Dismissed

Prasanta Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Apr 2021CRLMC/38/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court upheld the framing of charges against an appellant regarding conspiracy and offences including murder in an election dispute. The court rejected claims of defective framing and lack of prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the framing of charges and defect in charge document is dismissed.

Prasanta Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CRLMC No.38 of 2021

¶2

6 07.04.2021

¶3

Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 5.1.2021 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chattrapur passed in S.T.Case No.26 of 2018 framing charges against him.

¶4

The petitioner is an accused in S.T.Case No.26 of 2018 arising out of Chattrapur P.S.Case No.131 of 2017 for alleged commission of offences under Section 147/148/ 324/ 326/212/307/302/120-B/149 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

¶5

Prosecution case is that, concerning Chattrapur College election some dispute arose between two rival groups and the deceased, namely, Bachana @ Laxmidutta Pradhan, who was a Ward Member of Chattrapur N.A.C., intervened to settle the dispute by inviting both the groups to his residence. On the early afternoon of the same day, a group of accused persons assaulted the deceased by deadly weapons dragging him out from the house.

¶6

The specific allegation against the present petitioner is to the effect that, he along with co-accused Kinnar @Susila Kumar Nayak reached at the spot in an ‘ i10 car’ by driving the same at the relevant time and seeing them, one of the prime accused told the other co-accused Kinnar @ Susila Kumar Nayak to reach at Mardhakote wherefrom they can be safely sent to Cuttack to which the co-accused Susila, who was sitting in the same car driven by the present petitioner, assured by saying that he and Prasanta (the present petitioner) would leave those co-accused persons at Cuttack in the same vehicle

¶7

with protection.

¶8

At the time of framing of charge, the petitioner prayed for his discharge and the same being rejected by the learned trial court, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Revision No.100 of 2020 before this Court, which is pending adjudication.

¶9

As in the later part of the order, charge was framed for the aforestated offences, the petitioner challenges such framing of charge of the offences against him in the present petition.

¶10

Shri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of sufficient materials against the petitioner, framing of charge against him is not warranted and the learned trial court without application of mind has framed charge in a mechanical manner. It is also submitted that when the eyewitnesses have not named the petitioner nor he was identified in the T.I. parade and nothing has been seized from his possession in attribution of culpability, prima facie case for framing of charge for the offences is not made out against him.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that presence of the petitioner at the spot by driving the car along with co-accused is clear from the statements of the witnesses and moreover, when the petitioner is found to be the owner of the car spotted and driven by him, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of offences is satisfied to frame the charge.

¶12

It reveals from the record that more than twenty accused persons including the petitioner have been chargesheeted and all such accused persons except the absconded are facing their trial in S.T.Case No.26 of 2018 and S.T.Case No.31 of 2018 and a joint trial is proceeding.

¶13

Perusal of the statements of witnesses, namely, Bipini Kumar Palai, Pravat Gouda, Chandan Raula, Laxminarayan Panda, Rajesh Nayak, Sangram Kumar Sethi and others disclose presence of the petitioner at the spot along with co-accused Susila. Of course such statements do not expressly say anything more except presence of the petitioner as driver of the vehicle. At the same time they also do not rule out involvement of the petitioner through conspiracy. In course of investigation, it has been further surfaced that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle, which he was driving as per the version of the said witnesses. So it cannot be said that prima facie materials are not seen against the petitioner to rope him in the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC.

¶14

Scope of offence under Section 120-B of the IPC is wide enough that need not require any overt act to be done in furtherance of conspiracy and even a single encouragement or support with con-conspirators would come within its sweep. So, in the circumstances of the case basing on the statements of witnesses it is not found to safe to opine that no prima facie case is found against the petitioner.

¶15

Shri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that framing of charge dated 5.1.2021 is defective one for which the accused-petitioner is prejudiced. But

¶16

the said contention will not help the petitioner for discharge in view of the provisions contained in Section 464 of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

It is settled that for framing of charge in a Sessions case, the Court has to see the grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offences and the accused cannot be discharged unless the Court considers that there are not sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In the light of such principles and prima facie view of the materials brought in course of investigation, no reason is seen to set aside the order impugned.

¶18

One more fact is relevant to mention here that in the meantime three witnesses have already been examined in course of trial as per the statements of the parties, and as such, it may not be appropriate to interfere in the proceeding in any manner at this point of time.

¶19

In view of the discussions made above, the petition is dismissed.

¶20

As the restriction due to COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020.

¶21

……………………………...

¶22

B.P.Routray, J.

¶23

Prasanta Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balakrushna Mohanty Vs Priyadarshan Sahoo

Rupeli Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Panduka Vs State of Odisha

Pravash Chandra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Akshay Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Deep Roy Vs State of Odisha