Judgment:
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against the Order Dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2004, framing charge under Sections 341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/34 of I.P.C. against the accused-Petitioners.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Jayasen Nayak reported before the O.I.C. Beguniapada Out Post under Kodala P.S. alleging that on 16.02.1998 at about 5 P.M. there was a quarrel between the family of the informant & that of the accused-Petitioners as deceased-Santosh, the brother of the informant had sent a letter to the minor daughter of accused Subash Parida (Petitioner No. 1). Thereafter, there was a tussle between the parties in course of which the accused-Petitioners assaulted the informant & his 2 brothers by means of lathi. It is further alleged that the deceased Santosh was lifted by the accused-Petitioners & thereafter he was not found. Next day, the dead body of the deceased was found in hanging position on a tree near Jagateswar temple of Sanakuda. Basing on the said information, police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/314/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons. After commitment, the Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/342/34 of I.P.C. against the accused-Petitioners. At this stage, the present Petitioners filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging them as there was no sufficient material to proceed against them. The Trial Court by Order Dated 16.03.2004 rejected the said petition. Against that order, the Petitioners preferred CRLREV No. 213 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by Order Dated 31.01.2006 quashed the order impugned therein and directed the court below to reconsider the materials available on record bereft of the stranger's statement recorded Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court reconsidered the matter giving an opportunity to the Petitioners & framed charge on 18.07.2007 against them under the above Sections. Against that order, the Petitioners have preferred this criminal revision.
3. Mr. Nayak, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that without applying judicial mind and without considering the order passed by this Court in CRLREV No. 213 of 2004, the Trial Court mechanically framed charge. He submitted that after the earlier order framing charge was set aside by this Court, Without going into the merits of the case, it was the bounden duty of the Trial Court to reconsider the materials available on record. But it mechanically framed the same charge. He further submitted that there is absolutely no material against the Petitioners to frame charge under the above Sections. There is nothing on record to show that the accused-Petitioners kidnapped and killed the deceased. As per the post mortem report, the death of the deceased was the combined effect of axphyxia and venus congestion. There are also major discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses from which innocence of the Petitioners can be inferred. Therefore, the charge, as framed by the trial court, should be quashed.
4. Mr. Pattnaik, Learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court In framing charge against the Petitioners under Sections 341/323/363/364/324/302/201/342/34 of I.P.C. From the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. coupled with the post mortem report, it can be presumed that the Petitioners have committed the offence.
Learned Counsel for the informant supported the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the State and submitted that the trial has already commenced on 01.08.2007. Two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and cross-examined by the defence, whereafter an interim order has been obtained from this Court. The case is of the year 1998. In the meantime, ten years have already been elapsed. Therefore, instead of interfering with the impugned order, the Trial Court should be allowed to complete the proceeding.
5. Perused the record in CRLREV No. 213/2004, the statement of the witnesses and the post mortem report. Post mortem report reveals that the deceased had sustained external injuries: Some of the witnesses have stated that the deceased was brought to the house of the accused-Petitioners. The evidence also reveals that accused Ainthli and Narayan inflicted blows to the deceased and his brother. By the time, the informant and the injured witness came to the Hospital after receiving the blows, the deceased was inside the house of accused-Subash and on the following day, he was found hanging. The medical officer who conducted autopsy also opined that the cause of the death was due to the combined effect of asphyxia and venous congestion due to hanging, leading to cardio-respiratory failure. He also pointed out the following external injuries.
(i) Rigor present in both the upper arm. Tongue protruded outside but not bitten by teeth (about 1' outside). Dribbling of saliva. Pupils dilated and hazy stool at anvy.
(ii) Hypostasis present in both the lower limb and upper limbs. Cynosis features present over the tip of the beds in all areas.
(iii) A diffused swelling present over the left wrist joint.
(iv) An antemortem 2' breadth discontinuous ligature mark present over the upper portion of neck going obliquely to occipital bone behind right ear.
He specifically stated in his report that no ligature mark was found in the body. The medical report does not specifically rule out that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
6. In view of the above, there is prima facie evidence against the Petitioners to proceed under the above Sections and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the Trial Court in framing charge against them. It is the settled principle of law that it is not the duty of the Trial Court to see whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal at the time of framing charge. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. Since the matter is lingering from 1998 and in the meantime ten years have elapsed and two witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined, this Court directs the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.