Orissa High Court

Pravash Chandra Sahu vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 26 March, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         CRLREV No.64 of 2024

     (In the matter of an application under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.)
  Pravash Chandra Sahu                                ....            Petitioner
                                     -versus-

  1. State of Odisha                                  ....      Opposite Parties
  2. Khirsindhu Meher

  For Petitioner                 :              Mr. B. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate


  For Opposite Parties           :          Mr. S. N. Das, ASC


      CORAM:
          JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                   DATE OF HEARING :20.03.2025
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26.03.2025

  V. Narasingh, J.

Heard Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State. None appeared for the private Opposite Party No.2 despite due service of notice.

Revisionist by way of this revision assails the order dtd.22.01.2024 at Annexure-1 passed by the learned C.J.M-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada in S.T Case No.79/46 of 2023 (Arising out of 1 CC No.12 of 2003 committed by the learned J.M.F.C., Sinapali) rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner in an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., to discharge him of the

charges under Sections. 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307, 506, 395, 149 and 120-B of I.P.C.

Case of the Petitioner/ Accused:-

1. Khirasindhu Meher (Opposite Party No.2) filed a written report on 11.04.2003 that on 10.04.2003 at about 12:30 p.m., one Gora Meher @ Rajib Lochan was proceeding towards the Jangya Mandap with a sum of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand) by withdrawing the same from the bank. When said Gora Meher @ Rajib Lochan reached Gudia Chowk, the accused persons, by forming an unlawful assembly, were waiting there being armed with deadly weapons like lathis with the common object of killing Gora Meher and committing dacoity in furtherance, of the conspiracy hatched.

They obstructed Gora Meher and all of a sudden attacked him. For which, Gora Meher fell down from his motorcycle, whereafter the accused persons pressed his neck and dragged him. While dragging Gora Meher, the accused persons were giving him blows by fist and lathi as well as by shoes on different parts of his body. The accused persons were shouting, while assaulting him that nobody could save Gora Meher from death and not even God could save him. When the eye-witnesses present there protested, they turned a deaf ear and openly threatened that any person who came forward to give evidence against the accused persons, would be killed. At the time of assaulting Gora Meher, the accused persons had the intention of causing the death of Gora Meher. Gora Meher lost his sense during such assault and when the accused saw that the said Gora Meher had no sense, thinking him to be dead, they took

away Rs.16,000/- from his pocket and ran towards the police station of Sinapali.

It was further alleged that S.I. Sri Prafulla Bagarti helped the accused persons escape from the spot. It was further alleged that prior to the incident, the Petitioner was seen roaming around in civil dress along with a gun at the place of occurrence and giving protection to the accused persons.

On these allegations, Sinapali P.S. Case No. 34/2003, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 98 of 2003, was registered under Sections 341/323/325/506/34 of IPC.

1-A. After a month, on 15.05.2003, on the self-same allegation, the Opposite Party No.2 (Khirasindhu Meher) filed a Complaint Petition before the Court of J.M.F.C., Khariar, which was registered as 1 CC No.12 of 2003, alleging that the Petitioner took over the charge of Sinapali police station as its officer-in-charge. In the Complaint Petition it is alleged that other co-accused persons gradually developed intimacy with the present Petitioner and started taking liquor at the police station premises at night, taking advantage of their closeness. It is further alleged that Rajeev @ Gora Meher - Witness No.10 in G.R. Case No. 98 of 2003 had taken the leadership of arranging a "Batis Prahari," which was to be held at "Jagyna Mandap" of Sinapali. The expenses of the said function were met by some villagers of Sinapali, who had contributed a sum of Rs.9,000/- to Opposite Party No.2 (Khirasindhu Meher), who is the complainant in the present case. The said Gora Meher had withdrawn a sum of Rs.7,000/- from his bank account. It was further averred in the body of the Complaint

Petition that a sum of Rs.7,000/- was to be recovered and paid to Gora Meher after getting further contributions from the public.

