Umakanta @ Ramakanta Rout & Ors. v. State of Odisha

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 CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 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 CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 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 CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 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 Himachal Pradesh (Cr revision No 268 of 2016 decided on 25.04.2017) ii) Khirod Kumar Dash vs State of Orissa (CRLMC No.206 of 2008 decided on 07.02.2008. iii) Abhitosh Debata vs State of Orissa (CRLMC No. 2696 of 2012 decided on 15.05.2013)

5. Ms. S Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State had submitted that the counter case in Patakura P.S. Case No. 150 dated

19.03.2021 is under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. against Narendra Kumar Beura, Santiniharika Beura and Nirupama Beura, where after completion of investigation, the case has been returned by the I.O. as insufficient evidence vide final form no. 156 of

30.04.2021. She further submitted that the allegations against the Petitioners should not be examined minutely at this stage, and the contentions can be raised at the time of framing of charge and at the time of final argument in the trial. As all the accused persons had come CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 together to the spot, their common intention to commit the offences can easily be inferred. Her further submission is that for an offence under Section – 307 of the I.P.C., it is not necessary that the victim should suffer any injury. The intention of the accused, situs / location of the assault and type of weapon used are relevant considerations.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned State Counsel and perused the chargesheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section – 161 Cr.P.C. and the injury reports annexed to the CRLMC and the case diary which has been submitted by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for my perusal as well as the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. CASES RELIED ON BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

7. The case of Varun Bharadwaj (supra), relates to a case where the order framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section- 307 had been challenged. The High Court on a detailed examination of the materials on record, disbelieved the case of the prosecution and remanded the matter the Court below for reconsideration. CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 In the case of Khirod Kumar Dash (supra), this Court had quashed the proceedings where FIR had been registered under Section – 307 of the IPC and other offences as the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, holding that chances of conviction were bleak. In the case of Abhitosh Debata (supra), the parties had amicably settled the matter amongst themselves, so considering the nature of injuries which were simple in nature and holding that chances of conviction were bleak, quashed the proceedings where chargesheet had been submitted for various offence including the offence under Section-307 of the I.P.C. Unfortunately, none of these cases are helpful for deciding this CRLMC. ANALYSIS AND DICSUSSION

8. The contention regarding lack of ingredients / material to justify inclusion of the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. in the chargesheet and prayer for quashing the said offence from the order of cognizance, deserves consideration as the same does not require a detailed examination of the case diary. CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023

9. From a reading of the provisions of Section 307 of the I.P.C., it is apparent that the essential ingredients to make out such offence are that the accused must have committed some act with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances to cause a bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or that such bodily injury was in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and he had no excuse or justification for doing such act. It is not necessary that hurt must be caused for attracting this offence. But if hurt is caused by such act, the accused is liable to suffer imprisonment for life, otherwise the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed is 10 years.

10. Intention cannot be proved directly but has to be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances like the nature of weapon used, place or location of the injury, the nature of injury sustained and the opportunity available to the accused. In the present case, it is apparent that no injuries were sustained by the informant- Santi Niharika Beura, Nirmala Devi Beura, Hrusikesh Rout, Narendra Kumar Beura, or Nagen CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023 Kumar Rout although they complained of pain. It is correct that injury alone is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section – 307 of the I.P.C., as injury may not be caused due to some supervening circumstance although the accused may have taken all steps to commit murder. For instance, where a shot from a fire arm or blow using a sharp cutting weapon misses the victim, because he or she fends off the weapon of assault or firearm for which the shot / blow misses the accused or where the shot from a firearm misses the victim / target due to poor aim or due to defect in the weapon.

11. In the present case, on perusal of the statements of the witnesses especially Santi Niharika Beura (informant) and Narendra Kumar Beura (father-in-law of informant), apart from the allegations of that modesty of the informant was outraged, it has been alleged that they were assaulted by the accused with weapons and also dealt fist blows and kicks. It was also alleged that a crow bar was pressed on the chest of the informant and left arm of her father-in-law was fractured. But strangely, no injuries were detected on any of them. So, I am satisfied that the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out against the Petitioners. CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023

12. The contention that offences under Sections- 354, 354-A, 354- B of the I.P.C. is not made out against all the accused persons has some force as Petitioners No.7 and 8 are women. But, I do not want to conduct a mini trial at this stage by examining the specific allegations made against each accused by the witnesses. The contention that offences under Sections- 354, 354-A, 354-B of the I.P.C. and Section 379 of the I.P.C. is not made out against all the accused persons, can be dealt with by the learned trial court at the time of framing of charge.

13. The impugned order so far as it relates to taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is quashed. The trial will proceed for the other offences for which charge is framed after hearing the contentions of the petitioners, if any.

15. The CRLMC is partly allowed. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara forthwith by the Registry. ……………………… (Savitri Ratho, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 19th day of January, 2026. S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Feb-2026 16:57:34 CRLMC No. 2431 of 2023