Annapurna Behera Vs State of Odisha

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.1736 of 2024

(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)

Annapurna Behera & anoth	er ……. Petitioners
	-Versus-
State of Odisha & others	……. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties CORAM:	: Mr. S. Nayak, Additional Standing Counsel for O.P. No.1 Mr. H.M. Dhal, Advocate for O.P. Nos.5 to 7 Mr. P.K. Samantaray, Advocate for O.P. No.3 Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2, 4 & 10

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶6

Date of Hearing: 07.11.2024 & 03.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 05.05.2025

¶7

S.S. Mishra, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the

¶8

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by

¶9

the petitioners challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by

¶10

the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 33 of 2018. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. seeking to add Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to the existing charges framed against the accused persons.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Nayak, Additional Standing Counsel for O.P. No.1-state, Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Advocate for O.P. Nos.5 to 7, Mr. P.K. Samantaray, learned Advocate for O.P. No.3 and Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Advocate for O.P. Nos.2, 4 & 10.

¶12

3. The prosecution case originates from an FIR lodged by one Krushna Chandra Pradhan on 08.01.2017 at Town Police Station, Puri, registered as P.S. Case No. 03 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 47 of 2017. The allegations pertain to the murder of Chandan Kumar Behera, who was attacked with sharp weapons by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 outside Khusi Restaurant at Katcheri

¶13

Page 2 of 22

¶14

Chhak, Puri. The informant, who protested, was also attacked, resulting in grievous injuries.

¶15

4. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) conducted the investigation, examined 31 witnesses, and submitted a charge sheet against multiple accused persons under Sections 324, 307, 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, cognizance of the offences as mentioned above was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri on 08.06.2017, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

¶16

5. The learned Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34, 201/34 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. However, the charge under Section 120-B IPC was not included despite being mentioned in the charge sheet.

¶17

6. The petitioners initially filed CRLMC No. 4118 of 2023 before this Court, challenging the non-inclusion of charge under Section 120-B IPC. This Court, vide order dated 13.11.2023, dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the Additional P.P. to

¶18

Page 3 of 22

¶19

renew the prayer upon discovery of sufficient new material.

¶20

7. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the Additional P.P. once again moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court, seeking the addition of charge under Section 120-B IPC. However, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 15.02.2024, rejected the application, holding that there was no fresh material justifying the addition of the charge.

¶21

8. The petitioners contended that the rejection of the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is erroneous, as the trial court failed to appreciate the legal principles governing the alteration of charges. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ananta Prakash Sinha @Ananta Sinha versus State of Hariyana and another, reported in 2016 SCC (Vol.6) , of paragraph-21 & 22 and CBI versus Karimulla Osan Khan, reported in 2014 SCC (Vol.11) , where courts have held that omission of a charge at the initial stage does not preclude its later addition, provided that the material on record supports such inclusion. The trial court’s refusal

¶22

Page 4 of 22

¶23

to entertain the prosecution’s request contradicts these established legal principles. It is well settled that a court can alter or add charges at any stage before judgment if the material on record justifies such an addition. The trial court, however, misdirected itself in refusing to add charge under Section 120-B of IPC, despite clear evidence indicating a hatching of conspiracy between the accused persons, prior to the commission of crime.

¶24

9. The petitioners argued that the charge of conspiracy was explicitly mentioned in the charge sheet and cognizance was also taken by the Magistrate, but it was wrongly omitted at the stage of framing charges. The prosecution witnesses, particularly key witnesses who have testified regarding the existence of conspiracy, provide sufficient grounds for invoking Section 120-B IPC.

¶25

10. The petitioners further submitted that the alteration of charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not require the discovery of fresh evidence. The trial court wrongly held that the prosecution needed to bring additional material, whereas the existing evidence

¶26

Page 5 of 22

¶27

already substantiated the offense of criminal conspiracy.

¶28

11. It is contended that the denial of the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. amounts to a miscarriage of justice, as it restricts the prosecution from establishing the full scope of exposing the accused persons' criminal acts. The failure to frame charge under Section 120-B IPC deprives the prosecution of the opportunity to present its case comprehensively, thereby causing undue prejudice to the victims.

