After Alleged Fatal Fist-Blows Over ₹40 In Unpaid Groceries, Orissa HC Refuses To Set Aside Section 304 Cognizance

The deceased, Bijay Kumar Panda, operated a grocery shop.

On 20 March 2024, after a dispute over an alleged short payment for groceries, the petitioner allegedly attacked him, causing him to fall; he later died in hospital.

The FIR invoked Sections 341, 294, 323, 324 and 302 IPC.

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 294 and 304-A IPC, but the SDJM took cognizance under Sections 294 and 304 IPC by order dated 9 June 2025.

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that the record did not support Section 304 IPC.

The informant had separately approached the Supreme Court, which permitted the issue of whether the case warranted Section 302 IPC to be raised before the trial court.

The Court considered Sections 294, 304 and 304-A IPC, and the petitioner’s contention that the evidence did not disclose the knowledge required for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.

It stated that, in assessing the offence at the relevant stage, the court should consider the statements and documents collected during investigation together.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3588 of 2026, which permitted the informant to ask the trial court to consider whether the material supported Section 302 IPC and allowed the trial court, if needed, to seek further investigation and a report.

The Court treated the petitioner’s defence material as a matter for an appropriate later stage and noted that the trial court could consider the alleged offence when framing charge.

The Court noted allegations that the petitioner struck the deceased with fist blows to the left side of his chest, after which the deceased fell and later died.

It held that the petitioner’s reliance on selected witness statements did not justify intervention because the record had to be assessed as a whole.

The alleged absence of intention to kill did not, by itself, resolve whether the conduct involved the knowledge relevant to Section 304 Part II IPC; the trial court could assess the material at charge-framing.

The insurance document was not part of the investigation and was therefore not a basis to disturb the cognizance order at that stage.

The Court also noted the Supreme Court’s direction concerning consideration of the possible application of Section 302 IPC and concluded that the petitioner could raise his objections before the trial court.

It left the petitioner at liberty to raise his available contentions at the stage of framing charge, if that stage had not already occurred.