1-B. The complainant further averred in the body of the Complaint Petition that the accused persons named in the Complaint Petition could not tolerate the holding of such "Batis Prahari" at the instance and leadership of Gora Meher, and on 09.04.2003 they conspired and came to an agreement to teach Gora Meher a lesson by taking law into their own hands to disturb "Batis Prahari," to assault Gora Meher and to rob him. It is further alleged in the Complaint Petition that the present Petitioner was the main instigator to commit the crime in connivance with other co-accused persons. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 10.04.2003, the Adhibasa and Kalas Jatra were to be held in village Sinapali and as money was required to be paid towards the expenses of Adhibasa and Kalas Jatra, while Gora Meher was coming on his motorcycle with the contribution amount of Rs.9,000/- and his personal money amounting to Rs.7,000/-, which he had withdrawn from the Bank for the purpose of payment to different persons for the function in question towards the Jagnya Mandap, at about 12:30 PM, when he reached Gudia Chowk, it is alleged that accused persons No.2 to 7 named in the Complaint Petition by forming an unlawful assembly were waiting in the said chowk, being armed with deadly weapons like lathis with the common object of killing Gora Meher and committing dacoity in furtherance of the conspiracy and agreement entered into by them. Being attacked, Gora Meher fell down from his motorcycle and the accused persons pressed his neck and dragged him. The co-accused persons gave fist and lathi blows on different parts of his body. The

co-accused persons No.2 to 7 were shouting while assaulting him saying that nobody could save Gora Meher from death not even God. It is further averred in the body of the Complaint Petition that at the time of assaulting Gora Meher the other accused persons had the intention to cause the death of Gora Meher and due to such assault Gora Meher lost his sense. When the said accused persons saw that Gora Meher had lost his sense, they fled away and co- accused persons No.2 to 7 took away Rs.16,000/- from his pocket. It has also been further averred in the Complaint Petition that since the Petitioner even though a public servant and a police officer committed the offences not in the discharge of his official duty, no sanction is required.

Challenging the order taking cognizance, the Petitioner and other co-accused persons approached this Court by filing separate CRLMCs which were disposed of by this Court without interfering with the order of cognizance.

1-C. The learned J.M.F.C., Khariar, took cognizance on 25.08.2003 u/s 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307, 395, 506, 149, and 120(B) of I.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of learned CJ.M-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuapada for trial since offences under sections 307 and 395 were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and the said case was renumbered as S.T. No. 79/46 of 2003.

1-D. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge in the said S.T. case, which was rejected by the learned CJM-cum-ASJ, Nuapada by order dated 22.01.2024 which, is impugned in the present Revision.

The trial in respect of the Petitioner was stayed by this Court by Order dated 20.02.2024 whereas the other co-accused persons, namely, Kuna Patra, Narayan Patra, Mantu Patra and Kishore Chandra Kumar @ Sahis was split up and they faced trial in S.T. case No.120/54 of 2023 arising of 1 CC Case No.12/2003.

1-E. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the decision reported in 1991 SCC OnLine Ori 163 in the case of Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra vrs. Harihar Patnaik, submitted that since admittedly at the relevant time the Petitioner was discharging his duties as in charge of Sinapali Police Station, hence, it is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to obtain sanction for initiation of judicial proceeding qua the Petitioner. Having not resorted to Section 197 Cr.P.C, the proceeding qua the Petitioner is untenable solely on the said count.

1-F. The learned JMFC, Khariar called for a report under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. from the Superintendent of Police, Nuapada. The Superintendent of Police, Nuapada submitted his report to the Court of learned JMFC, Khariar vide letter No. 797/SR dated 18.07.2003 stating that Sinapali P.S. Case No. 34/2003 (G.R. Case No. 98 of 2003) was registered in which the complainant, place of occurrence, date of occurrence and the details of the incident are the same as 1 CC Case No. 12/2003 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Khariar. The Superintendent of Police, Nuapada also categorically mentioned in his report that the complaint case filed before the Hon'ble Court is the prototype of the above-noted G.R. Case No. 98/2003 arising out of Sinapali P.S. Case No. 34/2003.