¶29

12. The opposite parties submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, as the original application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was filed by the State and has not been challenged by the prosecution.

¶30

13. They submitted that a similar application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was earlier rejected by the Trial Court on 02.06.2023, and this Court, while dismissing CRLMC No. 4118 of 2023 on 13.11.2023, clearly stated that additional material would be required to reconsider the addition of charges. Since no fresh material has

¶31

Page 6 of 22

¶32

come on record, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application of the prosecutor. The prosecutor has not approached this court, rather the victims have filed the present petition.

¶33

14. It is further contended that all prosecution witnesses have been examined, the case is at the stage of final arguments, and permitting an alteration of charges at this stage would delay the proceedings and defeat the principles of a speedy trial as it would entail de-novo trial.

¶34

15. The opposite parties rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh & Anr. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347 , which held that no party has a vested right to seek addition or alteration of charges, and such power is solely within the domain of the Court. Mere suspicion or inference is insufficient to invoke the charge of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish a clear meeting of minds between the accused persons’ preceding crime, which, in the present case, has not been demonstrated through direct or circumstantial evidence.

¶35

Page 7 of 22

¶36

16. I have carefully gone through the materials placed before this Court and the judgments cited by the learned counsels for the parties and the prosecution evidence already borne on record in the S.T. Case No.11/33 of 2019/2018 pending in the Court of the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri.

¶37

17. The present case emanating from Puri Town P.S. Case No.3 of 2017. One Krushna Chandra Pradhan registered a case, inter alia, stating that he along with his brother Chandan Kumar Behera (the deceased) went to Puri in an Etios Cross Car being driven by Muna. They were staying at Sai Chandan Residency at Puri. On 08.01.2017 at about 7 P.M., while Chandan Kumar Behera came to the Khushi Restaurant situated at Katcheri Chhak in a Scooty, the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 attacked by way of a sharp cutting deadly weapon causing Chandan seriously injured and the informant also got injured. In the process, Chandan Kumar Behera succumbed to the injuries.

¶38

18. The investigation was completed; Charge sheet has been filed against the opposite party Nos.2 & 3. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 08.06.2017, has taken the cognizance of the offences

¶39

Page 8 of 22

¶40

punishable under Sections 324/307/302/301/34 of the IPC r/w Section 120-B of the IPC r/w Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri by dropping the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC framed the charge on the heads namely Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 & 201/34 of the IPC r/w Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

¶41

19. The present petitioners being the mother and the brother of the deceased Chandan Kumar Behera, are aggrieved by the order of the learned Court below by dropping the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC.

¶42

20. It is the contention of the present petitioners that the wife of the deceased Nibedita Behera had an extra-marital affair with one Narendra @ Litu. They have conspired along with the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to eliminate Chandan Kumar Behera. Hence, Nibedita Behera and Narendra @ Litu had criminally conspired for the commission of the offence. Dropping the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC is giving clean chit to the main conspirator of the crime Nibedita and Narendra @ Litu. Hence, they are aggrieved.

¶43

Page 9 of 22

¶44

21. It is pertinent to mention here that this is the second round journey to this Court by the same petitioners for adjudication of their same grievances.

¶45

22. Earlier, the petitioners had filed CRLMC No.4118 of 2023 assailing the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri framing the charges whereby the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC has been dropped. The matter was heard extensively. This Court, although dismissed the petition, but by its order dated 13.11.2023 has observed as under:

¶46

“9. Coming back to the case in hand, this Court finds force in the submissions of the learned AGA. In the backdrop of the principles enunciated as above, the submissions advanced by Mr. Mishra insisting for an interference to direct the learned court to alter the charge stands abrogated, more so for the reason that in the impugned order, the learned court below has categorically held that the prayer made from the side of the Addl. P.P. is premature and in case subsequently sufficient material is brought on record, liberty has been given to the Addl. P.P. to renew his prayer. ”

¶47

23. Pursuant to the aforementioned observation made by this Court,

¶48

the learned A.P.P. moved a fresh application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for addition of the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC

¶49

Page 10 of 22

¶50

against the accused persons. The prosecutor, in the application, inter alia, has contended as under:

¶51

“8. That, two nos of documents which were seized from the custody of accrued Nibedita in which A.S.I Satyabhama Sahoo was a seizure witness who examined as P.W-21 and clearly deposed about the seizure of the Ext-P-17 and P.18. Exhibit P- 17 was prepared by accused Nibedita Behera and Exhibits P- 17 on Dt-05-01-2017 inwhich accused Narendra Nath Das @ Litu who was working as servant of the deceased Chandan Kumar Behera, was made the guardian of the children of the accused Nibedita Behera wherein accused Kapila, Baraju and Jaga were made witnesses in the document and accused Nibedita Behera, accused Narendra Nath Das@ Litu and the other accused person put their signature on Exhibit P-17.

