Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Gatanatha Mallick @ Mallik & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa - Opposite Parties
CRLREV No.740 of 2024
Decided On : 11-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details surrounding the incident and initial investigation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue lack of evidence against them. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analysis of discharge application and evidentiary standards. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. standards for determining prima facie case and court's discretion. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. absence of evidence and implications for respected community members. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion and order of discharge. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K.Panigrahi, J.
1. This CRLREV is directed against the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Court under OPID Act, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.231 of 2024 rejecting the application of the Petitioners to discharge them of the charge framed for commission of offences under Sections 147 / 148/ 302/ 435/ 120(B) of the I.P.C.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this CRLREV are as follows:-
(i) On 13.02.2017 at about 9 PM when the father of the informant was returning to his residential house, the co-accused Rabindra Kumar Mallick and two others stopped his motorcycle and abused the father of the informant in filthy languages. Thereafter, the accused Rabindra Kumar Mallick placed one revolver on the head of the father of the informant, whereas, other two co-accused placed one pharsa on his neck, where after, they assaulted him on his head by means of ‘Thenga’. At that time other co-accused persons present there also started assaulting him as a result of which he sustained severe bleeding injuries. During course of treatment in a private hospital, the father of the informant succumbed to the injuries.
(ii) During course of investigation, number of witnesses were examined including some eye witnesses. On the basis of statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as other materials, the I.O. filed preliminary Charge-sheet against 6 accused persons vide FF No. 86 dated 16.06.2017 for commission offences under Sections 147 /148/302/435/120-B/149 of the I.P.C. keeping the investigation open under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, again the I.O. submitted Supplementary Charge-sheet against 11 accused persons vide FF No.189 dated 01.07.2021 for commission of offences under /148/302/435/120-B/149 of the I.P.C. keeping the further investigation open under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.
(iii) It is stated that the Petitioner No.1 is a retired teacher having high regards in the locality. Similarly, the Petitioner No.2 is also serving as a teacher in Maa Basulei Bidyapitha, Nuagarh School. Since none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution agency made any assertion regarding the involvement of the present Petitioners more particularly the Petitioner No.1 in the alleged crime, the I.O. neither apprehended the Petitioners nor did file charge sheet though they were very much available in the locality. However, since the names of the Petitioners find place in the F.I.R., the investigating agency mechanically filed charge sheet against the Petitioners vide FF No.453 dated 31.12.2022 for commission of offences under Sections 147 /148/302/435/120-B/149 of the I.P.C. including 44 other accused persons.
(iv) After supply of police papers, the Petitioners filed an application for discharge under Section 250 of BNSS , 2023 ( Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.) on 04.11.2024 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under OPID Act, Cuttack. In the said application the Petitioners made specific averments with regard to exoneration of the Petitioner No.1 by all the witnesses examined during course of investigation including the informant.
(v) The learned trial court after hearing the parties disposed of the discharge application filed by the Petitioners vide order dated 12.11.2024 rejecting the same on the ground that sufficient incriminating materials were established against the Petitioners for which charge sheet was submitted against them. Hence, the P
Discharge from criminal charges requires prima facie evidence; mere naming in FIR without supporting evidence is insufficient for trial.
Insufficient evidence warrants discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.; previous acquittals of co-accused negate grounds for continued prosecution.
Stage of considering the discharge application, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and the presence of grave suspicion against the accused in determining th....
Discharge of accused – If there is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed offence, order of discharge cannot be passed and accused has to face trial.
Acquittal of co-accused on identical charges and evidence mandates discharge of other accused to prevent abuse of process.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
The court emphasized that the absence of cogent reasoning in rejecting a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. constitutes a procedural irregularity, warranting remand for fresh conside....
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
