Rabindranath Samal vs State of Orissa

None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner Rabindranath Samal has filed this

application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the

impugned order dated 20.04.2007 of the learned J.M.F.C.,

Salipur passed in G.R. Case No.812 of 2005 in taking cognizance

of the offences under sections 147 / 148 / 323 / 307 / 294 / 354 /

341 / 506 / 109 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of

offence against him.

On the basis of the first information report lodged by

one Charubala Das, wife of Khageswar Das of Gopalpur,

Mahanga P.S. Case No.234 of 2005 was registered on

23.12.2005 under sections 143 / 341 / 294 / 323 / 354 / 307 / 354 /

506(II) / 148 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of

investigation, charge sheet was submitted against twenty six

accused persons and the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur on perusal of

the charge sheet, 161 Cr.P.C . statements and other materials

available on record has been pleased to hold that prima facie

case under sections 147 / 148 / 323 / 307 / 294 / 354 / 341 / 506 /

109 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and accordingly,

took cognizance of the offences.

The main ground taken by the petitioner in this

application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is that there are no

materials to attract the ingredients of the offence under section

307 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the order of

cognizance under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code should be

quashed. The petitioner has annexed the injury reports which

reveal that the injuries sustained by the informant as well as the

other injured persons are simple in nature.

Law is well settled that the mere fact that the

injuries are simple in nature would not take the act out of the

purview of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The intention or

knowledge which is necessary to constitute murder may exist,

combined with an act which falls short of the complete

commission of that offence. If the injury inflicted has been with

the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature,

extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is

sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are

wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under section 307

of the Indian Penal Code. The section makes a distinction

between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court

has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done

with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances

mentioned in the section. The nature of weapon used, the

intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the

motive behind commission of the offence, the nature and size of

the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for

causing the injuries and the severity of the blow or blows are

important factors that may be taken into consideration.

Therefore, at this stage when the cognizance of the

offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been

challenged on the ground that the injuries sustained by the

injured persons were opined to be simple in nature, I am not

inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to

raise such point at the time of framing of charge which would be

adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on its own merits in

accordance with law.

Accordingly, the application under section 482

Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.