1-G. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that being charge-sheeted in Sinapali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No.98 of 2003 u/s 341/323/325/506/34 IPC, Sumanta Patra, Kishore Chandra Kumar @ Sahis and Narottam Sagar faced trial and during trial Sumanta Patra and Narottam Sagar died. Kishore Chandra Kumar @ Sahis faced trial in G.R. Case No. 98 of 2003 and in judgment dated 26.06.2019 while acquitting the accused persons from charges, the learned Court below observed that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused person. The said judgment has attained finality.

1-H. It is asserted that during the trial of the G.R. Case No. 98 of 2003 arising out of Sinapali P.S. Case No. 34/2003, neither the Informant nor the witnesses who were also Complainant and witnesses in the Complaint Case, made any accusation against the present Petitioner, though the G.R. case and the complaint case relates to the self same occurrence.

1-J. It is further contended that the occurrence took place on 10.04.2003, for which FIR in Sinapali P.S. Case No.34/2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 98/2003 was lodged on 11.04.2003 u/s.341/323/506/34 of IPC and during the course of the investigation in said G.R. Case, after a lapse of one month, 1 CC No. 12/2003 was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Khariar u/s. 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307, 395, 506, 149, and 120(B) of I.P.C. relating to the same occurrence.

1-K. In the complaint case, the alleged offences under Section 307/395 IPC was added, which are exclusively triable by the Court

of Sessions only to cause prejudice to the Petitioner. The police report indicates that on the self-same allegation F.I.R. and 1 CC case have been initiated. The 1 CC case being not in the form of a protest petition is hit by Section 210 of Cr.P.C.

2. In this background, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that since the G.R. Case No. 98/2003 corresponding to Sinapali P.S. Case No.34/2003, which was set into motion on the self same occurrence and similar allegation ended in acquittal by judgment dated 26.06.2019 the continuance of the proceedings in the complaint case, which was after the registration of the police case is an abuse of the process of law. And, framing of charge against the present Petitioner is unjustified and it will be prejudicial to proceed ahead against the Petitioner as it would amount to double jeopardy which is not permissible as per provisions of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

2-A. Furthermore, neither the complainant nor the witnesses who were also informant and witnesses in the GR case have made any accusation against the Petitioner in connection with the commission of offences alleged. On the contrary, while deposing in Court under oath, the Informant (Opposite Party No.2 in the Revision Petition and PW.1 in GR Case) resiled from his statement and made no accusation against the Petitioner except stating that he was present in civil dress. Similarly, all other witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 to 11 have made no allegation against the Petitioner.

2-B. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the ingredients of offences U/s 147, 148, 341, 323,

325, 307,506, 395, 149, 120-B of I.P.C. are absent in the case in hand and the accusation is baseless. There is no sufficient material on record to frame a charge against the present Petitioner and therefore, prayed for discharge.

2-C. During course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner by way of memo submitted the copy of deposition in ST Case No.120/54 of 2023 (Arising out of 1CC Case No.12/01(A)/2003-17) which is arising out of the original 1CC Case No.12 of 2003 and renumbered after split up in respect of co-accused persons namely Kuna Patra @ Sushanta Kumar, Narayan Patra, Mantu Patra @ Subodh Kumar and Kishore Chandra Kumar @ Sahis who were arrayed as accused persons along with the Petitioner in 1CC Case No.12 of 2003. It is apposite to note at the cost of repetition that trial qua the Petitioner was stayed by this court by order dated 20.02.2024.

Thereafter, this matter was listed under the heading "To be Mentioned" on 20.03.2025 at the instance of the Petitioner to place on record the judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2025 in ST Case No.120/54 of 2023 (Arising out of 1CC Case No.12/01(A)/2003-17) in respect of the co-accused in the complaint case.

2-D. Referring to the said judgment dated 07.03.2025 and evidence led therein, it is submitted that co-accused persons have been acquitted in the said ST Case No.120/54 of 2003 for want of evidence and since the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such continuance of criminal proceeding

for the self same set of facts qua the Petitioner would amount to exercise in futility resulting in sheer waste of precious judicial time.

