B. Koteswar Rao @ v. Koteswar Rao
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.864 of 2025 B. Koteswar Rao @ V. Koteswar Rao …. Petitioner Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate State of Odisha -Versus- …. Opposite Party Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 19.11.2025 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 6th September, 2025 as at Annexure-3 passed in connection with S.T. Case No.80 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur on the grounds stated therein. 3. After the chargesheet was filed under Sections 279 and 304(II) IPC besides Section 187 of the M.V. Act, the petitioner moved an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. read with Section 250 BNSS seeking discharge in respect of the offence under Section 304(II) IPC by claiming that the said offences are not made out. In fact, the petitioner moved such an application as per Annexure-2 seeking discharge from the alleged offences, Page 1 of 5 but it has led to the passing of the impugned order dated 6th September, 2025 at Annexure-3. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was registered, however, after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC, which is clearly not made out from the materials on record and while claiming so, he produced a copy of the chargesheet dated 18th November, 2023. The further submission is that the deceased died in an accident and the circumstances leading to incident are described by the witnesses examined during investigation. It is submitted that the statements of the witnesses present near the spot do not reveal an offence under Section 304 (II) IPC to have been committed by the petitioner, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, the chargesheet for any such offence against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside. 5. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that on a subjective satisfaction arrived at, the local police filed chargesheet for an offence under Section 304(II) IPC, which is not to be disturbed, as it is based on materials collected during investigation. At the same time, it is submitted that the relevant documents along with the chargesheet are required to be examined to address the Court whether any such offence under Section 304(II) IPC is really made out or not. Page 2 of 5 6. In course of hearing, the copies of the chargesheet and other documents including seizure list, P.M. report and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been produced and the same are gone through. Since all the relevant documents are made available by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is inclined to dispose of the revision by the following order, as it is sufficient to reach at a conclusion as to if a case under Section 304(II) IPC is made out or otherwise. The FIR was lodged on 20th August, 2023, later to 7. which, Gram Ganjam P.S. Case No.225 dated 20th August, 2023 was registered under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. From the contents of the FIR, it is made to understand that the informant’s husband was returning from duty at the relevant point of time riding a motorcycle and during that time, the offending vehicle, a Truck bearing Regd. No.AP-09-UC3249 dashed him being driven rashly and negligently and as a result, he succumbed to injuries though was shifted to the hospital by the help of the locals. From the said report i.e. Annexure-1, it is made to reveal that it was a case of accident, as a result, the deceased died. But, on perusal of the chargesheet, the local police appear to have formed an opinion that the petitioner had the knowledge about mishap but did not stop the vehicle and fled away without intimation to anyone or shifting the victim to the hospital. If such is the conclusion at the end of the investigation, the question is, whether, the same is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion about the offence under Section 304(II) Page 3 of 5 IPC to have been committed by him, which needs an answer. On a reading of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., save and except, the accident having taken place and the death of the deceased on account of such accident, nothing adverse revealed against the petitioner. 8. In so far as the conduct is concerned, it is revealed that the petitioner was guilty of not stopping the vehicle at the spot and shifting the deceased to the hospital and managed to flee from there without intimation to anyone. This Court is afraid whether for the said conduct of the petitioner, he can be held liable for an offence under Section 304(II) IPC and such aspect of the case has been completely lost sight of by the learned Court below while dealing with the application for discharge i.e. Annexure-2. In fact, on a bare reading of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3, this Court finds that the learned Court below apparently without referring to the materials on record reached at the conclusion after having received the chargesheet under Section 279 and 304(II) IPC read with 187 of the M.V. Act. Even though law is settled that reasons are not assigned, but the materials on record are to be highlighted upon at least to show that the Court has applied its judicial mind to the same at the time of framing of charge. The Court is to reflect upon the evidence collected during investigation and on a judicious application of mind to conclude, whether, a particular offence is made out or not. The framing of charge is not an empty formality and therefore, the Court is to discharge such an onerous responsibility, considering the materials on record. Page 4 of 5 Therefore, in the case at hand, it has to be held that the learned Court below did not undertake any such exercise before reaching at a conclusion about an offence under Section 304(II) IPC having been committed by the petitioner, hence, the impugned decision deserves interference followed by the consequential order as hereunder. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 6th September, 2025 at Annexure-3 in S.T. Case No.80 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur to freshly consider the application i.e. Annexure-2, which is restored to file, in juxtaposition to the materials on record and all relevant documents filed along with the chargesheet and, thereafter, to pass appropriate orders with regard to any such offence under Section 304(II) IPC has been committed or otherwise. It is further directed that the above exercise shall be undertaken and concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order keeping in view the observations made herein above and settled position of law. 11. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Alok Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Nov-2025 12:44:01 Page 5 of 5