¶52

9. That, P.W-18 and P.W-19 have also identified the handwriting of the accused Nibedita Behera in the letter marked Exhibit P-18. It shows that both the documents have been prepared by the accused. Nibedita.

¶53

10. That, the accused Nibedita Behera who is residing with her parents at Rourkela had been to Puri and executed the documents i.e. P-17 and P-18 and after execution of the above documents one of the accused accompanied her and left her at Rourkela.

¶54

11. That, thereafter on Dt-08-01-2017 the deceased Chandan Kumar Behera was brutally murdered by the accused persons. P.W-11 ( Uttam Kumar Behera) has stated in his evidence at Para-7" accused Nibedita came to Puri after I reached but along she was in the Car and she did not come out of the same to the spot".

¶55

12. That, on 12-12-2023, P.W-21 was examined who has stated that on Dt-16-01-2017 1.0 has seized the above exhibits from the possession of the accused Nibedita Behera at Sai Chandan Hotel, at Renuka Lane, Puri where accused Nibedita was residing.

¶56

Page 11 of 22

¶57

13. That, the accused Nibedita Behera who is the inhabitant of Rourkela was still resding in the Hotel Room at Puri from Dt09-01-2017 to Dt-16-01-2017 did not prefer to attend the obsequy ofdeceased Chandan Kumar Behera which was held at his native Village at Balasore. It clearly shows that after murder of Chadan Kumar Behera the accused Nibedita did not interested for death rituals rather interested for the Hotel business.

¶58

14. That, the sum total of the evidence given by the witnesses P.W-17, 18, 19 & 21 and the documents P-17 & P-18 clearly reveals that the accused Nibedita Behera (wife of the deceased) made conspiracy along with accused Narendra Nath das @ Litu and accused Kapila, Baraju and Jaga and thereafter the accused persons committed murder of the deceased Chandan Kumar Behera along with other accused persons, as such all the accused Persons may be charged and prosecuted U/S- 120(B) IPC with an intention to grab the Hotel property and all the other property of the deceased.”

¶59

24. The learned trial Court dealt with the contentions raised by the

¶60

learned A.P.P. in detail and passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2024. The learned trial Court, inter alia, observed while rejecting the prayer of the learned A.P.P., as under:

¶61

“Now let us see what further materials have been pro-duced on behalf of the prosecution which would ensure ad-dition of section 120(B) of IPC. After 02.06.2023 prosecu-tion has examined six more witnesses. Out of them P.W.17 is the mother of the deceased. She is not an eye witness of the incident. She spoke about the strained relationship which existed between her son and daughter in law Nibedita Behera (accused No.8). She also deposed that accused Jaga, and Mitu used to visit the parental house of Nibedita she had seen. But it is profitable to mention here that Jaga, Balia and Mitu were