2-E. To fortify his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-

I. Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra vrs. Harihar Patnaik (Supra)

II. Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & anr. reported in (2023) 15 SCC 502

III. Sanjay Kumar Rai vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 720

IV. Ramalingam & others vrs. N Viswanathan, (2024) 4 SCC 808

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PETITIONER

I. In Vishnu Kumar Shukla &. Anr. vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another (supra), the word "Charge" was described by the Apex Court to mean the precise offence which the accused is called upon to meet; the object being to warn the accused of the case against him. In the said judgment the Apex Court relied on Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142 with regard to the duty of Magistrate to discharge the accused under section 239 of the Cr.P.C. if the Charge is found to be groundless. Apex Court, while reiterating the dictum in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and others, (1990) 4

SCC 76, held that the Court cannot accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth where it is opposed to common sense and while referring to the State of Gujurat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688 decision reiterated that there must be application of judicial mind to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial. The Apex Court in clear terms repeated that;

"............at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial................."

II. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai (Supra), the Apex Court has held that:-

"xxx xxx xxx

15. Further, it is well settled that the trial Court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be.

              xxx                       xxx                         xxx"

    III.    The Apex Court in the case of Ramalingam Vrs. N

Viswanathan (supra) restored the order passed by the Trial Court granting discharge to the accused persons therein in the exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 since there was no material on the record to support ingredients of the offence alleged. In the said case it was alleged that the appellants therein assaulted and killed the deceased whereas the post mortem doctor opined that there were no ante-mortem injuries anywhere on the body of the deceased and the death was natural one. Since ingredients of the offences alleged were prima facie not made out, the Apex Court set aside the order of High Court and restored the discharge order passed by the Trial Court.

Stand of the Prosecution

3. While supporting the framing of charge qua the Petitioner, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Das that from the Complaint Petition and initial statement of the Complainant as well as statements of the other witnesses, it is evident that the Petitioner was not only present at the place of occurrence but also actively conspired with the co-accused persons in the commission of the alleged offences.

3-A. It is further contended that since the conduct of the Petitioner conspiring with the co-accused persons for commission of crime has no nexus with the discharge of his duty, sanction is not required for prosecuting the Petitioner and the learned Trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and went ahead with the proceeding holding that the sanction is not necessary.

3-B. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that acquittal of co-accused persons in G.R. Case No.98 of 2003 as well as in S.T. Case No.120/54 of 2023 does not ipso facto exonerate the Petitioner in 1CC case since the evidence led in GR Case and said S.T. case in respect of other co-accused persons and evidence led therein cannot ennure to the benefit of the Petitioner. Thus, acquittal of accused persons in aforesaid cases ought not to tilt the scale any way in favour of the Petitioner.

3-C. Learned Counsel for the State submits that GR case No.98/2003 was registered under Section 341/323/325/506/34 of IPC whereas, the present complaint case is concerned with the commission of offence committed under U/s 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307,506, 395, 149, 120-B of I.P.C.

Since the Investigating Agency deliberately did not include offences under section 307 and 395 IPC in the FIR, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint case. As such since both the proceedings are different, the evidence led in connected GR Case and S.T. case cannot read into the case at hand.

3-D. And, it is further contended that while dealing with an application for discharge, the Court cannot hold a mini trial or enter into realm of appreciation of the evidence and as such prayed for dismissal of the Revision petition.

3-E. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the State relied upon the following decisions:

I. Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4

II. Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685

The Apex Court in Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), has held thus;

"xxx xxx xxx

10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

xxx xxx xxx"

The Apex Court in Priyanka Jaiswal (supra) held that the Court, while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into an appreciation of an evidence of a particular case. It observed:-

"xxx xxx xxx

13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini-trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of Akhil Sharda held to the following effect:

"28. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini-trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini-trial can be conducted by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.

xxx xxx xxx "

4. Scope of interference at the stage of framing of charge is well settled. Before adverting to the rival submissions, this Court may briefly notice the scope and ambit of powers of the Trial Judge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as „Code‟). Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions pursuant to an order of commitment under Section 209 of the Code.

Section 227 of the Code contemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a discharge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under Section 228 of the Code.

It provides that upon consideration of the record of the case, the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Court is bound to decide whether there is "sufficient ground" to proceed against the accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge against him. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

5. There is no cavil that the charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence.

In this background, the materials need to be scrutinized.

Analysis and Findings

6. It is not disputed that at the time of occurrence the Petitioner was serving as OIC, Sinapali P.S. complaint case (1 CC Case No.12 of 2003) was filed arraying the Petitioner as accused alleging that he misused his official influence and conspired with the co-accused persons and also gave protection to them. As per the averments made in the said complaint case, the alleged act of the accused had some nexus with discharge of his duty, in the considered view of the Court continuance of proceeding sans sanction violates the underlying object of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as held by the Apex Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 44 and D Devaraja v Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695.

7. Further, from a bare perusal of the GR case No.98/2003 and the compliant case i.e. 1 CC Case No.12/2003, it is evident that both the proceedings have been initiated basing upon the same occurrence.

7-A. Law is no more res integra that two parallel proceeding cannot be permitted to continue for the same offence as well as same occurrence, as the same would be hit by salutary provisions enshrined under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

In the case at hand G.R. Case No.98/2003 was instituted pursuant to FIR in Sinapali P.S. Case No. 34/2003 dated 10.04.2003 and 1 CC Case No.12/2003 was initiated after one month of the occurrence on 15.05.2003 in respect of the same occurrence i.e. 10.04.2003. The contention of the prosecution that 1 CC case was initiated for alleged commission of offence under sections 395 and

307 IPC which was not there in GR case, does not merit any consideration since Cr.P.C. gives ample power to the Trial Court to modify/add charge/include offences/impleadment of new accused persons which/who were not there in the FIR if the said offences are made out during the course of investigation/trial/enquiry or involvement of other accused persons are made out as such.

7-B. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that since both GR and 1 CC case have been instituted on the self same occurrence, 1 CC case is not maintainable. Thus, continuance of S.T. Case No.79/46 of 2023 arising out of 1 CC Case No.12/2003 is legally unsustainable and continuance as such would not only be prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner would also be an abuse of judicial process as well.

8. On scrutiny of evidences of witnesses in GR Case No.98/2003 corresponding to Sinapali PS Case No.34/2003, it transpires that none of the PWs have made any statement showing involvement of the Petitioner including the informant/ complainant (Opposite Party No.2) who was examined as PW-1 therein and he has not made any allegation save and except that the Petitioner was present at nearby the place of occurrence in civil dress. Even the victim who was examined as P.W.-7 has not named the Petitioner nor has made any allegation qua the Petitioner.

In total 11 witnesses were examined, since the prosecution could not prove the allegation made therein, the GR case has ended in acquittal by judgment dated 26.06.2019.

9. From the depositions of the witnesses in said S.T. Case No.120/54 of 2023, it is on record that, total 8 witnesses were

examined in the said case. Out of said 8 witnesses, none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and all of them have been declared hostile including the informant/complainant. None of the witnesses have made any accusation against the Petitioner showing his involvement in the commission of offences in question. 9-A. The P.W.-7 who is the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 herein has resiled from his own statement and in para-2 of his deposition has stated that due to misunderstanding and feud, this occurrence took place and it has been settled between the parties and he does not want to proceed further in this case.

In cross-examination, he further stated that both the parties are living peacefully in the locality. He was not the scribe of the complaint petition. He cannot say the contents of the complaint petition.

9-B. P.W-1 to P.W-6 the independent witnesses slated on oath as to their ignorance of the fact of this case and did not support the case of the prosecution. During cross-examination, they stated that both the parties are living peacefully in the locality. 9-C. PW-8 the injured, deposed that the occurrence took place on 10.04.2003 at about 1.30pm at Sinapali. That day was the Adhibas Day of the 'Astaprahari", on that day while he was coming home to take his lunch before arriving at the home, on the way he went to the bank and withdraw Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand) only from the bank. After such withdrawal, he went to his house, took lunch there and he proceeded towards the spot with the said withdrawal money by his motorcycle. He started to proceed and just after a few meter i.e. 5 to 7 meter all the accused persons all of a sudden jointly attacked him, for which he fell down on the ground. While he fell down on the ground, the accused persons assaulted him by means of

bamboo lathi and also by iron rods. Taking advantage of his miserable condition, some accused took away the money i.e. Rs.16,000/- from him. As the result of assault, he became unconscious. While he got his sense, he found himself in a hospital at Waltier. He sustained fracture injury in his right leg, right collar- bone and bleeding injury on his head. One Kshirasindhu Meher lodged the report regarding the incident.

