The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.584 of 2023 (From the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge (Special) for Womens Court, Bargarh in CT No.84 of 2023) Ayusmanta Sarangi State of Odisha -versus- …. …. Petitioner(s) Opp. Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case: For Petitioner(s) For Opp. Party(s) : : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Adv. -versus- Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.02.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-28.03.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision challenging the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge (Special) for Womens Court, Bargarh in CT No.84/23 rejecting discharge petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section(s) 294/306/34 of IPC. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION 2. The prosecution’s case can be summarized as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2024 16:11:47 pg. 1 (i). Rajesh Sahu (“the deceased”), a 17 year old student at Dadhibaman College, Bhatli, resided in the hostel alongside two fellow students, Pitabash Sahu (“Accused No.1”) and Pritam Sahu (“Accused No.3”). On 18.02.2019, one of the hostel residents, Bidyadhar Seth, celebrated his birthday on the hostel block’s upper floor, joined by Rajesh and other boarders. Following the celebration, when all the boarders returned to their rooms, it was discovered that a cell phone belonging to one Ajaya Pradhan had been stolen. This incident sparked a heated exchange of words among the boarders, which caught the attention of the hostel warden, Subrat Sarangi who then reported the matter to the Principal. (ii). Subsequently, on 20.02.2019, a meeting was convened by the Ayusmanta Sarangi (“the Petitioner”)/ the Principal of Dadhibaman College, to address the issue, during which the boys were cautioned, though they denied any involvement in the theft. Consequently, it was decided that their respective guardians would be summoned to the college. Meanwhile, the deceased’s roommates, Pitabash and Pritam, allegedly frightened him by suggesting that the college authorities were preparing to take strict action against the wrongdoers. Under the duress and influence of both the college superintendent and his roommates, Rajesh ingested poison. He was promptly taken to various medical facilities, starting from the clinic of Dr. Sunil Achrya, then to DHH Baragarh, followed by VIMSAR Burla, and ultimately to AMRI Hospital in Bhubaneswar, where he Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2024 16:11:47 pg. 2 eventually passed away. Accordingly, a complaint dated 24.02.2019 was registered vide Khandagiri PS UD Case No.59 of 2019. (iii). During the treatment and eventual demise of Rajesh at AMRI Hospital, his father, Durlabha Sahu, lodged a written report on 25.02.2019. The informant alleges that during the treatment, his son disclosed to him that Subrat Sarangi (“Accused No.2”) had verbally abused him and instructed him to consume poison or face death. On the same day, at around 10:00 PM, the son reportedly confided in the informant’s brother, Padamolochan Sahu, detailing the alleged abuse and coercion by the aforementioned Botany lecturer. The report suggests a premeditated murder attempt and accuses the petitioner of involvement in the suicide. In response to the informant’s allegations, the IIC, Bhatli Police registered Case No.37 of 2019, citing violations of Sections 323/294/306/302/506/34 of the IPC. (iv). After registration of the FIR police started investigation and made some arrests. Petitioner was released by this Court on pre-arrest bail. After completion of investigation in the aforesaid case, the police has filed charge sheet against the present petitioner and another accused for the commission of offences under Sections 294/306/34 of the IPC. II. REVISIONIST’S ARGUMENTS: 3. The counsel for the revisionist urged the following submissions: (i). The petitioner is innocent and does not have any role in the alleged offences committed against the deceased. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2024 16:11:47 pg. 3 (ii). The impugned order is the outcome of complete non-application of judicial mind and as such the same has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. (iii). The simple accusation of harassment of the deceased by another individual cannot be adequate in itself unless there are accusations of such actions on the part of the accused that forced the commission of suicide. (iv). As the students reside within the hostel of the Petitioner’s institution, it is the Petitioner’s responsibility to ensure their safety and security. Thus, any disruptions should be promptly brought to the attention of the Principal. Therefore, the Petitioner bears no error or fault. Consequently, the passing of the deceased one day after their suicide cannot be interpreted as an intentional act to incite or induce the deceased to commit suicide. III. EXAMINATION OF RELEVANT LEGAL MATRIX 4. Before averting to the submissions made by both the parties, this Court deem it appropriate to discuss the law of charge and discharge. 5. As far as statutory law on framing of charge and discharge is concerned, the same is governed by Section 228 and 227 of Cr.P.C. respectively. These provisions read as under: “227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2024 16:11:47 pg. 4 ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228. Framing of Charge. (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” 6. Now, it is the settled law that while framing charge, the court concerned has to go through the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation, and if from the same, there are sufficient materials to proceed for the trial; the court ought to frame the charge. If the Court is of definite opinion that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not corroborated with any cogent evidence and there is no trustworthy material to proceed against the Signature Not Verified accused, the court should not decline to allow the discharge pg. 5 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2024 16:11:47 application. It is also the settled law that while framing charge, the Court is not required to scrutinize or appreciate the evidence. The marshalling of the evidence is not permissible and the Court has not to conduct the mini trial while framing charge. So far as the defence version adduced on behalf of the accused is concerned, the same can be taken into consideration only if the defence case totally overrules the prosecution story such that any suspicion is inevitably quelled and the evidence collected by the I.O., otherwise the defence case cannot be taken into consideration by the court while framing the charge or disposing of the discharge application. 7. On the above issue, the Supreme court in the case of Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors.1 has held as under : “13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time.” (Emphasis supplied) learned Sessions the 8. Further, the Supreme Court in Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam,2 has reiterated its stance and observed as under: