The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 877 of 2023 Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Jagadish@Parimanik Paramanik and another ...… Petitioners --------------- -Versus- State of Odisha ...…. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : SK. Zafarulla & J. Kamila, Advocates For Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
found a prima facie case to be made out from the materials on record and therefore, took cognizance of the said offences. 3. Heard Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Mr. Zafarulla argues that there is no mention of the petitioners in the FIR and they have been implicated subsequently. He further submits that there is no clear cut evidence as to who had assaulted the complainant. Moreover, from the injury report of the complainant on police requisition, it is clear that he had not sustained any injury whatsoever. On such basis, Mr. Zafarulla submits that the alleged offences are not made out. However, he fairly submits that though the impugned order was challenged in its entirety yet the petitioners would like to Page 3 of 7 confine their challenge only to the order in so far as it relates to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 5. Mr. S.K. Mishra submits that even though the petitioners were not named in the FIR their complicity came to light during investigation and therefore, they were rightly charge sheeted. However, he also fairly conceded that the injury report does not reveal any visible injury on the complainant. 6. Since the present application is confined to take cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of IPC, it would be proper to refer to the provision at the outset which is quoted herein below:- “307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. xx xx xx xx xx” Page 4 of 7 A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC are (i) that death of a human being was attempted, (ii) Such death was attempted to be caused by, or was in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kashirao and others , reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434. 7. Keeping the requirement of law as mentioned above in perspective, the facts of the case may now be examined to see whether the offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out or not. In this regard, the FIR is silent as to the nature of assault or the weapon used etc. It is simply said that “a few persons attacked from the back”. The injury report on police requisition reveals that the informant only Page 5 of 7 complained of sprain and tenderness of shoulder and there was no visible injury. Though, it is stated that the sprain and tenderness was probably caused by hard and blunt object, the nature of the injury is said to be simple. The charge sheet reveals that only a wooden stick was seized. Whether this much alone is sufficient to hold that the accused persons were actuated with the intention of causing death of the informant or of causing him such injury that they knew was likely to cause his death is the question to be answered. Considering all the facts narrated above, the answer to the question can only be in the negative. The materials on record firstly, do not reveal any overt act being committed by the petitioners and secondly, any intention on their part to cause death of the informant. This Court therefore, finds considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. The Court below appears to have mechanically taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307 IPC without ascertaining whether the said offence was even prima facie, made out or not. Page 6 of 7 8. This Court finds that the basic ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 307 of IPC are not made out. As such, the impugned order in so far as it relates to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed in part. The impugned order in so far as it relates to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of IPC is hereby quashed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the other offences cognizance of which was taken by the court below. ……..…………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 17th April, 2023/ B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno Page 7 of 7
Arguments
: Mr. S.N. Das, [Additional Standing Counsel] _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 17th April, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners are accused in G.R. Case No. 8 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil. In the present case filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., they seek to challenge the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Barbil, whereby Page 1 of 7 cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 143/341/323/294/283/307/149 of the IPC. 2. The facts of the case, necessary to be cited for deciding the present application are as follows:- On 04.01.2020 one Srinibash Behera, Head-HR., P and A of M/s. PMPL, Basantpur lodged a complaint before the OIC of Bamebari Police Station stating therein that on 02.01.2020 around 30 persons gathered in front of the plant gate at around 8.30. P.M. and blocked the same by sitting in front of the gate. They did not allow movement of raw material by stopping all the vehicles. Around 12.00 noon on the next day, when the complainant went to the site to discuss with the agitators, he clicked a photo of the Trucks parked on road at that time all the agitators under the leadership of Santanu Barik and Saroj Mahanta surrounded him and abused him in filthy language. While the complainant was discussing with them for an amicable settlement, a few persons attacked him from the back and hit him. Pursuant to such complaint Bamebari P.S. Case No.3 of 2021 was registered followed by investigation. Upon Page 2 of 7 completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the aforementioned accused persons as also the present petitioners under the offences as mentioned hereinbefore. By order dated 24.11.2020, learned J.M.F.C.