During cross-examination he stated that Kshirasindhu Meher (Opposite Party No.2) lodged complaint petition in Sinapali PS regarding the incident. Opposite Party No.2 also filed a complaint case in Khariar Court regarding the incident. Before this he had not deposed regarding this occurrence in the Court. He had also not deposed regarding the occurrence in Sinapali Court. He knew all the witnesses of this case, but he cannot say whether they saw the occurrence or not, as he was assaulted by the accused and became senseless by that time. No one call for the medical reports for which he had not submitted the said reports in this case. The witnesses Purna Chandra Meher and Himanshu Meher are not alive now.

From a close scrutiny of evidence of PW-8, it is found that he did not utter a single word implicating the Petitioner in commission of alleged crime.

9-D. In the face of lack of even prima facie evidence, the said S.T. Case No.120/54 of 2023 (Arising out of 1CC Case No.12/01(A)/2003-17 ended in acquittal by judgment dated 07.03.2025, as already noted.

10. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence, oral as well as documentary, it comes to the fore that P.Ws-7 and 8 the best witness to the occurrence being the complainant and injured did not support the prosecution case.

The complainant also failed to support the version of the complaint filed by him. It requires no mentioning that complaint petition is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used either for corroboration or contradiction. In the case at hand the evidence of the complainant and the contents of the complaint petitions are in patent conflict with each other.

It is trite that when the complaint petition and the version put forward before the Court does not tally, it will be extremely hazardous for a Court to arrive at a prima facie finding regarding manner in which such occurrence took place. It cannot lost sight that no other witness has made any statement indicating any overt act qua the Petitioner in commission of the alleged offence.

11. The independent witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-6 did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution declared all the PWs hostile. However, nothing materials are elicited from them to prove that they are suppressing the truth to support the accused persons. Except giving some bald suggestions, the prosecution failed to bring anything material out of them at the time of examination U/s.154 of the Evidence Act. No witness could be examined by the prosecution who had seen the occurrence.

12. From a perusal of the complaint case, initial statements of the witnesses as well as the complainant, deposition of witnesses in G.R. Case No.34/2003, judgment dated 26.06.2019 in G.R. Case No.34/2003 acquitting the accused persons therein for want of evidence and evidence in S.T. Case No120/54 of 2023 (Arising out of ICC Case No.12/01(A)/2003-17) and the judgment dated 07.03.2025 S.T. Case No120/54 of 2023 passed therein acquitting the accused person therein for want of evidence, does not ex-facie indicate involvement of the Petitioner in commission of offence

under U/s 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307,506, 395, 149, 120-B, 166A(C) of I.P.C.

13. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that, "prosecution has to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt". Keeping this principle in mind and after perusing the material available on record and keeping in view the evidence adduced in the connected cases arising out of the self same incident (resulting in acquittal unerringly points to the fate of the present complaint case, if, the trial is otherwise permitted to continue, in the given facts and circumstances the trial would be just an abuse of process and would be an empty formality.

In as much as, in the instant case a thorough analysis of materials on record as above, does not show any overt act on the part of the Petitioner to satisfy the ingredients of section 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307,506, 395, 149, 120-B of I.P.C. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under U/s 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307,506, 395, 149, 120-B, 166A(C) of I.P.C., are not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record.

14. As such when there's no evidence/material to show sufficient ground to sustain the charge as narrated above, this Court is of the considered view that, the trial vis-à-vis charges would be a hollow ritual, empty formality and continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility at the cost of the precious judicial time.

15. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials and evidence on record, on the touchstone of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Rai

(Supra), this Court is persuaded to hold that the charge under U/s 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307,506, 395, 149, 120-B of I.P.C qua the Petitioner is liable to be set aside.