Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1195 (ORI)

Sashibhusan Swain @ Papu v. State of Odisha

2017-10-24

B.K.NAYAK

body2017
JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - The CRLMC No.410 of 2017 and the CRLMP No.133 of 2017 have been filed by the accused persons in I.C.C. No.01 of 2016 arising out of G.R.Case No.1218 of 2014, challenging the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and directing for issuance of summons to the petitioners in the said complaint case. While the CRLMC has been filed by Sashibhusan Swain @ Papu, the CRLMP has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Swain @ Pinkuna and Pitambar Das @ Jitu. Since in both the cases, the very same order of cognizance has been challenged, both the cases were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : 2.1. Initially, the complainant-informant, Sanjib Moharana lodged F.I.R. in Jagatsinghpur Police Station on 15.11.2014, on the basis of which P.S. Case No.337 of 2014 was registered under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against one Ganesh @ Santosh Kumar Swain and Pinkuna @ Rakesh Kumar Swain. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that on 15.11.2014 on the occasion of 1st Prathamastami of the nephew of the informant a feast had been arranged in the Bari (backyard) of the informant’s house in the evening. The informant with his friends, Sipu @ Smrutiranjan Parida (deceased) had invited many friends and relatives to the feast. Towards 7.00 P.M., the deceased along with his friends, Santosh Kumar Swain, Pinkuna @ Rakesh Swain, Jitu @ Pitambar Das and the present petitioner-Papu @ Sashibhusan Swain came to the venue of feast. Near the cooking place in the bari of Krushna Chandra Moharana the deceased and his aforesaid friends sat and took liquor and in between they were taking fried fish from the cooking place. Suddenly, hearing hulla the informant turned his attention towards the place of commotion and found that Ganesh @ Santosh Kumar Swain was running away from the place with a bloodstained Katari like weapon, leaving his motorbike on the spot. The informant also found blood stains on the shirt of Pinkuna @ Rakesh Swain. Pinkuna and other friends then went away. On reaching the spot, the informant found the dead body of Sipu lying on the ground facing upwards with bleeding injury on his neck. Because of the incident, all the invitees also left the spot. The informant also found blood stains on the shirt of Pinkuna @ Rakesh Swain. Pinkuna and other friends then went away. On reaching the spot, the informant found the dead body of Sipu lying on the ground facing upwards with bleeding injury on his neck. Because of the incident, all the invitees also left the spot. The informant suspected that Santosh Ku.Swain, along with Rakesh Swain and others murdered Sipu. 2.2. On investigation, the police learnt that the deceased and the accused-Santosh Kumar Swain are the residents of village-Nipur, Kulasahi and they are front door neighbours. Accused-Santosh Ku.Swain is an artist by profession and he married one Sumitra Nayak in the year 2009, but they did not have any issue. The deceased used to frequently visit the house of accused-Santosh, who detected some incidents of intimacy between his wife and the deceased, which created suspicion in his mind about the illicit relationship between the two, for which he inculcated a motive to eliminate the deceased. Accused-Santosh thereafter became friendly with the deceased and on the date of occurrence procured a meat cutting chappad (chopper) and in course of drinking liquor in the feast arranged by the informant and his brother, dealt a blow on neck of the deceased by the chappad and ran away from the spot. Having found prima facie evidence against accused-Santosh Swain alone, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against him under Section 302 of the I.P.C. on 07.11.2015, keeping the investigation open stating that some portion of the investigation like collection of further evidence, further verification and examination of more witnesses were still pending. The learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against Santosh and without waiting for any further report from the Investigating Officer, promptly committed accused-Santosh Kumar Swain to the Court of Session, whereupon C.T. Case No.229 of 2015 was registered in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, who took up trial of Santosh Swain for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 2.3. Since the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against accused Santosh Kumar Swain and before any further report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted by it to the learned S.D.J.M., the informant filed a complaint bearing I.C.C. No.1 of 2016 against the petitioners, Pinkuna @ Rakesh Swain, Jitu @ Pitambar Das and Papu @ Sashibhusan Swain under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. for the murder of the deceased. While inquiry in the aforesaid complaint case was going on before the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, the informant-complainant filed CRLMC No.1853 of 2016 before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with prayer to keep the trial of C.T.Case No.229 of 2015 of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur (Trial of accused Santosh Kumar Swain) in abeyance until submission of final charge-sheet by the Police in Jagatsinghpur P.S.Case No.337 of 2014 and further to club the complaint case ( I.C.C. No.1 of 2016) pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur with C.T. Case No.229 of 2015. 