MANAGOBINDA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Narasinghpur in 2 I.C.C. No. 86 of 2004 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 302, 201, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the Sarpanch of Nidhiguda Gram Panchayat and petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. On 21.6.2003 opposite party No. 2 lodged a written F.I.R. before the Officer -in -charge of Narasinghpur Police Station alleging therein that on 26.3.2003 at about 8 P.M. petitioner No. 2 called the deceased Pabitra Kumar Sahoo (husband of the informant) on the plea that his father, petitioner No. 1, was calling him for some work. The deceased accompanied with petitioner No. 2 but never returned till late in the night and on the next day his dead body was found floating in a well near Balanath temple. It is the case of the informant that the deceased had given Rs. 3,000/ - to petitioner No. 1 for arranging a house under Indra Awas Yojana and petitioner No. 1 in order to avoid refund of money killed the deceased with help of other two petitioners. Investigation was taken up on the said F.I.R. and final report was submitted on the ground that death of the deceased was due to drowning which was accidental and the case is a mistake of fact. After submission of final report, notice was sent to opposite party No. 2 and she filed a protest petition. On the protest petition, inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was taken up and on examination of the materials placed before the learned Magistrate, cognizance was taken.

(3.) SHRI Nayak, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to the post mortem report and submitted that the opinion of the doctor conducting post mortem examination is that the deceased died due to drowning. It was also contended that no injury having been found on the body of the deceased, the entire prosecution allegation is proved to be false. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that no doctor having been examined in course of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the Court has to look into the postmortem examination report available in the police papers and form an opinion as to whether it is a case of accident or suicide or homicide.