Tilatama Sahu Vs State of Odisha

In this CRLMP application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to take appropriate action for investigation and to arrest the accused persons and to add sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of the F.I.R. lodged in connection with Dhusuri P.S. Case No.57 of 2018.

¶22

Mr. Saubhagya Ketan Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate produced the case diary and on instruction submitted that a counter case is also pending against the petitioners and others, who have received serious injuries and, the investigation is under progress.

¶23

Page 1 of 5

¶24

In view of such instruction, it is ordered that after conclusion of investigation, if the Investigating Officer files charge sheet against the accused persons under lesser offences and the learned trial Court accordingly takes cognizance of such offences, the petitioners can seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate Court.

¶25

The CRLMP application is accordingly disposed.”

¶26

Thereafter, it appears that instead of filing the protest petition, a petition was filed by the informant with the prayer to direct the Investigating Officer to bring the injury report and medical documents regarding the treatment of the injured/victim- Tilatama Sahu from the SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack.

¶27

This petition has been dismissed by the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar with the following order:-

¶28

“This order arises out of a petition on dt.09.08.2019 filed by the complainant/informant through Ld. APP with a prayer to direct the investigating officer to bring the injury report and medical document Gregarding treatment of the victim/injured Tilatama Sahoo from SCB Medical. Cuttack for adjudication of Dhusuri PS case No.57 dt15.04.2018 u/s-341/294/325/354/506/379/34 IPC corresponding to GR-case No.117/2018. Copy served. The learned defence counsel hassled written objection against such petition. The learned counsel asfor the informant submitted that the petitioner is the informant of No.57 dt.15.04.2018 u/s-Dhusuri PS Case No. 341/294/325/354/506/379/34 IPC corresponding to GR case No.117/2018 and Tilatama Sahoo is the victim in this case. He submitted that when the informant was returning from paddy field with a cow the accused picked up quarrel and threatened his sister-inlaw. They assaulted and outrage her modesty before the public and committed theft. The accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt by

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

means of lathi as a result her left hand has been broken into two pieces. Firstly she was admitted at DHH, Bhadrak on 14.04.2018 and thereafter she was referred to SCB Medical college & Hospital, Cuttack on 15.04.2018. There she had undergone treatment from 15.04.2018 to 03.05.2018 as indoor patient. But the police of Dhusuri PS has not submitted treatment papers at SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack before the Hon'ble Court rather submitted the treatment papers of DHH, Bhadrak. As the injury sustained by the victim is grievous in nature, IO should add sec.326 and sec.307 at the time of submission of charge-sheet. If the injury report of the victim is not called for he will be prejudiced. Therefore he prayed to direct the investigating officer to bring the injury report and medical documents regarding treatment of the injured/victim Tilatama Sahoo from SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for fair adjudication of the case.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. The averments made in the petition dt.09.08.2019 are false and liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not filed the application in appropriate forum. Therefore he prayed to reject the petition being devoid of any merit.

¶32

Heard, perused the petition and case record. It is found that the victim Tilatama Sahoo, W/o-Kedarnath Sahoo was admitted to the DHH, Bhadrak on dt.14.04.2018 vide IPD Regd. No.2281 and discharged on dt. 15.04.2018. The bed head ticket of the victim Tilátama Sahoo in SCB Medical College, Orthopedic department shows that she was admitted in the hospital on date 15.04.2018 at about 04.00 p.m. and the discharged certificate of the victim from the orthopedic ward shows that she was discharged on dt.03.05.2018.

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

The nature of the treatment given was also shown in the discharge certificate as well as the prescription attached with the case record.

¶35

Another document which is the outdoor patient ticket shows that the said victim Tilatama Sahoo's plaster was removed on dt.07.06.2018.

¶36

The above documents show the treatment undergone by the victim in the SCB, Medical College, Cuttack. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned which particular documents other than those attached in the case record are required for, fair adjudication of the case. Thus taking into the above facts and circumstance of the case the petition stands rejected. Objection has not yet been filed on another petition filed on dt.09.08.2019 in which a prayer has been made by the petitioner for analogous trial of GR No.117/2018 and GR No.116/2018. Hence, put up on dt. 20.10.20 for filing objection on the said petition.”

¶37

This CRLMP has been filed for issue of a direction to the Opposite Parties to conduct further investigation in Dhusuri P.S. Case No. 57 of 2018 and for a direction to the Investigating Officer or any senior officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police to add Sections 326 and 307 of IPC in view of the grave nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner No.1 and a further direction to the Investigating Agency to collect, examine and consider the medical documents and injury report of Petitioner No.1-Tilatama Sahu from the SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack where she had been treated.

¶38

Mr. Mir Arman Ali, learned counsel appears on virtual mode and submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of accused Batakrushna Behera and his son Jajati Kumar Behera of village Bamukura

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

who are not Opposite Parties in the case, for which the case may be adjourned.

¶41

Perusal of the order sheet reveals that on 21.01.2026, the matter had been adjourned as the same prayer of Mr. Ali who sought for time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of these two persons.

¶42

Therefore, this Court does not deem it necessary to grant adjournment for filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused persons.

¶43

Since one of the grounds for rejection of the petition filed by the Petitioner No.2 is that the Petitioner has not specifically mentioned which particular documents other than those attached to the case records are required for fair adjudication of the case, liberty is granted to the Petitioner (s) to file another application before the learned court below specifying the documents which they want to be seized by the I.O. from SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. If such application is filed within a period of two weeks, it will be considered in accordance with law.

¶44