IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV NO. 413 of 2024 Birendra Kumar Behera …. Petitioner Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Ray, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite party Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

13.11.2025 Order No.

03. 1. Heard Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

2. Notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with as the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 16^th May, 2024 passed in connection with C.T. Case No. 63 of 2024 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-FTC, Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by him demanding discharge has been rejected.

4. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that no any offence under Section 307 IPC is made out even by considering the materials on record and therefore, to that extent, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 is liable to be interfered with. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 received injuries stated to be grievous but that by itself, is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. In support of such contention, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate cited a decision of this Court in Trilochan Dhal & others Vrs. State (1995) 8 OCR-57. The submission is that the learned Court below has not applied its judicial mind to the chargesheet and materials filed therewith before reaching at a conclusion and denying discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC, hence, the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 16^th May, 2024 to the aforesaid extent deserves to be set aside.

5. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order at Annexure-4 with the submission that opposite party No.2 received grievous injuries and considering the materials in entirety, the learned Court below, on a subjective satisfaction arrived at, held that such an offence under Section 307 IPC said to have been committed. The submission is that the Court at the stage of framing of charge is not to meticulously examine the evidence and just to form an opinion considering the materials received along with the chargesheet and in the case at hand, the learned court below had a right approach and correctly, therefore, rejected the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. as per Annexure-3 followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 which is, hence, not to be disturbed.

6. In course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that even accepting the medical examination report of opposite party No.2, there is no material to confirm that the intention was to cause death of opposite party No.2, hence, an offence under Section 307 IPC was committed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that opposite party No.2 is not the wife of the petitioner and therefore, even the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not made out, the fact, which has been lost sight of by the learned Court below. A copy of the medical examination report of opposite party No.2 is produced and the same is perused by the Court. The said report reveals that opposite party No.2 had biting injuries on her right hand just posterior of the wrist and at the time of the medical examination, though, it was found to be grievous but was healing. The petitioner stands chargesheeted under Section 498-A & 307 IPC along with other allied offences. The response of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State is that the stage is not ripe to consider whether the alleged offences have been committed by the petitioner, which is to be gone into during trial. The further submission is that the chargesheet itself shows the involvement of the petitioner and him said to have committed the excess, as a result of which, opposite party No.2 received the grievous