Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Bisoyi vs State Of Odisha. .... Opposite Party on 27 July, 2021
Author: S. Pujahari
Bench: S. Pujahari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.139 of 2020
1. Prafulla Kumar Bisoyi. .... Petitioners
2. Sambhunath @
Sambhunath Bisoyi.
3. Tukula @ Susanta Kumar
Bhuyan.
4. Nilanchal Swain @
Kankada.
5. Pravakar Swain.
6. Uma Charan Barada.
M/s. Deepali Mahapatra, S.K. Panigrahy,
Advocates
-versus-
State of Odisha. .... Opposite Party
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI
ORDER
Order 27.07.2021 No. 06. 1. This is an application filed under Section 401
read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. seeking for setting aside the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska in S.T. Case No.6 of 2019 framing charge against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 302/307/120-B/34 of I.P.C. on rejecting their prayer for discharge. Page 1 of 7
// 2 //
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available papers on record vis-à-vis the impugned order.
3. It is alleged that owing to political rivalry and the consequential strained relationship, the petitioners along with co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Jitu @ Jitendra Bisoi and that on 06.04.2016 at about 9 p.m. while Jitendra Bisoi was on his way to village- Karnoli from Aska side riding a motorcycle with Jitendra Gauda @ Jilu (brother of the Informant) as pillion rider, on N.H.59 near village- Patiliguda, the accused persons got a ten wheeler truck dashed against the motorcycle of Jitendra Bisoi from its back with intent to kill him as well as the pillion rider and as a result of the same, Jitendra Gauda died at the spot on succumbing to the injuries and Jitendra Bisoi became critical with grievous injuries. It is alleged that at the relevant time the truck was being driven by accused - Kalia Swain @ Bonda Kalia accompanied by the helper - Sankar Swain, and after committing the incident, they drove the truck in high speed towards Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Berhampur. At the first instance, Sri Maheswar Behera, A.S.I. of Police, Aska Police Station who at the relevant time was on evening patrolling in Aska town, proceeded to the spot and on his own information he drew up an F.I.R. which was registered as Aska P.S. Case No.82 of 2016 under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC. Subsequently, on 07.04.2016 on receipt of a written report from the brother of the deceased - Jitendra Gauda, police registered another case bearing P.S. Case No.84 of 2016 under Section 302 of IPC regarding the same incident against the sole accused, namely, Ranjit Swain. In P.S. Case No.82 of 2016 police submitted final report treating the case as mistake of fact, and in P.S. Case No.84 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.180 of 2016 in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Aska, after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/307/34 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC against the present petitioners and co-accused persons including Ranjit Swain. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska Page 3 of 7 // 4 // while being in seisin over the case framed charge for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioners and the co-accused persons vide the impugned order while dismissing the contention of the petitioners seeking an order of discharge. Hence, the present move by the petitioners.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Court below has erroneously and mechanically framed the charge against the petitioners, although there is no material from the side of the prosecution to show involvement of the petitioners in the alleged incident, save and except the alleged confessional statement of a co-accused which is not admissible as evidence. It is his further contention that the implication of the petitioners as conspirators about two years after the case incident ipso facto suggests of a false and afterthought implication, especially when the ingredients of "criminal conspiracy" are not prima-facie made out vis-à-vis the petitioners.
Page 4 of 7
// 5 //
5. Per contra, the learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State submits that it being an admitted fact that the petitioners were inimically disposed towards Jitendra Bisoi and his followers and there being evidence in amplitude on record showing involvement of the petitioners in criminal conspiracy to do away with Jitendra Bisoi and his supporters, the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners and co-accused persons does not call for any interference.
6. „Conspiracy‟ is an inference to be gathered from circumstances. There cannot always be much direct evidence against the conspirators. „Conspiracy‟ is often hatched up in utmost secrecy for which direct evidence can hardly be expected from the prosecution. That apart, at the stage of charge, the Court is not called upon to resort to any strict scrutiny of the materials produced by the prosecution, even strong suspicion emitting from the materials would suffice framing of charge. In the case at hand, admittedly, there was persisting enmity between the Informant-group and the Page 5 of 7 // 6 // accused-group owing to political difference and intolerance. „Enmity‟ being a double edged weapon can be an immediate cause for committing a crime or can motivate a false prosecution. Needless to mention that at the trial of the case on the basis of evidence adduced, the said factor can be delved into and the veracity of the prosecution version tested.
7. Keeping in view the legal requirements and the contentions of the rival sides, I have gone through the relevant materials as collected by the Investigating Agency. Regard being had to the same, the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners is found not liable to be interfered with.
8. In the result, the CRLREV stands dismissed.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID- 19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court‟s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court‟s Notice No.4587, dated Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court‟s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
( S.Pujahari ) Judge MRS Page 7 of 7