Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho, J.
Kalandi Charan Samal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa - Opp. Party
CRLREV No. 551 of 2008, CRLREV No. 631 of 2008
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Additional Accused - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 I.P.C. - The court exercised its discretion to summon the additional accused based on evidence from witnesses, fulfilling the requirements of Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, due to the death of a key witness and the nature of evidence from other witnesses, the impugned order was set aside. The trial court was requested to proceed with the trial against the original accused without further delay.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly tortured and assaulted by her husband and in-laws, leading to her death. The prosecution sought to summon additional accused based on evidence from witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order to summon the additional accused was initially justified based on the evidence of a key witness. However, due to the death of the witness and the nature of evidence from other witnesses, the impugned order was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court's decision to summon the additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to summon the additional accused was based on the evidence from witnesses, fulfilling the requirements of Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, the death of a key witness and the nature of evidence from other witnesses led to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The impugned order to summon the additional accused was set aside, and the trial court was requested to proceed with the trial against the original accused without further delay.
JUDGMENT :
Savitri Ratho, J.
1. Kalandi Charan Samal, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2008 and Nilakantha Samal, Puspalata Samal, Bina Mahanty @ Binapani Mohanty, Basanti Samal and Jayanta Kumar Mohanty @ Jayanta Mahanty, the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.631 of 2008 have challenged the order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T.(S) No. 13 of 2007 filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner-Kalandi Charan Samal (Brother-in-law), Nilakantha Samal (Father-in-law), Basanti Samal (Sister-in-law), Puspalata Samal (Sister-in-law), Bina Mahanty (Sister-in-law) and Jayanta Mahanty (Husband of Sister-in-law) of the deceased, to be tried jointly alongwith her husband Milu @ Kumuda Samal (husband) for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 I.P.C. Since the impugned order in both the Criminal Revision applications is the same, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased, Binodini, daughter of P.W.1-Girish Chandra Pattnaik had married accused-Milu @ Kumuda Samal in the year 1986 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, as per demand of the bride groom, various articles had been given to him and gold necklace, gold chain, ear flowers, gold ring and about eight bharies of gold had been given to the deceased Binodini along with other household articles. For one year or one and half years, the accused-Milu @ Kumuda Samal and the deceased lived happily. Thereafter the accused often came home under influence of liquor and would assault her. His father-in-law Nilakantha Samal, three sisters -Puspalata Samal, Basanti Samal, Bina Mahanty and brother-in-law Jayanta Mohanty (Petitioners in Crl. Revision No.631 of 2008 and cousin Kalandi Samal (Petitioner in Crl. Revision No.551 of 2008) assaulted the deceased and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-and threatened that on failure to get the amount, they would get the accused married for the second time. On 25.04.2006 (Tuesday), in the evening, one person from Santhapada, came and informed P.W.1 that his daughter Binodini is lying dead at Mandapal Hospital.P.W.1 informed his family members and thereafter all of them went to Mandapal Hospital and found the dead body of his daughter was lying on the bed of the hospital but her husband and other in-laws were not present near the dead body. He thereafter filed F.I.R. in the Talcher Police Station that the accused and his family members killed his daughter by pressing pillow on her face. Basing on his information, Talcher Police Station Case No.8 dated 25.04.2006 was registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Milu @ Kumuda Samal for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 I.P.C.
3. During trial, after six witnesses had been examined by the prosecution, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution so summon the petitioners to face trial as ample evidence was available against them in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2.
4. I have heard Mr Pitambar Acharya learned Senior Counsel and Mr S.S Pradhan. I have gone through the written notes of arguments filed by them and decisions relied on by them. I have also perused the depositions of the five witnesses who have been examined in the trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
