Orissa High Court refuses to discharge men accused of vandalising residence of CM’s Private Secretary VK Pandian

The Orissa High Court last week upheld the trial court order rejecting the discharge petition filed by 16 men accused of barging into Odisha Chief Minister's Private Secretary V.K. Pandian's official residence in February 2018 and indulging in vandalism there.

The bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo opined that after going through the case records minutely, particularly the statements of the witnesses, it could not be said that there was absence of prima facie material against the accused persons.

The First Information Report in the case was lodged by one Dusmanta Kumar Das, the security guard at IAS officer Pandian's quarters. He alleged that at 10 am on February 10, 2018, some persons arrived at Pandian’s residence, shouting slogans and accusing Pandian of working for the ruling Biju Janata Dal.

He stated that around thirty to forty persons kicked the main gate of Pandian's residence and barged into the premises holding flags of a political party. He further alleged that they damaged the property and attacked him as well. Moreover, he claimed that two reporters of OTV were also there with the miscreants.

A case was registered against the unknown persons for commission of offences under sections 147/294/452/307/427/353/323/506/149 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, a prima facie case was found against the petitioners and chargesheet was submitted.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed a discharge petition before the Special C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar. However, the trial court held that it was difficult to hold that the charge against the accused persons was groundless without the scrutiny of evidence on record at that stage and therefore, it rejected the plea.

Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner contended that a false case had been foisted against the petitioners on account of political rivalry. He submitted that the witnesses examined during the investigation were mostly official witnesses and no independent witness had stated about the incident.

On the other hand, the State counsel argued that a number of witnesses examined during the investigation implicated the petitioners to be the participants in the vandalism. He further argued that at the present stage, meticulous examination of the evidence on record was not warranted and the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence of the prosecution case would be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of trial.

Agreeing with the same, Court said that whether the statements of the prosecution witnesses would be accepted or discarded is to be decided by the trial court at proper stage.

Court opined that a strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some material and noted that the trial court had found that there were materials available in the case record that showed that the petitioners entered the residence of the IAS officer raising hulla and assaulted the security guard.

Therefore, Court concluded that the trial court rightly rejected the discharge plea.

Case Title: Abhisek Acharya & Ors. v. State of Odisha