2.4. The aforesaid CRLMC No.1853 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.12.2016. Keeping in view the materials then available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned State Counsel that final form in Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.337 of 2014 had already been submitted by the Police on 10.06.2016 indicating that no other accused except Santosh Kumar Swain was involved in the murder of the deceased, this Court directed as follows : “Considering the aforesaid facts this Court directs the S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur to complete inquiry in I.C.C. Case No.01 of 2016 within a period of two months hence and in case on completion of enquiry cognizance is taken against any other accused person the learned S.D.J.M. shall immediately commit the case in respect of such accused persons to the Court of Sessions and thereupon the said case shall be tagged with C.T. Case No.229 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur who shall proceed with the trial in both the cases. Until conclusion of inquiry in I.C.C. Case No.1 of 2016 the trial in C.T. Case No.229 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur shall remain stayed. Until conclusion of inquiry in I.C.C. Case No.1 of 2016 the trial in C.T. Case No.229 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case cognizance is not taken in I.C.C. Case no.01 of 2016 the learned S.D.J.M. shall immediately bring the said fact to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur so that the Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with the trial in C.T. Case No.229 of 2015. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.” 2.5. Thereafter, on completion of inquiry in I.C.C. No.1 of 2016 and the learned S.D.J.M. having taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioners by the impugned order, the petitioners have filed the present CRLMC and CRLMP challenging the said order of cognizance passed against him. 3. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the CRLMC that from the F.I.R., statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and other materials available in the case diary in the police case, no case with regard to the complicity of the petitioner, Sashibhusan Swain and the petitioners in the CRLMP, against whom cognizance was taken in the complaint case, is made out., Similarly, there is also no material either direct or circumstantial so as to suggest that the petitioners had shared the common intention of accused-Santosh Swain, who had dealt one chappad blow on the neck of the deceased. It is further submitted by him that it is only the petitioners in the complaint case, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence of dealing of chappad blow by accused-Santosh. It is also submitted that in case the petitioners are made accused, they cannot be examined as prosecution witnesses in the trial against Santosh Swain and in that case, the said accused may not be convicted as there is no other eye-witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that filing of the complaint by the informant, while the investigation by the Police had not been completed, is an afterthought aimed only to falsely implicate the petitioners in the crime. It is submitted that filing of the complaint by the informant, while the investigation by the Police had not been completed, is an afterthought aimed only to falsely implicate the petitioners in the crime. It is also submitted that the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C suffer from grave discrepancies and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be sufficient to take cognizance against the petitioners, particularly when some of the witnesses cited in the complaint case have been given statements completely different from those given by them before the Police during investigation. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in CRLMP; submits that the complaint petition/protest petition was filed by the informant-complainant during continuance of further investigation by the police and as such the complaint/protest petition is nonest in the eye of law and accordingly the consequential inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and the impugned order taking cognizance are bad in law for violation of the provision of Section 210 (1) of the Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that cognizance once taken in respect of an offence, the same cannot be taken afresh by the Magistrate for the second time. It is further submitted that in the earlier CRLMC No.1853 of 2016 filed by the complainant, the present petitioners were not parties and the complainant did not place the entire facts before this Court and the Court was not ,made aware of the fact that the S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur had not applied his mind to the report under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C. submitted finally on 10.06.2016 in which the present petitioners were completely absolved from the offence. It was also submitted that there is no prima facie acceptable material on record in the complaint case, so as to take cognizance against the petitioners and issue process to them, particularly when the police investigation does not disclose any material with regard to the participation of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. 4. The learned Counsel for the complainant (opposite party No.2) submitted that cognizance of the offence in a complaint case is to be taken on the basis of allegations made in the complaint petition as well as the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. if they prima facie make out commission of the offence and involvement of the accused persons. It was submitted by him that during investigation in the Police case, the Investigating Officer did not correctly record the statements of material witnesses, but recorded in a manner only to implicate the principal accused-Santosh Swain and that in the inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. in the complaint case the material witnesses have given the correct statements from which the prima facie involvement of the petitioner and the two other persons, who are made accused in the complaint case, has been made out. It