Orissa High Court
Khileswari Dandsena vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.466 of 2025
Khileswari Dandsena .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Behera, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
11.08.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State opposite party No.1.
2. Notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with as the
matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order dated 13th May, 2025 passed in connection
with C.T. Case No.86 of 2023 as at Annexure-6 by the learned
S.D.J.M., Nuapada arising out of Dharamabandha P.S. Case
No.15 of 2023 dated 29th January, 2023 registered under
Sections 341, 323, and 506 I.P.C. directing commitment of the
case in terms of Section 323 Cr.P.C. including an offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. on the grounds stated therein.
4. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was chargesheeted for the alleged offences
and not under Section 306 I.P.C. but during and in course of
trial, upon receiving evidence, the learned Court below in
exercise of powers under Section 323 Cr.P.C. passed the
impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 for commitment of the case to
the Sessions Court. The submission is that no such chargesheet
under Section 306 IPC was filed against the petitioner and
hence, at the midst of trial, the learned Court below could not
have added the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. by the
impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 and hence, the same is liable to
be interfered with.
5. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State opposite party
No.1, on the other hand, justifies the decision of the learned
Court below as per Annexure-6 with the submission that it has
the power to do so and direct commitment in terms of Section
323 Cr.P.C. when the evidence revealed an offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. to have been committed by the petitioner.
6. On a reading of Section 323 Cr. P.C, it is stipulated
therein that if on an inquiry into an offence or the trial before a
Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of proceeding before
delivery of judgment that the case is one ought to be tried by
the Court of Sessions, he shall commit it to that Court under the
provisions contained hereinbefore and such other provisions
applicable to the commitment.
7. It is made to reveal from the record that the trial is in
progress. The prosecution has examined five of the witnesses,
depositions of whom are at Annexure-5 series for the Court's
perusal. In fact, considering the evidence received from such
witnesses, the learned Court below deemed it proper to add an
offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and hence, to commit the case
to the Court of Sessions. The submission of Mr. Behera,
learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned court below
has taken cognizance of the said offence during and in course
of the trial upon receiving the evidence from the prosecution
even when the petitioner was not chargesheeted for the same.
On a proper reading of the F.I.R., the details of the
circumstances leading to the deceased having consumed poison
stand described therein but no such chargesheet under Section
306 I.P.C. was filed. A copy of the chargesheet dated 23 rd July,
2023 is at Annexure-3 and the same is perused. In fact, the
petitioner was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323 and 506 I.P.C. only. But, having regard to
the fact that there is evidence received during trial and it
revealed that the deceased, namely, the husband of the
informant to have committed suicide, on a bare reading of
Annexure-5 series, the learned Court below considered it
proper to take cognizance of the offence and to commit the case
to the Sessions Court vide Annexure-6. The Court is of the
humble view that a Magistrate has the power to deal with such
a contingency in view of Section 323 Cr.P.C. and in case, a
higher offence like Section 306 I.P.C. is prima facie made out
considering the material evidence received during the inquiry
or trial, it shall commit the case to the Court of Sessions. As
evidence received from the prosecution revealed the
informant's husband, namely, deceased to have committed
suicide by consuming poison and inadvertently, an offence
under Section 306 I.P.C. was not included in the chargesheet
i.e. Annexure-2, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the
learned Court below did not err by including such offence and
to commit the case to the Court of Sessions as the same is
permissible in view of Section 323 Cr.P.C. In other words, the
Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 13 th May,
2025 at Annexure-6 of learned Court below does not suffer
from any legal infirmity.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the revision stands dismissed, however,
with a direction that in the event, the record is received by the
concerned Sessions Court, it shall issue notice to the petitioner
and to consider his release on bail without remand for the
offence under Section 306 I.P.C. to have been included in view
of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 and thereafter, to
proceed to deal with the trial and ensure disposal of the case in
accordance with law.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
Designation: Personal Assistant
