Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 260 (ORI)

Susanta Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa

2005-04-18

R.N.BISWAL

body2005
JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The petitioner having been remanded by the J.M.F.C., Aska in G.R. Case No.43 of 2004 was lodged in Ward No.3 of Aska Sub-jail along with other prisoners namely, Surya Narayan Palei, Basanta Nayak, Gopal Gauda, Amulya Panda, Dadu Padhi, Surya Muni, Panchu Mohanty, Dandasi Behera, Daka Swain and Bijaya Jena. In the night of 29.3.2004 there was a clash between the petitioner on one hand and the other inmates of Ward No.3 on the other. It is alleged that in course of clash the petitioner caused injuries to some of the inmates of Ward No.3. Getting information about the clash when the Sub-Jailor, Krushna Chandra Harichandan along with his staff reached Ward No.3, it is further alleged that the petitioner attached and assaulted him. On the report of Sub-Jailor, at Aska Police Station, P.S. Case No.56 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 307/324/332 I.P.C. which corresponds to G.R. Case No.90 of 2004 of the Court of the J.M.F.C., Aska. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under the aforesaid Sections and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Berhampur and was numbered as Sessions Case No.436 of 2004. The petitioner, who was on bail during that time, filed a petition before the Sessions Judge to transfer the case to the Court of Assistant Session Judge, Bhanjanagar or Chhatrapur. The Sessions Judge rejected the petition and transferred the case to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska which was re-numbered as S.C. No.1 of 2005. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to transfer S.C. No.1 of 2005 (Sessions Case No.436 of 2004) of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Chhatrapur or Berhampur. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, Surya narayan Palei who was a prisoner of Ward No.3 of Aska sub-jail on the alleged date of assault on the Sub-Jailor is a harden criminal against whom 14 to 15 cases of different nature are pending. He has a gang which actively operate at Aska. The other prisoners who were in the same Ward also belong to his gang. He has a gang which actively operate at Aska. The other prisoners who were in the same Ward also belong to his gang. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was lodged in Ward No.3, Surya Narayan Palei and his associates in fact attempted to murder him but somehow he could save himself with the help of a tin plate. If the petitioner is required to go to Aska to face the trial in S.C. No.1 of 2005 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, he apprehends danger to his life. Out of fear to his life because of the threat of Surya Narayan Palei and his associates he (the petitioner) is staying at Berhampur and not going to Aska. Unless the aforesaid case is transferred from the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska to some other place, there cannot be a fair trial because of the threat to the life of the petitioner at Aska. If the case is transferred from Aska to Bhanjanagar, Chha¬trapur or Berhampur, it would be convenient for the witnesses also. Hence the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Surya Narayan Palei is a harden criminal and leader of the local ruffi¬ans. At present there are 14 to 15 cases pending against him. There is every danger to the life of the petitioner if he is re¬quired to go to Aska for attending his case. He further submits that if the case is transferred to the Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Chhatrapur or Berhampur it would be convenient for the witnesses also. So the Sessions Judge ought to have transferred the case to some other Courts as was prayed for. 4. Per contra learned Additional Standing Counsels submits that no circumstance has been shown in the petition to indicate that Surya Narayan Palei or his so called gang gave threat to the life of the petitioner. So fear to life said to have been enter¬tained by the petitioner is not reasonable. Hence the petition should be rejected. 5. As envisaged in Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordinarily an offence is to be enquired into and tried before the Court within the local jurisdiction of which it was committed. Admittedly in the present case the occurrence took place within the local jurisdiction of Asst. Sessions Judge, Aska. Hence the petition should be rejected. 5. As envisaged in Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordinarily an offence is to be enquired into and tried before the Court within the local jurisdiction of which it was committed. Admittedly in the present case the occurrence took place within the local jurisdiction of Asst. Sessions Judge, Aska. Unless there is compelling circumstance, a case should not be transferred from one criminal to another criminal Court. In the decision, Bulu alias Prasanta Kumar Panigrahi v. The State; (1995) 9 OCR 32 this Court has held that the petitioner is enti¬tled to transfer of the case to some other Court if he shows circumstances giving rise to inference that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable on the circumstances al¬leged. A mere allegation, however that there is apprehension that fair trial cannot be conducted in a particular case is not enough. In the case at hand, except the mere allegation that the petitioner apprehends danger to his life from Surya Narayan Palei and his associates there is no any specific allegation in the petition where from it can be inferred that he reasonably appre¬hends danger to his life. Even if his apprehension is held to be genuine, the petitioner may apply for adequate a police protec¬tion for his safety. 6. As found from the Xerox copy of the charge sheet 14 persons have been cited as witnesses of whom 6 are official wit¬nesses working at Aska. Out of 8 non-official witnesses 6 are permanent residents under Aska P.S. So the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be convenient for the witnesses, if the case is transferred to Bhanjanagar Chhatrapur or Berhampur does not hold good. Accordingly the TRPCRL stands dismissed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Berhampur is hereby confirmed. TRPCRL dismissed.