was further submitted that this Court in the earlier CRLMC having directed the SDJM to complete inquiry in the complaint case, no objection can be taken for proceeding with the inquiry in the complaint case. 5. The common ground of attack to the impugned order of cognizance in both the cases is on the merits of the case, that is to say, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations in the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses recorded during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. prima facie make out the commission of offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. by the petitioners, particularly when in the Police investigation into the same allegations, the Police did not find any incriminating material against the petitioners and gave them clean chit. It is trite that in a complaint case cognizance with regard to commission of an offence is to be taken if the allegations in the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. prima facie make out the commission of offence by the accused. But this principle cannot have universal application without exception, particularly when there was a Police investigation with regard to the commission of very same offence and the investigation gives a completely different picture. But this principle cannot have universal application without exception, particularly when there was a Police investigation with regard to the commission of very same offence and the investigation gives a completely different picture. In case the statements of witnesses, who were examined during inquiry in the complaint case, were also recorded by the Investigating Officer during Police investigation are in complete variance, such discrepancies in the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry in the complaint case would in peculiar circumstances of a case may be enough to put the court on guard and empower it to scan the statements in order to come to a conclusion about the prima facie involvement of the persons made accused in the complaint case in the commission of the offence. It is therefore, necessary to scrutinize the records of Police investigation as well as the complaint case to find out whether the persons made accused in the complaint case (petitioners) are prima facie involved in the commission of the offence. 6. The records of Police investigation as well as the complaint case reveal that the deceased Sipu died by sustaining one severe cut injury on the right side of his neck. The post-mortem report as well as the inquest report bear testimony to this fact. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 16.11.2014 in the morning hours witnessed by Niranjan Parida, the father of the deceased, Duryodhan Rout, Charan Kumar Swain and Jyoti Ranjan Parida, who is the brother of the deceased. In the inquest report, the said Jyoti Ranjan Parida has specifically stated that Santosh Swain assaulted the deceased by chappad and killed him. There is no mention of involvement of the present petitioners directly or indirectly in the commission of the offence.. 7. During investigation the Police recorded statements of a large number of witnesses including the witnesses to inquest, the informant, the parents and brother and the other family members of the deceased, the material uncle of accused-Santosh, who runs a Chiken Stall and from where accused-Santosh procured a chappad before going to attend the feast on the fateful evening. The case diary and the statements of witnesses during investigation reveal that except the petitioners, there is no other eye-witness to the assault on the deceased by accused-Santosh. The case diary and the statements of witnesses during investigation reveal that except the petitioners, there is no other eye-witness to the assault on the deceased by accused-Santosh. The statement of the petitioner, Sashibhusan Swain has also been recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Therefore, while submitting its report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. finally, the Police cited the three petitioners as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. From the statements of witnesses the Investigating Officer also found a clear motive of accused-Santosh Kumar Swain alone for causing the death of the deceased. 8. The F.I.R. lodged by the informant-complainant before the Police with regard to the occurrence is very brief. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the informant had invited the deceased and many other persons, and that at about 7.00 P.M. the deceased and his friends, Santosh, Pinkuna (Rakesh Swain), Jitu (Pitambar Das) and others came and the deceased took Rs.300/- from him for liquor and after purchasing liquor from the bazaar, sat near the venue of feast and drank. It is further alleged that in the midst of drinking they were taking fish from the cooking place. Suddenly on hearing commotion the informant saw that Ganesh (Santosh Swain) was running away from the spot with a blood stained Kati (Katari) like weapon leaving his motorbike. The informant also found stains of blood on the shirt of Pinkuna @ Rakesh Swain, who along with others also left. On coming to the spot, the informant saw the deceased lying dead on the ground facing upwards and his neck had been cut by some sharp weapon, as a result of which there was profuse bleeding. It is further alleged that because of the incident all the invitees went away from the place and the informant immediately made a phone call to the Police Station. The informant suspected that Santosh, Rakesh and others caused the murder of the deceased. 