SUBASH CHANDRA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the Order Dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2004, framing charge under Sections 341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/34 of I.P.C. against the accused -Petitioners.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Jayasen Nayak reported before the O.I.C. Beguniapada Out Post under Kodala P.S. alleging that on 16.02.1998 at about 5 P.M. there was a quarrel between the family of the informant and that of the accused -Petitioners as deceased -Santosh, the brother of the informant had sent a letter to the minor daughter of accused Subash Parida (Petitioner No. 1). Thereafter, there was a tussle between the parties in course of which the accused -Petitioners assaulted the informant and his 2 brothers by means of lathi. It is further alleged that the deceased Santosh was lifted by the accused -Petitioners and thereafter he was not found. Next day, the dead body of the deceased was found in hanging position on a tree near Jagateswar temple of Sanakuda. Basing on the said information, police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed under Sections 341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/314/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons. After commitment, the Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/342/34 of I.P.C. against the accused -Petitioners. At this stage, the present Petitioners filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging them as there was no sufficient material to proceed against them. The Trial Court by Order Dated 16.03.2004 rejected the said petition. Against that order, the Petitioners preferred CRLREV No. 213 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by Order Dated 31.01.2006 quashed the order impugned therein and directed the court below to reconsider the materials available on record bereft of the stranger's statement recorded Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court reconsidered the matter giving an opportunity to the Petitioners and framed charge on 18.07.2007 against them under the above Sections. Against that order, the Petitioners have preferred this criminal revision.

(3.) MR . Pattnaik, Learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court In framing charge against the Petitioners under Sections 341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/34 of I.P.C. From the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. coupled with the post mortem report, it can be presumed that the Petitioners have committed the offence. Learned Counsel for the informant supported the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the State and submitted that the trial has already commenced on 01.08.2007. Two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and cross -examined by the defence, whereafter an interim order has been obtained from this Court. The case is of the year 1998. In the meantime, ten years have already been elapsed. Therefore, instead of interfering with the impugned order, the Trial Court should be allowed to complete the proceeding.