an application to recall the said order taking cognizance and the petition having been rejected, the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. 4. Shri Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner admitted that there are materials to show that the deceased Bharat Naik was assaulted by the Petitioner in the Hazat and, therefore, the offences except offence u/s 302 in respect of which cognizance has been taken are made out. According to Shri Nayak, the offence u/s 302 as alleged is not at all made out. Such argument is based on the postmortem report which indicates that the deceased Bharat Naik sustained five bruises on his person and as per the opinion of the doctor conducting the postmortem examination such injuries in ordinary course cannot cause the death. The entire argument of Shri Nayak being based on the postmortem report as well as opinion of the doctor conducting the postmortem examination, it is necessary to look into the postmortem report to find out as to whether the Petitioner should be tried for the offence u/s 302 of the Penal Code. 5. On perusal of the case diary, it is found that the deceased Bharat Naik had sustained the following injuries: 1. Burise 3"L x 2/2" wide situated on posterior aspect of left elbow. 2. Bruise 4"L x 3" wide situated anteriorly on lower half of Rt fore-arm. 3. Bruise 4"L x 3" wide situated posteriorly on lower half of left forearm. 4. Bruise 4"L x 3/2 wide situated in lateral aspect upper 3rd of left leg. 5. Bruise 6" x 3" wide situated on Antero lateral aspect of upper 3rd rt. leg with diffuse moderate swelling of entire right and left leg. The opinion of the doctor is as follows: 1. The cause of death is due to hypovolemiac shock due to loss of blood in the subcutaneous tissue space. 2. 5. Bruise 6" x 3" wide situated on Antero lateral aspect of upper 3rd rt. leg with diffuse moderate swelling of entire right and left leg. The opinion of the doctor is as follows: 1. The cause of death is due to hypovolemiac shock due to loss of blood in the subcutaneous tissue space. 2. Time since death is within 24 hours at the time of Post- mortem examination. It is further found from the case diary that a query was made by the I.O. and in answer to the query the doctor conducting the postmortem replied as follows: 1. The age of injuries as detected from the external colour change could be within 24 hours from the time of death. 2. The injuries were antemortem in nature. 3. Injuries described in my report are usually not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this case the enlarged heart which has been mentioned in Page-A of the P.M. Report can be due to hypertension or any underlying heart disease which rendered the deceased more vulnerable to stress reaction and resulted in shock lending to syncope (Syncope is the condition when the function of the heart stop). 4. Considering to my answer to your query No. 3, the weapon causing injuries to the particular part of the body cannot be considered as a lethal weapon. 6. Relying on the aforesaid report, Shri Nayak contended that the bruises found on the body of the deceased Bharat Naik are on the hands and legs and such bruises can never cause death. He also relied upon the opinion of the doctor who has stated that in ordinary course such injuries cannot cause death and the death can be due to hypertension or any underlying heart disease which rendered the deceased more vulnerable to stress reaction. However, on perusal of the entire report, it appears that no definite conclusion could be arrived at with regard to cause of death and the I.O. has observed that only after receipt of the opinion of the Chemical Examiner in respect of heart, lungs and viscera sent to State Forensic Science laboratory a definite conclusion can be arrived as to the cause of death. In absence of such report, it is not possible on the part of this Court to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the cause of death. In absence of such report, it is not possible on the part of this Court to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the cause of death. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of Shri Nayak at this stage in absence of such report and quash the order taking cognizance. I, therefore, decline to interfere at this stage and observe that at the time of framing of charge, if such reports are available with the Court, the grounds on which the order taking cognizance has been challenged before this Court can also be raised and if such grounds are raised, the same shall be taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. 7. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed