SANTOSH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are directed against the order dated 14. 3. 2007 passed in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. by the learned Ad hoc Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jajpur in S. T. Case No. 28/08/2006 by which the against order of S. Mohanty, Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jajpur, D/-14-3-2007. petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons and summoned to face trial under Section 302 I. P. C.

(2.) ALLEGATION in S. T. Case No. 28/08/2006 relates to commission of murder of deceased prasanna Behera. On detection of the decomposed dead body of the deceased in an abandoned quarters meant for occupation of Junior Engineer of the Irrigation Office at jenapur, an U. D. case was registered and enquired into. Subsequently, on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by S. I. of Police, dharmasala P. S. Case No. 159 of 2005 was registered against unknown accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused bijaya Kumar Patra @ Atiri under Sections 341/342/325/302/201 I. P. C. By order dated 22. 2. 2006 passed in S. T. Case No. 28/ 08/2006, charges under Sections 302/201 i. P. C. were framed against him and trial commenced. As many as eighteen prosecution witnesses were examined between 22. 3. 2006 to 1. 3. 2007 on which date the prosecution case was closed. On 5. 3. 2007, after the statement of accused Bijaya under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded, a petition under section 319 Cr. P. C. was filed on behalf of the prosecution to issue processes against the present revision petitioners. On consideration of the petition, the order impugned in the present revision was passed on 14. 3. 2007. It is also pertinent to note that judgment acquitting accused Bijaya of the charges under Sections 302/201 I. P. C. was passed by the learned court below on 16. 3. 2007. In passing the impugned order, it has been observed by the learned court below that the witnesses particularly P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 18 have revealed in their evidence that in the morning of 5. 5. 2005, the deceased accompanied the petitioner Santosh Nayak being called by him and that the deceased's cycle was subsequently snatched away by the petitioner dhiren Behera on the same day and that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioners on 5. 5. 2005 before the dead body was recovered in a decomposed state on 16. 5. 2005.

(3.) IN assailing the impugned order, it is contended oh behalf of the petitioners that the learned court below should not have acted upon the petition under Section 319 cr. P. C. filed as late as on 5. 3. 2007, after the entire prosecution evidence had been adduced, on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, who were examined as early as from 26. 3. 2006. It is further argued that even if the evidence of the prosecution is considered in its entirety, no prima facie case is made out against any of the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 302 i. P. C. and there is no chance of conviction of any of the petitioners on the basis of the materials which prompted the learned court below to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr. P. C.