9. In the complaint petition filed by the informant, it is alleged inter alia that the complainant on hearing hulla went to the and found accused Santosh running away by holding a blood stained chappad from the spot leaving his motorbike, and accused Pinkuna, who had blood-stains on his shirt also hurriedly left the spot along with the Sashibhusan and Jitu. In the complaint petition filed by the informant, it is alleged inter alia that the complainant on hearing hulla went to the and found accused Santosh running away by holding a blood stained chappad from the spot leaving his motorbike, and accused Pinkuna, who had blood-stains on his shirt also hurriedly left the spot along with the Sashibhusan and Jitu. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint petition that before arrival of the complainant on the spot, other witnesses, namely, Niranjan Moharana (informant’s brother), who had arranged the feast for his son’s 1st Prathamastami, Duryodhan Rout, Narayan Moharana and other witnesses had reached the spot. In his initial statement, the complainant has stated that accused-Santosh, the deceased along with other friends were taking liquor on the bari land of complainant’s uncle, Krushna Ch. Moharana and after 5 to 10 minutes, Rakesh Swain told the complainant that Santosh killed Sipu by means of a sharp chappad and fled away, and that the complainant saw stains of blood on the wearing shirt of Rakesh and when he tried to detain him, he fled away and the other accused persons, namely, Sashibhusan Swain and Pitambar Das also fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant along with other persons rushed to the spot and saw the deceased lying dead sustaining cut injury on his neck. In his statement recorded during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated inter alia that he heard shouting from Bari land of Krushna Ch. Moharana and rushed to the spot along with others and saw accused-Santosh fleeing away by holding a sharp chappad and the deceased was lying dead on the ground with cut injury on his neck, and that the wearing apparels of all the accused persons named in the complaint petition were stained with blood and that he along with others caught hold of Rakesh Swain, Sashibhusan Swain (petitioner) and Pitambar Das, but they were able to escape from their clutches. 10. Mr. Niranjan Moharana, the brother of the complainant, who is stated in the complaint petition to have rushed to the spot before the complainant went there, has stated during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. that the deceased took fried fish and paneer for the accused persons named in the complaint petition as well as for Santosh to the bari land of Krushna Ch. Moharana and after two minutes he heard the words, MARIDELA, MARIDELA. Accused-Santosh Swain and Pitambar Das fled away from the spot. It is further stated by him that Rakesh Swain and Sashibhusan Swain under the influence of liquor could not move forward but told him that accused-Santosh fled away after killing the deceased by chappad. It was further stated by the said witness that he had seen blood-stains on the shirts of Rakesh Swain and Sashibhusan and that he along with witness, Charan Swain, caught hold of them and that while he attempted to communicate the police, they fled away from the spot leaving their motorbike. The said Niranjan Moharana, whose son’s Prathamastami celebration was going on, has already deposed as P.W. 1 in the Sessions Trial (C.T. Case No.229 of 2015) in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur wherein accused Santosh Swain is facing trial. In his evidence, he has stated that the deceased took paneer and fish to the place of their assembly from the kitchen and about five minutes after he heard hulla ‘MARIDELA MARIDELA PALEIGALA’ and immediately he rushed to the place and on the way met Rakesh Swain and Sashibhusan and both of them disclosed before that accused Santosh fled away after assaulting Smruti (SANTOSH SIPUKU HANIDEI PALEIGALA). He saw blood stains on the wearing apparels of Rakesh and then caught hold of him and Sashibhusan and that while he was trying to ring up the ambulance, they slipped away. He also stated in his evidence that 15 to 20 days prior to the incident, the deceased disclosed before him that Santosh was issuing threats to kill him suspecting his affair with his wife. The witness-Duryodhan Rout, who is said to have gone to the spot hearing hulla before the complainant proceeded, has stated during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. that hearing hulla he rushed to the bari land of Krushna Ch. Moharana and saw that his nephew Sipuna (deceased) lying dead on the ground having sustained cut injury on his neck, and that Pinkuna, Sashibhusan Swain, Jitu were present on the spot with stains of blood on their wearing apparels and that complainant and his brother tried to catch hold of them, but they fled away. Moharana and saw that his nephew Sipuna (deceased) lying dead on the ground having sustained cut injury on his neck, and that Pinkuna, Sashibhusan Swain, Jitu were present on the spot with stains of blood on their wearing apparels and that complainant and his brother tried to catch hold of them, but they fled away. Witness, Narayan Moharana, who is said to have reached the spot before the complainant proceeded there, has stated during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. that he heard hulla and rushed to the spot and saw the Police officers standing on the spot and the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground. He had not spoken anything about who assaulted the deceased and what accused-Santosh and the petitioners were doing. 11. One Laxmipriya Ojha, who is the sister of the complainant was also examined during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and her statement reveals that the deceased and accused-Santosh and the petitioners were taking their meal on the Bari land of Krushna Ch. Moharana and the deceased was supplying food items to them. Suddenly, she heard shouting and rushed to the spot along with others and found the petitioners present on the spot and Rakesh told that Santosh killed the deceased and fled away. She also detected some drops of blood on the shirt of Rakesh. Though Niranjan Moharana, her brother, caught hold of Rakesh, he escaped. 