Orissa High Court
Raju Chater vs State Of Odisha on 4 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.88 of 2023
Raju Chater ..... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Sushant Kumar Samantaray,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Sarat Pradhan,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 04.02.2025
05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment and order dated
09.05.2023 passed in S.T. Case No.34 of 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.02.2017 and
the occurrence in question took place on 19.02.2017 and
P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Lata Kandenkel
and he is the informant so also the sole eye witness in
the case. Learned counsel further submitted that it
appears from the evidence of P.W.1 that the petitioner
came and asked the deceased to give some Handia and
when the deceased told the petitioner that there was no
Handia, the petitioner got angry and poured boiling water
which was there in pot for cooking rice on the deceased
as a result of which, she sustained burn injuries all over
the body. She was shifted to hospital and subsequently
she died. Learned counsel further submitted that during
cross-examination of P.W.1, he has stated that the
deceased had also consumed Handia at the time of
incident and during tussle, the deceased fell down and
the petitioner and the deceased fought while being
intoxicated. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there was no premeditation to assault
the deceased and on the spur of the moment due to
grave and sudden provocation, the occurrence took place
and in this factual scenario, it cannot be said that the
ingredients of the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C.
are satisfied and therefore, the bail application of the
petitioner may be considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the statement of
the doctor (P.W.12), who conducted the post mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased and
stated that the total surface of scald injuries is about
50% and the cause of death was due to complication of
the scald injuries.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced during trial, the surrounding circumstances
under which the offence is stated to have taken place,
the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial
custody and absence of any chance of early hearing of
the appeal in the near future, we are inclined to release
the petitioner on bail.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) with one solvent
surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court with such terms and conditions as the
learned Court may deem just and proper.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
(P.T.O.)
06. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed on the appellant-petitioner by the learned
Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment and order
dated 09.05.2023 passed in S.T. Case No.34 of 2018
pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue certified copy as per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Sipun
