Mithun Naik Vs State of Odisha

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 26^th November, 2024 in C.T. (Sessions) Case No. 170 of 2024 as at Annexure-4 for framing of charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC notwithstanding submission of the chargesheet under Section 306 IPC on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

Referring to Annexure-1, a copy of the FIR and chargesheet at Annexure-2, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without any discussion with regard to the incriminating evidence on record, the learned court below framed charge under Section 302 IPC irrespective of the fact that the chargesheet to be one under Section 306 IPC. By producing a certified copy of the PM Report, it is further submitted that the death is suicidal in nature on account of Asphyxia but the said fact and such other materials filed along

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

with the chargesheet have not been duly taken judicial notice of by the learned court below while framing charge for a higher offence, hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 26^th November, 2024 at Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with and set aside.

¶19

Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that the learned court below has gone through the chargesheet and all such materials and ultimately, reached at a subject satisfaction that an offence under Section 302 IPC is prima facie made out and accordingly passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4, which is, hence, not to be disturbed.

¶20

Perused the FIR i.e. Annexure-1, which reveals that the petitioner suspected to have killed the deceased with whom he had been in a relationship for some time. Gone through the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and the final opinion of the local police after investigation is that the deceased had a suicidal death and as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Such a conclusion has been reached at the investigation concluded and hence, the chargesheet was filed for an offence under Section 306 IPC but instead, charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed. In fact, on a bare perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-4, the Court finds that the learned court below concluded for having sufficient proof to presume the petitioner having committed murder of the deceased. There has been no discussion of any material, while, concluding as such. Of course, while framing a charge before trial, a Court is not required to discuss in detail and assigned reasons for reaching at a conclusion. But, when there is an offence under Section

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

306 IPC, for which, the chargesheet is filed and a higher offence like Section 302 IPC, the Court framed the charge, the materials on record, which influenced such decision, should be precisely discussed. As it appears, there is been no discussion at all for any such reason behind framing a charge under Section 302 IPC. Even though, on the point of charge, it is revealed from the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 that the learned court below provided an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, but then, there is absolutely no mention of incriminating materials before the Court arrived at a conclusion for an offence under Section 302 IPC to have been committed. Instead of having a detailed discussion with reasons and though, there has been a hearing on the part of charge, according to the Court, for reaching at such a conclusion for an offence under Section 302 IPC having been committed, the learned court below ought to have placed on record all such materials produced along with the chargesheet, an exercise which has not taken place and therefore, the impugned decision is required to be set aside for a fresh decision followed by an order as such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶23

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed with a direction to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar to re-examine all such materials filed along with the chargesheet and after providing an opportunity of reasonable hearing to the petitioner, to pass appropriate order on charge in connection with C.T. (Sessions) Case No. 170 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No. 656 of 2024 at the earliest

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 26^th November, 2024 at Annexure-4 is hereby set aside with the direction as aforesaid to be complied within the above stipulated period.

¶27

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶28

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶29

Rojina

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 22-Oct-2025 17:59:29

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Mithun Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Chandra Bhoi Vs Bipin Bihari Mallick

Rashmi@Rashmi Ranjan Bhol Vs State of Odisha

Shashmita Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Umesh Kujur Vs State of Odisha

Akshya Kumar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Gabarsingh Sahani Vs State of Odisha