12. Pabi @ Pravati Moharana, wife of Niranjan Moharana was also examined as witness No.9 during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. She has stated that Prathamastami ceremony of her son was being observed in the house and many persons participated in the ceremony and suddenly she heard shouting outside the house. She came to know from her husband that accused-Santosh killed the deceased-Sipu by cutting his neck. 13. One Bijay Kumar Ojha was examined as witness No.8 during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. in the complaint case. His statement reveals that he was engaged in the cooking department during the ceremony and at the relevant time the petitioners came and told that accused-Santosh killed Sipu by means of Chappad. He saw some blood stains on their wearing apparels. He rushed to the spot and found that the deceased having sustained cut injury on his neck was lying dead. The petitioners then fled away. 14. He saw some blood stains on their wearing apparels. He rushed to the spot and found that the deceased having sustained cut injury on his neck was lying dead. The petitioners then fled away. 14. Niranjan Parida, Manorama Parida and Anadi Charan Parida, who are respectively the father, mother and paternal uncle of the deceased, were examined during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. in the complaint case. They stated that they had attended the feast arranged on the occasion of Prathamastami ceremony and the deceased was supplying fried fish to the accused persons. On hearing the shouting from the bari land of Krushna Chandra Moharana, they rushed there and found that the petitioners caught hold of the deceased and accused-Santosh assaulted the deceased by means of a Chappad and then fled away from the spot. The parents of the deceased further stated that on seeing the assault, they lost their sense on the spot. The uncle of the deceased also supported the said statement. 15. It transpires from the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant and the statements of other witnesses, except the parents and paternal uncle of the deceased, recorded during inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. that none of them had seen who actually assaulted the deceased. They have also stated that the petitioners (accused in the complaint case) stated that accused Santosh suddenly dealt a blow on the neck of the deceased by a Chappad and ran away from the spot with the Chappad. Some of those witnesses have also stated during inquiry that they heard hulla,”MARIDELA, MARIDELA, PALEIGALA, whereupon the witnesses went to the spot. Neither is it mentioned in the F.I.R. and in the complaint petition, nor stated by the complainant and witnesses during the inquiry in the complaint case and before the police during investigation that the parents and paternal uncle of the deceased also attended the feast and became senseless on seeing the assault on the deceased. On the contrary, in the complaint petition it is clearly mentioned that the complainant’s brother, Niranjan Moharana and some others, (not the parents and uncle of the deceased) reached the spot on hearing hulla before the complainant reached. On the contrary, in the complaint petition it is clearly mentioned that the complainant’s brother, Niranjan Moharana and some others, (not the parents and uncle of the deceased) reached the spot on hearing hulla before the complainant reached. The statements of the parents, uncle and younger brother of the deceased recorded by the Police during investigation go to show that they did not attend the feast and on the other hand, between 7.00 P.M. and 7.30 P.M.. they were informed in their house that accused-Santosh Kumar Swain killed the deceased, whereupon they came to the spot and learnt the manner in which the occurrence took place. Though the parents and uncle of the deceased stated during inquiry in the complaint case that the parents of the deceased became senseless on the spot on seeing the occurrence, the said fact has not been mentioned anywhere by the complainant, his brother or any other independent witness, who have been examined during inquiry and investigation. In the aforesaid circumstances, such material omission coupled with the statement of the younger brother of the deceased in the inquest report to the effect that it was Santosh Swain, who killed the deceased and there being no mention about the involvement of the petitioners in any manner in the occurrence, and the father of the deceased being also a witness to the inquest, the statements of the parents and uncle of the deceased during inquiry in the complaint case that the petitioners caught hold of the deceased while the accused-Santosh dealt a blow by a Chappad, is definitely a concocted afterthought emanating from a sense of frustration and vengeance of the grief-stricken parents and uncle of the deceased. Their statements during inquiry are wholly inconsistent with the allegations made in the complaint and the F.I.R. and with the statements of other witnesses. 