The revision was dismissed against the trial court's order rejecting the accused's discharge application and framing charges for conspiracy, abduction, and trafficking. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order.
The CRLREV was dismissed and the interim order did no more survive.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLREV No.444 of 2015
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the fact that this petitioner and the victim were in love with each other and the allegations that this petitioner (accused) had assured the victim to marry, no other material in relation to commission of offence under section 365/366/368 IPC is surfacing against this petitioner (accused). He, therefore, submits that simply because the victim has not yet been traced out, the petitioner (accused) cannot be said to have committed the above offences for which he stands charged. It is his submission that mere suspicion is not enough to presume that the petitioner (accused) has committed the above offences. The suspicion has to be strong or grave which is not entertainable from the materials as have been collected.
Learned counsel for the State, refuting the above submission, contends that at the stage of framing of the charge, the court is required to consider the prima facie
// 2 //
case as to if the same stands as sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed the offence. According to him, on the face of the allegations made by the widowed mother of the victim and when it has emerged during investigation that giving assurance to marry the victim, he was continuing with the relationship and keeping in view the fact that the victim has not yet been traced out, a strong suspicion arises as to the complicity of the petitioner (accused) for commission of said offences.
Keeping in view the submission made; the impugned order being perused, it is seen that the trial court, having gone through the FIR, statement of witnesses and other relevant materials as indicated in the case diary, has come to a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to presume that the petitioner (accused) has committed those offences. The victim girl has not yet been traced out despite all such steps which include the publication in widely circulated Odia daily. It is stated that the victim was last there at Tikabali at 4.45 pm on 9.4.2014 and around 6.04 pm, she had made a call to her sister and stated that she would be staying in her friend’s house and that reveals from the call detail report. From the call detail report, the prosecution has also projected a case that location of the mobile phone set of the petitioner and victim then was at one station. On 8.5.2014, the brother of the victim has
// 3 //
received a phone call that his sister was with the petitioner (accused) and said mobile phone has been recovered from one Ritu Behera, who has stated to have made such call being directed by the petitioner (accused).
On the face of these materials on record, this Court finds no such illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court in rejecting the application of the petitioner for his discharge.
Accordingly, the CRLREV stands dismissed. The interim order dated 21.07.2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.708 of 2015 does no more survive.
The order be immediately communicated to the trial court.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.
……………………..
D. Dash, J.
Basu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application and framing the charge was erroneous in the facts and law.
Whether there were sufficient grounds to presume that the accused committed the offences of conspiracy, abduction, trafficking, and promoting unlawful intercourse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner (Accused)
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
