Birendra Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Birendra Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in C.T. Case No. 63 of 2024 set aside; the discharge application (Annexure-3) restored to file, with a direction to the trial court to reconsider it upon proper notice to opposite party No.2 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made and settled legal position discussed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the act of the petitioner amounts to commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC, given that opposite party No.2 suffered grievous (though healing) injuries per the medical examination report, notwithstanding counsel's reliance on Trilochan Dhal (absence of X-ray report/doctor's evidence). +2 more

Court's answer

Unlike in Trilochan Dhal, it is not in denial in the present case that opposite party No.2 received grievous injuries prima facie revealed from the medical examination report; however, whether the petitioner's act amounts to commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC or otherwise is a matter to be considered by the court below.

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of framing of charge the court is not to meticulously scrutinize the evidence received along with the chargesheet, but its responsibility is to refer to and highlight upon all such materials to form an opinion that an offence is made out and hence, charge is to be framed.

Key takeaways

The ground of challenge that opposite party No.2 is not the petitioner's illegally wedded wife (bearing on the Section 498-A IPC offence) should have been duly taken judicial notice of with reference to the chargesheet (Annexure-2); that exercise was not undertaken by the learned Court below.ratio¶26-28
On bare reading of the impugned order (Annexure-4), no satisfaction had been arrived at by the learned court below, with a conclusion, that the offences under Section 498-A & Section 307 IPC were made out against the petitioner; accordingly the decision needs a revisit.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRLREV No. 413 of 2024, Orissa High Court, R.K. Pattanaik, J., order dated 13.11.2025): discharge sought under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in C.T. Case No. 63 of 2024 had been refused by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-FTC, Bhubaneswar (order dated 16.05.2024, Annexure-4); petitioner chargesheeted under Sections 498-A & 307 IPC. Holding: at framing of charge the trial court must, without meticulous scrutiny of evidence, refer to and highlight all chargesheet materials to form an opinion whether an offence is prima facie made out; bare reading of Annexure-4 showed no such satisfaction regarding either offence, and the ground that opposite party No.2 is not the petitioner's illegally wedded wife (relevant to Section 498-A) was never judicially noticed with reference to the chargesheet. Trilochan Dhal (1995) 8 OCR 57 distinguished as fact-specific: there, absence of X-ray report/X-ray plate and doctor's evidence precluded calling injuries grievous, whereas here grievous injuries prima facie appear from the medical report, leaving open whether the act constitutes a Section 307 offence. Result: revision allowed; impugned order set aside; Annexure-3 restored for reconsideration with notice to opposite party No.2.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV NO. 413 of 2024

Birendra Kumar Behera

…. Petitioner

Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Ray, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite party

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

13.11.2025

Order No.

1. Heard Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

Notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 16^th May, 2024 passed in connection with C.T. Case No. 63 of 2024 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-FTC, Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by him demanding discharge has been rejected.

Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that no any offence under Section 307 IPC is

Page 1 of 5

made out even by considering the materials on record and therefore, to that extent, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 received injuries stated to be grievous but that by itself, is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. In support of such contention, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate cited a decision of this Court in Trilochan Dhal & others Vrs. State (1995) 8 OCR-57 . The submission is that the learned Court below has not applied its judicial mind to the chargesheet and materials filed therewith before reaching at a conclusion and denying discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC, hence, the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 16^th May, 2024 to the aforesaid extent deserves to be set aside.

Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order at Annexure-4 with the submission that opposite party No.2 received grievous injuries and considering the materials in entirety, the learned Court below, on a subjective satisfaction arrived at, held that such an offence under Section 307 IPC said to have been committed. The submission is that the Court at the stage of framing of charge is not to meticulously examine the evidence and just to form an opinion considering the materials received along with the chargesheet and in the case at hand, the learned court below had a right approach and correctly, therefore, rejected the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. as per Annexure-3 followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 which is, hence, not to be disturbed.

Page 2 of 5

In course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that even accepting the medical examination report of opposite party No.2, there is no material to confirm that the intention was to cause death of opposite party No.2, hence, an offence under Section 307 IPC was committed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that opposite party No.2 is not the wife of the petitioner and therefore, even the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not made out, the fact, which has been lost sight of by the learned Court below. A copy of the medical examination report of opposite party No.2 is produced and the same is perused by the Court. The said report reveals that opposite party No.2 had biting injuries on her right hand just posterior of the wrist and at the time of the medical examination, though, it was found to be grievous but was healing. The petitioner stands chargesheeted under Section 498-A & 307 IPC along with other allied offences. The response of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State is that the stage is not ripe to consider whether the alleged offences have been committed by the petitioner, which is to be gone into during trial. The further submission is that the chargesheet itself shows the involvement of the petitioner and him said to have committed the excess, as a result of which, opposite party No.2 received the grievous injuries.

In Trilochan Dhal (supra), it has been held that in absence of any X-ray report or X-ray plate and evidence of a doctor, any such injuries cannot be said to be grievous. In the facts and circumstance of the said case, such was the conclusion

Page 3 of 5

reached at by this Court. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, it is not in denial that opposite party No.2 received grievous injuries prima facie revealed from the medical examination report, a copy of which is produced at the time of hearing. But, whether such an act of the petitioner does amount to commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC or otherwise is to be considered and on a bare reading of the impugned order dated 16^th May, 2024 at Annexure-4, the same is not revealed with any discussion by the learned Court below in that regard. It is not that the Court is not to reflect upon the materials on record filed along with the chargesheet to reach at a conclusion, whether, a particular offence is prima facie made out or not. Law is well settled that a Court is not to meticulously scrutinize the evidence received along with the chargesheet at the stage of framing of charge but, at the same time, its responsibility is to refer to and highlight upon all such materials to form an opinion that an offence is made out and hence, charge is to be framed.

Considering the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and the grounds advanced with an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. i.e. Annexure-3 and on bare reading of the impugned order at Annexure-4, the Court finds that there is no such satisfaction said to have been arrived at by the learned court below with a conclusion that the offences under Section 498-A & Section 307 IPC said to have been made out against the petitioner. Considering the ground of challenge that opposite party No.2 is not illegally wedded wife and hence, no an offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out, it should have been duly taken

Page 4 of 5

judicial notice of, no doubt, with reference to the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2, an exercise which has not been undertaken by the learned Court below and therefore, the Court is of the final view that the decision needs a revisit, hence, the impugned order as at Annexure-4 is liable to be set aside with the following directions issued for compliance.

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16^th May, 2024 at Annexure-4 passed in connection with C.T. Case No. 63 of 2024 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-STC, Bhubaneswar is hereby set aside with a direction to reconsider the application i.e. Annexure-3 restored to file and with a proper notice to opposite party No.2 to proceed to pass appropriate order thereon as per and in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and settled legal position discussed.

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

Kabita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Nov-2025 14:27:31

Page 5 of 5