IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.820 of 2025 Kumudini Kuimura & another …. Petitioners Mr. S. Harichandan, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

10.11.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 1^st September, 2025 as at Annexure-4 passed in connection with S.T. Case No.82 of 2024 for having framed charges under Sections 305 &

302 IPC against them on the grounds stated.

3. Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the chargesheet at Annexure-2 to submit that it was filed for an offence under Section 305 read with Section 34 IPC, however, the learned Court below framed the charge under Sections 305 and 302 I.P.C. in absence of any material on record. The further submission is that the deceased had a suicidal death, as is made to suggest from the P.M. Report i.e. Annexure-5. Further referring to the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and particularly, of Himadri @ Helina Singh and Suresh Chandra Pradhan, it is submitted that the deceased allegedly committed suicide for the reasons revealed by them. Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned court below could not have framed the charges for the alleged offences against the petitioners. The further contention is that both the offences cannot co-exist, when it is alleged that petitioner No.2 has committed offence under Section 302 I.P.C. lastly, referring to the Expert Opinion i.e. Annexure-6, the claim is that the deceased appears to have committed suicide.

4. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order as at Annexure-4 with the submission that it was quite not possible for a child of tender age to commit suicide by hanging. The further submission is that whether, it was suicidal death of the deceased or homicidal, is to be thrashed out during trial and having considered the materials on record, the learned court below did not seriously err or commit wrong to frame the charges under the alleged offences against the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 is not to be disturbed.

5. In course of hearing, Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners produced the statements of the witnesses above named including the informant, namely, Narayan Pradhan recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. during the investigation by the local police and the same are gone through. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were chargesheeted under Sections 305 read with Section 34 IPC as made to reveal from the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and it was followed by the order of cognizance as per Annexure-3 for the same offence but at the time of framing of charge, the learned court below passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4. According to the learned court below, petitioner No.1 said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 305 I.P.C., whereas, petitioner No.2, allegedly, an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. On a reading of Annexure-5, it is suggested that the death of the deceased was on account of cerebral congestion and other reasons assigned therein. A copy of the Expert Opinion as at Annexure-6 reveals that the death of the deceased is scientifically more in favour of suicide. It has been mentioned therein that there was no food found in the stomach of the deceased nor any sign of struggle on the body and it was quite possible for her to easily climb a mango tree with branches as she belonged to a rural background. As far as the statements of the witnesses named above are concerned, on further reading of the same, the Court finds that the deceased was in the petitioners’ house sometime before her death. On a reading of the said statements, it is made to suggest by them that neither of the petitioners to be responsible