Orissa High Court
Kalia @ Kalu Charan Gouda And vs State Of Orissa And Another .... ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.735 of 2024
Kalia @ Kalu Charan Gouda and .... Petitioners
others
Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
Mr. B. Barik, Advocate for Informant
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 13.11.2025
03. 1. Heard Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Babulu
Barik, learned counsel and his associate appears for opposite
party No.2, namely, informant filling Vakalatnama and the
same is accepted and taken on record.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging
the impugned order dated 6th November, 2024 of the learned
J.M.F.C. Polasara passed in connection with G.R. Case No.38
of 2021 corresponding to Polasara P.S. Case No.23 of 2021 at
present pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kodala, Ganjam vide S.T. Case No.237 of 2024 on the
grounds stated therein.
3. Referring to the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2, it is
submitted by Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioners
that the petitioners are made to face trial for offences
punishable under Sections 149, 143, 294, 506 and 304-A IPC,
in course of which, the learned Court below with the
conclusion that an offence under Section 302 IPC is prima facie
made out, in exercise of jurisdiction Section 323 Cr.P.C.,
directed commitment of the case to the learned Sessions Court.
The further submission is that upon considering the evidence of
the witnesses examined as P.Ws.15 and 17, such a decision has
been taken vide Annexure-4 which is not legally tenable, all the
more when, the deceased died after a fall and for having other
medical conditions. It is the further submission that the learned
Court below ought not to have committed the case with such
evidence received during trial and hence, exercise of power
under Section 323 Cr.P.C. is not in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand,
justifies the impugned order dated 6th November, 2024 at
Annexure-4 with the submission that a case under Section 302
IPC was made out and hence, the commitment had to take
place. The further submission is that the evidence of P.Ws.15
and 17 with such other evidence received during trial, a case
under Section 302 IPC was clearly established, hence, it was
followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 which is
according to law.
5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Barik, learned counsel
for opposite party No.2.
6. Perused the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and it reveals
that the same was filed against the petitioner under Section
304-A IPC with other allied offences even though originally, a
case under Section 302 IPC was registered. A copy of the FIR
is at Annexure-1 and the same is perused and therein, the
allegation has been made by the informant against the
petitioners and overt acts committed by them but with such a
chargesheet as per Annexure-2, the learned court below passed
the order of commitment dated 6th November, 2024 with the
conclusion that a case under Section 302 IPC is revealed.
7. The commitment of the case in terms of Section 323
Cr.P.C. is permissible provided evidence surface in trial. In the
case at hand, considering the testimony of the informant,
namely, P.W.17 as well as P.W.15 and others received during
the trial, the learned court below held that a case under Section
302 read with 34 IPC is established.
8. The Court perused the PM report as at Annexure-2 and
it reveals that the deceased had an abrasion and internal injuries
antemortem in nature with an opinion that it could have been
caused due to a hard blunt trauma but are simple and non-fatal
in nature. The opinion of the local police as made to reveal
from the chargesheet is that the deceased had an accidental
death, hence, the petitioners committed an offence under
Section 304-A IPC instead. But, in view of the evidence of
P.Ws.15 and 17, a conclusion of the learned court below is
otherwise. Reiterating the allegations made in the FIR i.e.
Annexure-1, the informant, namely, P.W.17 deposed during
trial claiming that the petitioners are responsible for a
homicidal death of the deceased father. Having gone through
the depositions of the witnesses as at Annexure-3 received in
course of trial in G.R. Case No.38 of 2021, the Court finds that
the learned court below was influenced by the evidence of
P.Ws.15 and 17, in particular. The Court is of the humble view
that merely resting upon the evidence of the said witnesses, it
was not right and justified on the part of the learned court
below to hold that a case under Section 302 read with 34 IPC
was made out and in view of the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2
besides the nature and the cause of death of the deceased so
revealed from the PM report. The learned court below should
have waited for the evidence of the Medical Officer and I.O. to
arrive but before that it has jumped to a conclusion that an
offence under Section 302 IPC has been committed. It is
reiterated that such a procedure under Section 323 Cr.P.C. is
available to be invoked by a Trial Court but before that, it has
to be fully confirmed that an offence of higher degree was
committed. In the case of the petitioners, when the allegations
against them resulted in submission of chargesheet as per
Annexure-2 revealing a case of Section 304-A IPC, the learned
Court below ought not to have passed the impugned order at
Annexure-4 without waiting for the conformation receiving
evidence with the examination of the Medial Officer and I.O.
Merely on the basis of testimony of P.W.17 and other
witnesses, it was not proper on the part of the learned Court
below to hold that an offence under Section 302 IPC is made
out. So therefore, the conclusion of the Court is that the
judgment of the learned Court below is pre-mature as it was
required to wait for the evidence of the Medical Officer and I.O
for confirmation. A Court is required to be doubly sure and
fully confirmed instead of being hasty in concluding an offence
under Section 302 IPC to have been committed as a result
leading to a homicidal death of the deceased. Such an exercise
having not been undertaken by the learned Court below, the
Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 6th
November, 2024 as at Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in law
and hence, liable to be interfered with and accordingly, it is
ordered.
9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-4 in G.R.
Case No.38 of 2021 of learned J.M.F.C., Polasara, Ganjam is
hereby set aside. It is further directed that the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Kodala is to return back the record
received in connection with ST Case No.237 of 2024 to the
learned J.M.F.C., Polasara, who shall proceed with the trial and
thereafter, to pass appropriate orders at a appropriate stage as to
whether any such offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC
was committed by the petitioners only after receiving the
evidence of the Medical Officer and I.O. keeping in view the
settled position of law vis-à-vis exercise of jurisdiction
permissible under Section 323 Cr.P.C.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Signature NotTUDU
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