¶62

Page 12 of 22

¶63

the employees of the Hotel be-longing to her son. So they are not unknown to Nibedita and they might have gone to meet her in connection with the af-fairs of the hotel as evidence is there that Nibedita was also managing some of the hotels. But there is no evidence yet available on record that soon before the death, there was an agreement between the accused persons to kill the deceased. The call details of accused Nibedita is not available to indi-cate that soon before the death of her husband, she was in constant touch with other accused persons and in lieu of their conspiracy she had done some overt act to further their design. Moreover, P.W.17 made developments in her evi-dence as compared to his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. which have been confronted to her as per Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act. P.W.18 has spoken about the strained relationship be-tween the deceased and his wife Nibedita. The prosecution also referred to Ext.P-17/1 and Ext.P-18. Ext.P17/1 is an agreement wherein Nibedita had appointed one Narendra 2 Nath Das as the local guardian of her children as her hus-band was busy as a businessman and most of the time re-mained out of the house. But in the said agreement she has disclosed that she and her children loved the deceased very much who was taking care of them as like a sister. Ext.P-18 is a hand written note, purportedly written by Nibedita, but never sent to anyone. Without going into the details about its relevancy and admissibility which will be determined at the time of judgment, this can be stated that the letter only described some affairs between her and her husband which is a common feature in every household. There is still no sufficient material available that Nibedita entered into any conspiracy with others to commit the murder of her hus-band. Only basing on conjectures and surmises, Sec. 120(B) of I.P.C. cannot be added to the charge, more so when the Hon'ble Court vide order dtd.22.02.2023 in CRLMC. No.656 of 2023 has directed this Court to conclude the trial a period of four months. It is needless to say that if a new offence is added to the charge at this stage, it will give rise to a de-novo trial. Hence, the petition has no merit and is accordingly rejected.”

¶64

Page 13 of 22

¶65

25. Reading of the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in the impugned order prominently reveals that the learned trial Court declined to exercise the power under Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. primarily on the ground that no fresh material has come up on record after the order dated 13.11.2023 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.4118 of 2023.

¶66

26. Secondly, the conclusion of the trial of the case has already been targeted by this Court. Therefore, addition of the charge would entail a de novo trial leading to the delay in disposal of the case.

¶67

27. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned P.P. whose application has been rejected before the Court below, has not approached this Court. Rather, the victims namely the mother and the brother of the deceased have approached this Court. Therefore, the learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have questioned the very maintainability of the present petition.

¶68

28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 has held as under:

¶69

Page 14 of 22

¶70

“ 23. A “victim” within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a “victim” has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a “victim”, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an “informant”, and similarly, a “victim” need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.

¶71

24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:

¶72

24.1. First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.

¶73

24.2. Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.”

¶74

29. In the light of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶75

Jagjeet Singh (supra) the objection of the opposite parties regarding the maintainability of the petition is overruled.

¶76

Page 15 of 22

¶77

30. Coming to the merits of the case, it is apparent that after the dismissal of the order of this Court dated 13.11.2023, only the evidence of P.W.21 has been recorded on 12.12.2023, which has little relevance. The rest of the evidence has already been dealt with by the learned trial Court as well as by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. P.W.21 in his examination-in-chief has, inter alia, stated as under:

¶78

“On 16.01.2017 I was posted and working as an ASI of Police under Town Police Station, Puri. On that day around 10.45 A.M. 1 along with Inspector Dayanidhi Nayak had been to Sai Chandan Hotel, situated at Renuka Lane near to Swargadwar, Puri. Nibedita Behera was present in that hotel. Inspector Dayanidhi Nayak seized from the possession of Nibedita Behera, three stamp papers and another paper containing the affairs of Nibedita Behera written in her own hand writing. Inspector Dayanidhi Nayak prepared the seizure list in the same hotel in my presence. This is the said seizure list marked as Ext.P-23(P.W.21) and this is my signature therein marked as Ext.P-23/1(P.W.21). This is the agreement in non judicial stamp paper containing three pages marked as Ext.P-17/1 (P.W.21) (with objection) and this is the letter containing the hand writing of Nibedita Behera already as Ext.P-18.”

¶79

31. However, in his cross-examination, the testimony is somehow,

¶80

little shaken. The petitioners are strongly relying on Ext.17-1 and

¶81

Page 16 of 22

¶82

Ext.18. These two documents were in existence during the earlier round of litigation as well.

¶83

32. The testimony of P.W.21 has only strengthened the suspicion towards Nibedita and Narendra @ Litu. In the earlier round, the learned trial Court has also dealt the exhibits very meticulously and arrived at a conclusion that the documents and the evidence of P.Ws.11, 17, 18 & 19 creates a serious suspicion regarding the complicity of Nibedita, but the same may not be sufficient for invocation of the offence/charge punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC.

¶84

33. Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingency, which comes to its notice or brought to its notice during the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Kartikalakshmi ( supra ) has held that no party has vested right to seek addition or alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. This is left to the Court alone to evaluate the evidence and frame the charge accordingly.

