BIRANCHI KUMAR PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

(2.) IN this criminal revision, petitioner challenges the order dated 26.5.2007 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T.Case No. 40/252 of 2005 allowing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution.

(3.) MR . Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR by the informant (P.W.1). During the course of investigation no witnesses whispered the name of the petitioner. Even P.Ws. 1 and 4 in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not implicated the petitioner. No charge -sheet was filed against the petitioner. For the first time, P.Ws. 1 and 4 in their evidence before Court have tried to implicate the petitioner. Their evidence is omnibus in character and no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. If the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 is considered in its entirety, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for commission of any of the offences alleged. In other words, there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the materials which prompted the trial Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319, Cr.P.C. Moreover even though P.W.1 and P.W.4 were examined on 10.1.2007 and 11.1.2007 respectively, the petition under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed at the stage of argument and no explanation has been offered for not filing such petition earlier. In support of his submission, he relies on the decisions in Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and another Vrs. State of Jharkhand (2009) 2 SCC 696; Kailash Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2008) 40 OCR (SC) 150; Suprava @ Jhuna Behera Vrs. State of Orissa; (2007) 37 OCR 762 and Santosh Nayak Vrs. State of Orissa, 2008 (II) OLR 25.