Alla Satyanarayan Vs State of Orissa

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur, in Sessions Case No.82/38 of 2021-22, rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. from the accusation of committing of offence under Section 302 IPC resulting in the death of One Kasi Biswanath.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Tripathy, for the Petitioner that an accident, which is well borne out of an initial recitals of the charge sheet has been given the colour of an offence under Section 302 of IPC and it is his further submission that the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Burla O.P. UD Case No.696 of 21 was registered and without investigation of the same in proper manner, the present Petitioner is arrayed as an accused. And, committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the statements on record of one Venkat Krishna Reddy as well as Bhagyalaxmi- C.S.W14.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the State refers to the statements of C.S.W-15 (Debdash Mangaraj) other witnesses, including Polasetti Niladri- C.S.W 23 and referring to their statements, it is stated that the plea that an accident is being given the colour of an offence committed under Section 302 IPC, does not stand to reason.

¶23

So far as the power of this Court to exercise this revision is well settled and this Court need not burden this order by referring to all the precedents.

¶24

The time-tested judgment of the Apex Court in

¶25

the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 still holds the field and is the guiding light.

¶26

So the rival submissions have to be assessed on the anvil of such judgment.

¶27

On going through the impugned order as well as the materials on record, which was borne out from the statements, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner has been able to make out a case

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

for discharge and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the contradictions between the statements of witnesses and the case of the prosecution are matters of trial.

¶30

If the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and those statements are analyzed at this stage, this Court would be committing the fallacy of conducting a “mini trial” which has been shunned by the judgment in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra) .

¶31

Hence, on a conspectus of materials on record and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as above, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Revision.

¶32

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands rejected. 11. It is needless to state that the observation made herein are only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge that ought not to weigh with the learned Trial Court while conducting trial wherein the complicity of the Petitioner has to be established in an independent manner on going through the materials/evidence on record.

¶33

Signature Not Verified (V. NARASINGH)

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Soumya Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-May-2026 19:56:32

¶35

Judge

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Alla Satyanarayan v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alla Satyanarayan v. State of Orissa

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

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Payal Baliarsingh

Payal Baliarsingh Vs Tapan Kumar Panda

Manager, Legal, Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Asha Roy

Baishnab Charan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Harsh Mahraur Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Jani Vs State of Odisha