¶85

Page 17 of 22

¶86

34. In the instant case, the learned trial Court twice over has applied its mind and declined to add the charge punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. This Court has also once delved upon the issue in quite detail and declined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners. In the earlier round, this Court has not only taken note of the judgment of P. Kartikalakshmi ( supra ) but also has taken note of Karimulla Osan

¶87

( supra ) and turned down the petition.

¶88

35. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me to the evidence already come on record to suggest that it was inevitable on the part of the trial Court to include the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment in Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala , reported in (2001) 7

¶89

SCC 596 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

¶90

“23. Like most crimes, conspiracy requires an act (actus reus) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea). The agreement constitutes the act, and the intention to achieve the unlawful objective of that agreement constitutes the required mental state. In the face of modern organised crime, complex business arrangements in restraint of trade, and subversive political activity, conspiracy law has witnessed expansion in many forms. Conspiracy criminalizes an agreement to commit a crime. All conspirators are liable for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any member of

¶91

Page 18 of 22

¶92

the group, regardless of whether liability would be established by the law of complicity. To put it differently, the law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. Contrary to the usual rule that an attempt to commit a crime merges with the completed offence, conspirators may be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and the completed crime. The rationale of conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interests of security, a person may carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his co-conspirators. Since an agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must be inferred from circumstantial evidence of cooperation between the accused. What people do is, of course, evidence of what lies in their minds. To convict a person of conspiracy, the prosecution must show that he agreed with others that together they would accomplish the unlawful object of the conspiracy.

¶93

Additionally, to substantiate the prayer for addition of charge,

¶94

learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of

¶95

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v.

¶96

State of A.P. , reported in (2020) 12 SCC 467 , wherein it was held:

¶97

“15. In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is necessary to refer to Section 216 CrPC:

¶98

“ 216. Court may alter charge .—(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

¶99

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

¶100

Page 19 of 22

¶101

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.

¶102

(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

¶103

(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.”

¶104

16. Section 216 appears in Chapter XVII CrPC. Under the provisions of Section 216, the court is authorised to alter or add to the charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever such an alteration or addition is made, it is to be read out and explained to the accused. The phrase “add to any charge” in sub-section (1) includes addition of a new charge. The provision enables the alteration or addition of a charge based on materials brought on record during the course of trial. Section 216 provides that the addition or alteration has to be done “at any time before judgment is pronounced”. Sub-section (3) provides that if the alteration or addition to a charge does not cause prejudice to the accused in his defence, or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may proceed with the trial as if the additional or alternative charge is the original charge. Sub-section (4) contemplates a situation where the addition or alteration of charge will prejudice the accused and empowers the court to either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary to mitigate the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused. Section 217 CrPC deals with recalling of

¶105

Page 20 of 22

¶106

witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the court after commencement of the trial.”

¶107

36. It is no doubt that the evidence regarding the charge of conspiracy may not be found directly, but the circumstances and the conduct of the accused pre and post the incident assume importance. In the instant case, the role of the opposite party Nos.9 & 10 is coming under serious cloud of doubt, which could be well appreciated at the end of the trial by evaluating the entire evidence. But at this stage, the Trial Court appears to be correct in not invoking Section 216 of Cr.P.C. on the application of the APP. However that would not preclude the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law at any stage of trial if such evidence apparently comes on record.

¶108

37. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to leave it to the learned Court below to evaluate the entire evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. and the defence evidence, if any, to form its opinion regarding the complicity/ involvement of the accused in the alleged crime and deal with the same in accordance with law.

¶109

Page 21 of 22

¶110

38. At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 11/33 of 2019/2018, which is a second attempt made by the petitioners before this Court for redressal of the same grievances.

¶111

39. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.

¶112

S.S. Mishra (Judge)

¶113

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 5^th May, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

¶114

Signature Not Verified

¶115

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-May-2025 19:39:31

¶116

Page 22 of 22

Annapurna Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annapurna Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pabitra Mohan Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Prasad Sathpathy Vs State of Odisha

Sangram Keshari Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

M/S Shree Monolithics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Director of Enforcement

Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Sunita Datta Vs State of Odisha