Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 384 (ORI)

Rabindranath Samal v. State of Orissa

2017-04-10

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioner Rabindranath Samal has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 20.04.2007 of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur passed in G.R. Case No.812 of 2005 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 147/148/323/307/294/354/341/506/109/149 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of offence against him. 2. On the basis of the first information report lodged by one Charubala Das, wife of Khageswar Das of Gopalpur, Mahanga P.S. Case No.234 of 2005 was registered on 23.12.2005 under sections 143/341/294/323/354/307/354/506(II)/148 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against twenty six accused persons and the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur on perusal of the charge sheet, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and other materials available on record has been pleased to hold that prima facie case under sections 147/148/323/307/294/354/341/506/109/149 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and accordingly, took cognizance of the offences. 3. The main ground taken by the petitioner in this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is that there are no materials to attract the ingredients of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the order of cognizance under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed. The petitioner has annexed the injury reports which reveal that the injuries sustained by the informant as well as the other injured persons are simple in nature. 4. Law is well settled that the mere fact that the injuries are simple in nature would not take the act out of the purview of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The intention or knowledge which is necessary to constitute murder may exist, combined with an act which falls short of the complete commission of that offence. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive behind commission of the offence, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing the injuries and the severity of the blow or blows are important factors that may be taken into consideration. 5. Therefore, at this stage when the cognizance of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged on the ground that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were opined to be simple in nature, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to raise such point at the time of framing of charge which would be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on its own merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.