ATANU KUMAR ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed challenging the order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in G.R. Case No. 694 of 2001 rejecting the petition of the Petitioner praying to recall the order taking cognizance.

(2.) THE facts leading to initiation of the G.R. Case in which the deceased was arrested are that one Chintamani Nath reported in writing at Bhadrak Town Police Station on 5.7.2001 alleging therein that he had boarded Bhadrak -Anandapur Bus at about 3.30 P.M. from Bhadrak Town Bus Stand to proceed to his village. He had an attache and a bag with him. He kept the attache and the bag inside the bus on a seat and had gone out for urination. On return, neither he found the attache nor the person sitting on the seat. When he searched for the man who was sitting on the seat, he found him standing in front of a betel shop. On being questioned, the said man admitted to have taken the attache and handed over to his associate Jagabandhu Naik who had taken it to Chandabali by -pass. The man disclosed his name as Bharat Naik. When the said complainant Chintamani Nath was going to Chandabali by -pass along with the said Bharat Naik, near the Police Station, it is alleged that the said Bharat Naik jumped out of the rickshaw and started running, but he was chased and caught with the help of police and produced before the Town Police Station for necessary action.

(3.) SHRI . Nayak, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner admitted that there are materials to show that the deceased Bharat Naik was assaulted by the Petitioner in the Hazat and, therefore, the offences except offence under Section 302 in respect of which cognizance has been taken are made out. According to Shri. Nayak, the offence under Section 302 as alleged is not at all made out. Such argument is based -on the postmortem report which indicates that the deceased Bharat Naik sustained five bruises on his person and as per the opinion of the doctor conducting the postmortem examination such injuries in ordinary course cannot cause the death. The entire argument of Shri. Nayak being based on the postmortem report as well as opinion of the doctor conducting the postmortem examination, it is necessary to look into the postmortem report to find out as to whether the Petitioner should be tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.