Hrushikesh Panda vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 8163 Ori

Orissa High Court

Hrushikesh Panda vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 12 September, 2025

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     CRLMC No. 3194 of 2023

  Hrushikesh Panda               ....                       Petitioner
                                       Mr. D. P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate
                               -versus-

  State of Odisha                ....                Opposite Parties
                                          Mr. N. Praharaj, Informant
                                           Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. P.P


                   CORAM:
  THE HON'BLE
          BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                    Date of Judgment: 12.09.2025

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.139 of 2019, wherein the learned court on the prayer of the prosecution found material against the Petitioner to be arrayed as an accused under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C and issued summon to the Petitioner for his appearance in person.

3. The background facts of the case are that one Harish Chandra Panda lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Baripada Town P.S., Mayurbhanj, alleging that his son was killed by his daughter-in-law law on 28.04.2019. As per the report, the daughter-in-

daughter law of the informant was in a love relationship with one Girish Chandra Panda, cousin brother of her husband, for which his son was subjected to constant mental and physical torture by his wife. It

was further alleged that the daughter-in-law daughter law often left the matrimonial home in connection with the said affair, and on account of the strained relationship, the deceased deceased had earlier informed the police about threats to his life, though the matter was compromised. It was also reported that the son of the informant was living separately with his family, though the informant used to sleep at his son's house. On the intervening intervening night, at about 2.00 a.m., while the informant was sleeping in the house of his son, he heard a groaning sound. On knocking the door, neither his son nor his daughter-in-law law responded. The informant then called some neighbours, and upon their insistence, insisten the daughter-in in-law opened the door. The son of the informant was found lying with bleeding injuries on his nose and neck, and his sacred thread was missing. He was immediately shifted to the hospital, where the doctor declared him dead due to strangulation.

strangulation. On the basis of the said report, Baripada Town P.S. Case No.104 of 2019 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and investigation was set in motion.

4. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, contended that the statements of none none of the aforesaid witnesses disclose any material which, even if unrebutted, could lead to the conviction of the Petitioner. At best, the evidence suggests that the wife of the deceased was having an illicit or love relationship with the Petitioner. It was was argued that the entire narration in the evidence does not reveal the presence or involvement of the Petitioner in the death of the deceased, either directly, circumstantially, or even by way of conspiracy. Learned Senior Counsel further drew the attention attention of this Court to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and urged that the

impugned order is contrary to the settled position of law and, therefore, liable to be quashed.

5. hand Mr. N. Praharaj, learned counsel for the On the other hand, Informant, who voluntarily appeared in the hearing, submitted that during the course of investigation the statement of the Petitioner was recorded, wherein he admitted to his relationship with the wife of the deceased. It was further submitted that various circumstances emerging from the case, coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, clearly indicate the active involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged murder. It was thus prayed that the learned trial court, having rightly appreciated the materials on record, has correctly arrayed the Petitioner as an accused, and the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court.

6. Mr. Apat, learned learned counsel for the State, while supporting the order impugned, submitted that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is intended to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial and, therefore, can be invoked even against a person not charge-sheeted charge if sufficient evidence surfaces in the course of trial. It was contended that from the depositions of P.Ws. 2, 3, 7 and 8, coupled with the circumstances of the case and the admitted relationship between the Petitioner and the wife of the deceased, there emerges a prima facie case pointing towards the complicity complicity of the Petitioner.

Mr. Apat further submitted that at this stage the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence in detail as would be done in a full-fledged fledged trial, but only to assess whether strong suspicion or credible material exists to summon the the person. Thus, the learned trial court having exercised its discretion judiciously under Section

319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of cogent material, the impugned order suffers from no illegality and calls for no interference by this Court.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Court in the matter of Vikas Rathi vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 211 held as follows -

10. The Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh and Ors. case (supra),, opined as under:

"105. Power u/s 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary aordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the magistrate or the sessions judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case cas is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-

cross examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power u/S 319 31 CrPC".

(emphasis supplied)

11. In Sagar's case (supra), (supra) it is stated as under:

"9. The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test st as notice above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of

framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction...."

12. If the evidence already already on record produced by the prosecution is considered on the touchstone of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh & Ors. case (supra), it does not go beyond suspicion. There is no eye-witness eye witness to the occurrence. All what hasas been stated by PW-2 PW 2 (brother of the deceased) is that the deceased who was working with the appellant as Manager though claimed to be a partner by the complainant, that there was some dispute regarding money between the appellant and the deceased. Rajesh Rajes Sharma whose statement was got recorded by police under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also retracted therefrom while appearing in court as PW-5.

PW 5. He stated that it was recorded by the police under threat of involvement in some false case. He also did not raise raise any finger towards the appellant. Rather he was the first person to visit the house of the deceased after the murder and informed the appellant to reach there. He was working as part time cook with the family of the deceased. Without any material brought brought on record, the widow of the deceased merely stated that she is sure that the appellant had committed murder of her husband as there was no other enemy. One of the brothers of the deceased who appeared as PW-1, PW 1, who was not present at the spot, did not utter er a single word against the appellant.

13. The aforesaid material was not sufficient if examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court for summoning of an additional accused in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to establish complicity comp of the appellant in the crime."

8. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions, when the case at hand is examined, it appears that the only basis on which the learned trial court sought to array the Petitioner as an accused is the statements made by certain certain witnesses during trial, more particularly P.Ws. 2, 3, 7 and 8. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly notice their evidence.

9. P.W.2, in his deposition, stated that the deceased Aditya had told him that he suspected his wife, Chandana, to be in an illicit relationship with his 'Kaka Pua Bhai' (cousin brother), who frequently visited their house. P.W.3 deposed in similar terms. P.W.7 further stated that Chandana had developed a love affair with Tukun @ Hrushikesh Panda (the Petitioner), the cousin brother of o the deceased, which caused disturbance in the marital life of Chandana and Aditya. He also deposed that in connection with the said relationship, an FIR had earlier been lodged, though the matter was later compromised. P.W.8, who is the father of the deceased dec and the informant, likewise stated that Chandana had developed a love affair with her cousin, for which his son had made reports before the Town Police on different occasions, but no action was taken. He also stated that the Petitioner was regularly visiting the house of the deceased.

10. The impugned order does not reflect consideration of any material other than the aforesaid statements of the witnesses to implicate the Petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

11. It is well settled that the test for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence, if left unrebutted, would reasonably lead to the conviction of the person sought to be summoned. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court ought to refrain from exercising the extraordinary power power conferred under the said provision.

12. In the instant case, the statements, whether read conjointly or individually, merely indicate that accused Chandana, the wife of the deceased, was having a love affair with the cousin brother of the

deceased, giving rise rise to suspicion of an illicit relationship. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness eye witness to the occurrence. In the absence of any material on record to connect such statements into a chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the Petitioner, the said evidence, ence, by itself, does not furnish a basis to array him as an accused for the grave offence of murder. At best, it renders his conduct questionable. On the contrary, during investigation, the statement of accused Chandana herself disclosed the presence of two wo other persons in the alleged crime, and they have already been charge-sheeted.

sheeted. The depositions implicating the present Petitioner rest entirely on suspicion and surmises, without even a semblance of evidence showing his participation in the preparation or commission of the offence. Consequently, there is no material on record, direct or circumstantial, to establish his presence with Chandana at the relevant time or otherwise to generate even a strong suspicion sufficient to attract Section 319 Cr.P.C.

13. In the result, the impugned order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.139 of 2019 stands quashed.

14. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

KETAN SAHOO

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 15-Sep-2025 19:18:55