Orissa High Court
Kumudini Kuimura & Another vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 10 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.820 of 2025
Kumudini Kuimura & another .... Petitioners
Mr. S. Harichandan, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
10.11.2025 Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 1st September, 2025 as at Annexure-4 passed in connection with S.T. Case No.82 of 2024 for having framed charges under Sections 305 & 302 IPC against them on the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the chargesheet at Annexure-2 to submit that it was filed for an offence under Section 305 read with Section 34 IPC, however, the learned Court below framed the charge under Sections 305 and 302 I.P.C. in absence of any material on record. The further submission is that the deceased had a suicidal death, as is made to suggest from the P.M. Report i.e. Annexure-5. Further referring to the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and particularly, of Himadri @ Helina Singh and Suresh Chandra Pradhan, it is submitted that the deceased allegedly committed suicide for the reasons Page 1 of 6 revealed by them. Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned court below could not have framed the charges for the alleged offences against the petitioners. The further contention is that both the offences cannot co-exist, when it is alleged that petitioner No.2 has committed offence under Section 302 I.P.C. lastly, referring to the Expert Opinion i.e. Annexure-6, the claim is that the deceased appears to have committed suicide.
4. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order as at Annexure-4 with the submission that it was quite not possible for a child of tender age to commit suicide by hanging. The further submission is that whether, it was suicidal death of the deceased or homicidal, is to be thrashed out during trial and having considered the materials on record, the learned court below did not seriously err or commit wrong to frame the charges under the alleged offences against the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 is not to be disturbed.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners produced the statements of the witnesses above named including the informant, namely, Narayan Pradhan recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. during the investigation by the local police and the same are gone through.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners were chargesheeted under Sections 305 read with Section 34 IPC as made to reveal from the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and it was followed by the order of cognizance as per Annexure-3 for the same offence but Page 2 of 6 at the time of framing of charge, the learned court below passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4. According to the learned court below, petitioner No.1 said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 305 I.P.C., whereas, petitioner No.2, allegedly, an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. On a reading of Annexure-5, it is suggested that the death of the deceased was on account of cerebral congestion and other reasons assigned therein. A copy of the Expert Opinion as at Annexure-6 reveals that the death of the deceased is scientifically more in favour of suicide. It has been mentioned therein that there was no food found in the stomach of the deceased nor any sign of struggle on the body and it was quite possible for her to easily climb a mango tree with branches as she belonged to a rural background. As far as the statements of the witnesses named above are concerned, on further reading of the same, the Court finds that the deceased was in the petitioners' house sometime before her death. On a reading of the said statements, it is made to suggest by them that neither of the petitioners to be responsible for the unfortunate death of the deceased. Furthermore, as per the opinion at Annexure-6, it is more likely that the deceased death had a suicidal death. That apart, the chargesheet was filed for an offence under Sections 305 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. It is claimed that even considering the materials on record, it cannot be said that any of the petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide much less responsible for the homicidal death. In support of such contention, Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision of the Apex Court in Mohit Singhal & another Vrs. State of Uttarakhand & others (2024) 93 Page 3 of 6 OCR (SC) 411, while advancing the argument that such offences cannot stand together. Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in R. Rachaiah Vrs. Home Secretary, Bangalore (2016) 64 OCR (SC) 742.
7. Considering the materials on record, especially, with reference to the P.M. Report at Annexure-5 and the Expert Opinion i.e. Annexure-6 and especially when, the chargesheet was filed under Section 305 read with Section 34 IPC, according to the Court, it was necessary for the learned court below at least to highlight upon the materials, which influenced it to frame the charges under the alleged offences. The Court is alive to the settled legal position that at the time of framing of charge, a piece meal trial is not to be held nor a court is statutorily obliged to assign the reasons therefor but when a chargesheet is filed for a lesser offence and the Court is inclined to frame a charge for an offence of higher degree, it has a bounden duty to reflect upon the materials on record and make a reference of the same while framing of charge. On a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 1st September, 2025 at Annexure-4, the Court finds that even though, there has been a hearing in presence of both the sides but the learned court below failed in its duty to indicate the materials filed along with the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2, which persuaded it, to frame the charges under Sections 305 and 302 IPC.
8. That apart, it is well neigh impossible for a charge to be framed for an offence under Section 305 IPC when one of the Page 4 of 6 accused persons is alleged of having committed an offence under Section 302 IPC, a fact, which was completely lost sight of by the learned court below. As it appears, while considering framing of charge, the learned court below did not properly examine the materials on record in a manner contemplated under law. According to the Court, there is complete non- application of judicial mind by the learned court below while passing the impugned order at Annexure-4, particularly when, the chargesheet filed against the petitioners was for an offence under Sections 305 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Court concludes with an observation that a court has to be meticulous and not casual while framing charge against an accused. In the case at hand, when the chargesheet at Annexure-2 was filed for offence under Sections 305 read with Section 34 of IPC with the allegation that both of them instigated the deceased, a child of tender age, to commit suicide, it should have been mentioned in the impugned order at Annexure-4, the reason as to why, the charge is not to be framed for the said offence but instead under Sections 305 with Section 302 IPC, a responsibility, which has not been duly discharged by the learned court below and hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 1st September, 2025 is liable to be interfered with and set at naught.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 1st September, 2025 at Annexure-4 passed in connection with S.T. Case No.82 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh is hereby set Page 5 of 6 aside. It is further directed that the learned court below shall consider the chargesheet and all other connected materials filed along with it besides Annexures-5 and 6 and after a proper hearing to both the sides to pass a fresh order on charge at the earliest preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order keeping in view the observation made herein above and the settled position of law.
11. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Page 6 of 6 Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 11-Nov-2025 16:48:56