Criminal charges require direct evidence linking the accused to the act causing death; mere participation in illegal activity is insufficient for liability without overt acts.

JUDGMENT

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner, in the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks quashment of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in C.T. Case No.1383 of 2021 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole under Sections 287 /304/420/379/34 IPC , Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957, Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

2. The facts of the case are that one Dukhina Purty lodged FIR in Jenapur police station on 24.08.2021 stating therein, that has father, Dilip Purty, while returning home on 23.08.2021 from the hillock fell down in a ditch at about 3.00 P.M. He was taken to Dharmasala dispensary where the doctor declared him dead. In course of investigation, it was ascertained that one Babuli Behera and his son Rajesh Behera (petitioner) are unauthorizedly running a stone quarry in Baghua hillock which is a Government land and that quarrying was being done by using explosive substances. They did not have any license or authorization to extract minerals from the land in question. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Mr. G.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Pratap, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Mr. Mohanty has forcibly argued that a simple case of accidental fall of the deceased has been blown up by the police to transfer it into a case of culpable homicide. In any case, the petitioner is a college student having passed the degree examination in the year 2022 and there is absolutely no material to show that he had any role whatsoever to play in the accidental death of the deceased. There is also no material to show that the provisions under the other statutes were violated by him or his father.

5. Mr. N. Pratap, on the other hand, submits that there are adequate materials on record to show that the petitioner and his father were illegally extracting stones from Government land without any lease or authority. Because of such illegal blasting of the hillock using explosives, a ditch was formed in which the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Therefore, the petitioner is liable for the offences.

6. Reading of the charge sheet shows that at the relevant time the deceased, who was allegedly working in the quarry fell down from the hillock and sustained severe injuries due to which he died. The charge sheet itself clearly mentions that no explosive material was available or seized from the spot. But, basing on circumstantial evidence, the I.O. formed opinion that the petitioner and his father were using explosive materials for blasting of stones causing damaged to the environment.

7. Given the above facts, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner can be said to have had any role to play in the death of the deceased. The principal offence for which the petitioner has been charge sheeted is Section 304 IPC , i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the said offence is as follows:-

“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;

or with imprisonm