16. From the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation by the Police and also the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry in the complaint case and from the evidence of P.W. 1 in C.T. Case no.229 of 2015, it is crystal clear that the witnesses rushed to the spot of the occurrence only on hearing the shouting, “MARIDELA, MARIDELA, PALEIGALA’. The complainant and the other witnesses have not disclosed anywhere as to who raised such hulla or shouting. The complainant and the other witnesses have not disclosed anywhere as to who raised such hulla or shouting. It is quite evident that the persons who were present on the spot and witnessed the assault on the deceased, raised such hulla and they are none other than the petitioners, who along with accused Santosh Swain and the deceased were taking ,liquor with snacks of fried fish and paneer on the spot. The complainant seeks to implicate the petitioners with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. for allegedly sharing the common intention of the assailant, Santosh Swain to cause the death of the deceased. The circumstances with regard to their common intention are said to be the presence of drops or stains of blood on their wearing apparels and their subsequent escape from the spot. Except this, there is no other material, direct or circumstantial, indicative of their common intention. Self preservation is a natural instinct of every animal including human being. The petitioners disclosed before the complainant and other witnesses that it was Santosh Swain who dealt a blow by the Chappad on the neck of the deceased and ran away from the spot with Chappad. It was only after they were attempted to be apprehended by the complainant and other witnesses that they had to escape under fear that they might be implicated in a case of murder. It is rather apparent from the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant that not only the accused persons named in the complaint, but even all invitees who had come to attend the feast left the house of the complainant soon. This is so because everybody was under fear of being dragged into possible trouble because of the incident of murder of the deceased in a birthday ceremony accompanied by feast. 17. It also transpires from the police records that the petitioners are the only eyewitnesses to the assault on the deceased and naturally so, regard being had to the narration of facts given in the F.I.R., the complaint and the statements of witnesses given before police and also before the S.D.J.M. during inquiry in the complaint case. The petitioners apparently did not have any motive to cause death of the deceased. The petitioners apparently did not have any motive to cause death of the deceased. It cannot be assumed for a moment that they were taken into confidence and were influenced by Santosh Swain to help or assist him in causing the death of the deceased, for which there is no material at all. The size, nature, severity and the place of the injury on the deceased as described in the post-mortem report and by the witnesses make it very clear that blood must have gushed out like a sprinkle and fallen on the petitioners, who were quite near the deceased on the spot when the injury was caused. Therefore, availability of some drops or stains of blood on their wearing apparels cannot by self suggest that they aided or assisted Santosh Swain in assaulting the deceased. From the conspectus of facts and sequences of events revealed from the case diary in the police case as well as the records of the complaint case, it is quite apparent that the statements of the parents and paternal uncle of the deceased during inquiry in the complaint case that while the petitioner and the two others held the deceased, accused Santosh Swain dealt a blow on his neck by a Chappad, are out and out false and concocted designed to falsely implicate the accused in the complaint case. The circumstances of availability of blood stains on the wearing apparels of the petitioners and their escape from the spot after disclosing the name of the assailant, which are otherwise explainable, are not so clinching as to be categorised as sufficient material making out prima facie case against the petitioners. 18. True that the Court cannot go to assess the truth or falsity of the statements of the witnesses recorded during inquiry in a complaint case so as to find out whether the accused is guilty or not but to see if the statements taken on their face value prima facie make out the offence and involvement of the accused. But it is not a universal proposition applicable to every case where the other materials and the statements of some witnesses are wholly inconsistent with the inculpatory statements of some others, who are very much interested for the prosecution. But it is not a universal proposition applicable to every case where the other materials and the statements of some witnesses are wholly inconsistent with the inculpatory statements of some others, who are very much interested for the prosecution. The Court has a responsibility to consider the value of the inculpatory statement in the light of exculpatory materials and circumstances and should not blindly take cognizance of the offence or issue process on the basis of such inculpatory statement. Coupled with it, where there was a police investigation which also otherwise makes the inculpatory statement made by interested witnesses in the complaint case more improbable, the Court has a greater duty to assess the value and worth of materials even at the stage of considering the question of cognizance. 19. From the aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the petitioners, namely, Sashibhusan Swain @ Papu, Rakesh Swain @ Pinkuna and Pitambar Das @ Jitu are not prima facie involved in the alleged offence. Therefore, I quash the order of cognizance and issuance of process in respect of all the three petitioners. The entire complaint case, i.e., I.C.C. No. 01 of 2016 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur is quashed. Since this Court finds no prima facie case against the petitioners in the complaint case and quashes the order of cognizance and the complaint case, and having regard to the fact that in the final police report dated 10.06.2016, the Investigating Officer has given a clean chit to the petitioners and that in the earlier CRLMC No.1853 of 2016 this Court directed the SDJM to complete inquiry in the complaint case within a stipulated period, it is not necessary to deal with the legality and propriety of continuance of the inquiry in the complaint case by the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in violation of provision of sub-section (1) of Section 210, Cr.P.C. The CRLMC and CRLMP are accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.