The absence of injuries undermined the charge of attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, which requires intention to cause death, clarifying that intention must be inferred from circumstances.

JUDGMENT

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C”), has been filed challenging the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short ‘S.D.J.M.’), Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 664 of 2021 arising out of Patkura P.S. Case No. 148 of 2021, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294, 323, 379, 307, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’).

PROSECUTION CASE

2. The prosecution allegations in brief as per the FIR lodged by informant, Smt. Santi Niharika Beura is that 19.03.2021 at about 10.00 am, the accused persons came to the door of her house and called loudly for her father-in-law Narendra Kumar Beura. When she asked the reason for doing so, they entered her house and dragged her out, using abusive language and threatened to rape her. Pitambar Rout pushed her to the ground and pressed her chest. Sudhira Charan Rout pressed a crowbar on her chest with the intention of murdering her, Uttama Charan Rout took the gold chain from her neck and gold bangles from her hands. When she screamed and her father-in-law and mother-in-law came and tried to rescue her, the accused persons dealt fist blows and kicks on her father-in-law, fracturing his left arm. Hrusikesh Rout pushed him for which he fell down and Nagen Kumar Rout placed a crowbar on him and stood on it and all the accused persons dealt fist blows and kicks on her and her parents in law and threatened that if they informed to the Police Station, they would kill them. Her husband was working in the CRPF and taking advantage of his absence, the accused persons had attacked them. Sukanti Rout and Kandhei Rout dragged her and her mother-in-law by the hair saying that they should be put in sacks and thrown in the pond and nobody would know.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that :-

(i) The Petitioners and the informant are neighbours and due to some misunderstanding relating to a boundary dispute, she lodged FIR against them making false and exaggerated allegations which would be apparent from the nature of allegations and from the fact that the informant and her parents in law have not sustained any injuries.

(ii) Even assuming allegations against the Petitioners are true, the accused persons had come looking for the father-in-law and they did not have any common intention to commit any of the offences for which they have been charge sheeted especially the offence under Section – 307 of the I.P.C.

(iii) The offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out against any of the Petitioners as because, even though there are allegations that a crowbar was placed on the chest of the informant and her father-in-law, they have not suffered any injury.

(iv) Allegations under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B of the I.P.C. may be made out against Pitambar Rout, but these offences are not made out against Petitioners No. 7 and 8 who are women.

(v) Allegations of commission of offence under Section 379 IPC have been made only against Uttam Charan Rout and Sudhira Charan Rout.

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed the certified copy of the chargesheet as well as the injury reports of Narendra Kumar Beura, Santi Niharika Beura and Nirmala Devi Beura as well as the accused persons, Hrushikesh Rout and Nagen Kumar Rout and the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Bijay Kumar Samal, Nirmala Devi Beura, Narendra Kumar Beura and Santi Niharika Beura. He has filed a written note of submission alongwith the following citations : -

i) Varun Bharadwaj vs State of