Orissa High Court
Bulu @ Biswanath Hota vs State Of Odisha …. Opp. Party (S) on 11 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.591 of 2024
(From the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge-cum-OPID, Sambalpur, in Sessions Trial Case No.
266/4/1 of 2015).
Bulu @ Biswanath Hota .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Miss. A. Ray, Adv.
On behalf of
Mr. L N. Patel, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party (s) : Smt. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this CRLREV, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 20.09.2024
passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-OPID, Sambalpur,
in Sessions Trial Case No. 266/4/1 of 2015. This order framed charges
under Sections 341, 367, 329, and 34 IPC in connection with Sambalpur
Town P.S. Case No. 325 of 2015. The Petitioner, accused of unlawful
restraint, kidnapping, and extortion, argues that the charges are
unlawful and seeks a revision.
pg. 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
I. FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER:
2. The prosecution’s case can be summarized as follows:
(i). On 03.09.2015 at 13:30 PM, the victim Dhiru Mahakud, brother of
the complainant, was returning home from Susarigali when he
was assaulted by accused Arjun Bagarty using a betted (wooden
stick). Subsequently, the other accused persons, Biswanath Hota @
Bulu and Saroj Mishra @ Gulchi, arrived and, with their common
intention, kidnapped Dhiru Mahakud.
(ii). The accused took him to Kalyan Mandap (a community hall) near
Ring Road, confined him inside, and brutally assaulted him to
extort money. The accused allegedly took away Rs. 5000/- in cash
from the victim.
(iii). A passerby rescued Dhiru Mahakud and shifted him to the
hospital for treatment. The police issued an injury requisition
form, obtained a medical opinion, and registered a case under
Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No. 325 of 2015.
(iv). After the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused
persons, leading the trial court to take cognizance of the offenses.
(v). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a discharge petition before the
Additional Judge-cum-OPID, Sambalpur, in Sessions Trial Case
No. 266/4/1 of 2015.
pg. 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
II. CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The framing of charges on 20.09.2024 by the learned A.D.J.-cum-OPID,
Sambalpur, is arbitrary and not supported by proper evidence. The
petitioner claims that the trial court erred in framing charges against
him despite no prima facie case being made out.
4. The police allegedly filed the charge sheet with an ulterior motive
despite no incriminating material against the petitioner. The FIR and
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not provide substantive
evidence against the petitioner.
5. The order violates settled legal principles laid down by various High
Courts and the Supreme Court of India regarding the sufficiency of
evidence for framing charges. The trial court did not consider
contradictions in the witness statements, which do not corroborate each
other.
6. The trial court has allegedly accepted inadmissible evidence while
ignoring relevant and admissible evidence, leading to miscarriage of
justice. The trial court failed to determine whether there was any prima
facie case against the petitioner before framing charges.
III. PROSECUTION’S CASE:
7. The counsel for the prosecution urged the following submissions:
(i). The prosecution argued that there was sufficient prima facie
evidence to proceed with the trial against the accused.
(ii). The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 341, 367, and
329 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), each addressing serious
pg. 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33criminal offenses. Section 341 IPC punishes the wrongful restraint
of a person, restricting their movement unlawfully.
(iii). Additionally, Section 34 IPC establishes that the accused acted
with a common intention, indicating that they were involved in a
shared criminal purpose.
(iv). The prosecution emphasized that the case materials supported the
involvement of the accused in committing the alleged offenses,
making their trial necessary. Hence, discharging the accused at
this stage would be premature and unjustified.
IV. ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT:
8. Upon reviewing the materials available in the case records, the court
assessed whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the
accused.
9. The court found that there was enough material to implicate the
accused in the commission of the offenses alleged. It held that the
charges under Sections 341, 367, and 329 read with 34 of the IPC were
attractable based on the evidence presented.
10. After considering the arguments and evidence, the court concluded that
the discharge petition lacked merit and, therefore, rejected it.
V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the counsel
appearing for both the parties.
12. It is a well-settled legal principle that when deciding an application for
discharge, the court must assume the prosecution’s material to be true.
pg. 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
At this stage, the court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of
the evidence as it would adversely impact during trial but must simply
assess whether the available material, on its face, establishes the
fundamental elements of the alleged offense. The inquiry is limited to
determining whether the presented facts indicate the commission of the
offense, justifying the continuation of proceedings.
13. There exists plethora of judicial precedents reinforcing this principle.
Notably, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander1, the Supreme Court
unequivocally held the same. The relevant excerpts are produced
below:
“17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the
trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the
accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under
both these provisions, the court is required to consider the
“record of the case” and documents submitted therewith
and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the
accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion
there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the
facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court
would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed
against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This
presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The
satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of
constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that
offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It
may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine
distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of
the Code. Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion
and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative.
1
(2012) 9 SCC 460.
pg. 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court
should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty
of committing an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.”
14. At the stage of framing charges, the court’s role is not to determine guilt
but to assess whether a strong suspicion exists that the accused has
committed an offense which, if proved at trial, could lead to a
conviction. The inquiry is confined to examining whether the material
on record rules out the innocence of the accused. The final
determination of guilt is reserved for the trial. This principle was
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh2,
where it was so held. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
“4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case
for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the
charge against the accused and state by what evidence he
proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes
at the initial stage the duty of the court to consider the
record of the case and the documents submitted therewith
and to hear the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter
an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the
Code. If ‘the Judge considers that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing’,
as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, ‘the Judge
is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence which (b) is exclusively
triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused’, as provided in Section 228. Reading
the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have
2
(1977) 4 SCC 39.
pg. 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the
initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the
evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to
be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to
the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for
the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail
and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally
applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or
otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the
stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section
228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether
there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or
whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong
suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the
region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt
at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there
is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which
is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the
law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where
the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is
proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie
whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the
evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove
the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence
evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed
the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for
proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the
circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one
conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We
pg. 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more
example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of
the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the
trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end
in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the
initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or
Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and
generally the order which will have to be made will be one
under Section 228 and not under Section 227.”
15. Applying the abovementioned judicial precedents to the case in hand, it
is evident that the trial court followed the correct approach in law while
rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. The court was
only required to determine whether the materials placed before it
disclosed sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused might have
committed the alleged offences. It was not expected to assess the
reliability of the evidence or to weigh the defence version at that stage.
16. The facts presented by the complainant, which include specific
allegations of wrongful restraint, kidnapping, and extortion, supported
by medical records and the recovery of the victim from the location
described, offer a plausible narrative that warrants further judicial
scrutiny. The presence of multiple accused persons and the consistency
in their alleged actions with the nature of offences invoked further
supports the prima facie case.
17. The contradictions pointed out by the petitioner in the statements of the
witnesses do not significantly weaken the case at this preliminary stage.
Minor inconsistencies are common in criminal proceedings and do not
pg. 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
necessarily vitiate the prosecution’s case unless they are material and
affect the core of the allegations. It is well established that
contradictions and discrepancies can only be effectively evaluated
during the trial after the evidence has been tested through cross-
examination.
18. The framing of charges does not amount to a finding of guilt. It merely
sets the stage for a full-fledged trial where both sides will get the
opportunity to present and challenge evidence. It ensures that justice is
not denied by prematurely halting the criminal process.
19. Thus, based on the case record, factual matrix, and prevailing legal
standards, the trial court has acted within its jurisdiction. The rejection
of the discharge petition is consistent with the judicial duty to ensure
that offences which have a plausible basis are examined thoroughly
through trial rather than being dismissed at a threshold stage.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
21. Any interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th April, 2025
pg. 9