Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1119 (ORI)

Taudu Kondagori v. State of Orissa

2016-11-18

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. No.06 of 2016 in dismissing the discharge petition under section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners. It appears that the case was instituted on 02.09.2015 on the First Information Report submitted by Bikram Bihari Jayapuria, S.I. of Police, Kalyansinghpur Police Station before the Inspector in Charge of the said police station, on the basis of which Kalyansinghpur P.S. Case No.64 of 2015 was registered under sections 147, 148, 302, 506, 201 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘2013 Act’). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 30.12.2015 under sections 147, 148, 302, 506, 201 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the 2013 Act against the petitioners. At the stage of framing of the charge, a petition was filed by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court under section 227 of Cr.P.C. which was opposed to by the learned counsel for the State. The contentions raised before the learned Trial Court by the petitioners was that the F.I.R. contains false and fabricated accusation just to harass them and there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners and the deceased Kuruma Kandagiri died due to fall in view of old age coupled with night blindness. On perusal of the materials on record and the nature of evidence and the documents produced, the learned Trial Court was of the view that there are suspicious circumstances available against the petitioners so as to frame charges against them and accordingly, rejected the discharge petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. J.R. Dash contended that omnibus allegations have been leveled against sixty persons that they have participated in the crime but no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioners and since there are no materials that the petitioners were the members of unlawful assembly as envisaged under section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand relied upon the documents filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and placed the 161 Cr.P.C. statements and submitted that there are eye witnesses to the occurrence and from their statements, there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court in the rejecting the discharge petition. Perused the statements of the eye witnesses like Nanda Kondagori, Ramsingh Kondagori and others. It appears that the petitioners have been specifically implicated in the role of assaulting the deceased Kuruma Kandagiri by means of sticks suspecting him to be practising witchcraft as a result of which the deceased died at the spot and thereafter, the petitioners threatened the family members of the deceased to cremate the dead body and accordingly, the dead body was cremated. Law is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, it is not required on the part of the Trial Court to conduct a mini trial or to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence and to appreciate the evidence meticulously. Even on the basis of strong suspicion founded upon materials, charge can be framed. The probable defence of the accused also cannot be seen. The Trial Court at the time of framing charge has to consider the broad probabilities of the case and total effect of the materials collected by the prosecution. The truthfulness or otherwise of the statements and documents are not to be assessed at that stage and order of discharge can be passed only when on the available materials, the Court is satisfied that there is no chance of the case ending in conviction of the accused and the trial would be an exercise in futility. The acceptability or otherwise of evidence can be looked into at the stage of trial. In view of the direct evidence as well as surrounding circumstances available on record, I am of the view that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners who stated to have participated in the crime. Accordingly, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and therefore, the revision petition stands dismissed.