CRLMP/415/2026 of BASANTI BISWAL Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 13 July 2026

J U D G M E N T

……………………………………………………………………… Date of Hearing & Judgment: 13.07.2026 ………………………………………………………………………

Savitri Ratho, J. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMP being aggrieved by the investigation conducted in Pipli P.S. Case No.131 of 2026 which has been registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 117(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS against Santosh Swain, Lipi Swain, Bapina Swain, Ramesh Swain, Prakash Swain, Dipak Kumar Pradhan, Raja Pradhan and Kailash Pradhan.

PROSECUTION CASE

2. The allegations in brief as per the complaint of the petitioner submitted before the Pipili Police Station on 27.02.2026 is that on 26.02.2026 at about 9.00pm when her brother-in-law Jagannath Biswal, had gone to a feast in the village, Santosh Swain who was sitting on the vcanal bridge due to previous dispute. When Jagannath opposed him, Santosh Swain assaulted him on his head. Due to which, he sustatined injury on his eyebrow. When Jagannath cried for help, his family members rushed there. At that time Lipi Swain, Bapina Swain, Ramesh Swain, Prakash Swain, Dipak Kuymar Pradhan, Raja Pradhan and Kailash Pradhan rushed to the spot armed with various weapons. Lipina Swain assaulted Sukanti Biswal with a Paniki on her head in order to kill her, for which she sustained injury over her eye. Santosh

Swain used the same paniki to assault Bishnu Biswal and Maheswar Biswal, for which they sustained injury on their head. The injured admitted to CHC, Pipili but on account of severity of the injury the M.O referred them to Capital Hospital.

3. From a perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the prime accused in the case is one Lipi @ Lipina Swain daughter of Ramakanta Swain, who is alleged to have assaulted Sukanti Biswal with a Paniki on her head for which she has sustained serious injuries on her head and eye.

4. Sukanti Biswal was initially treated at CHC Pipli. Then referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar and was ultimately admitted in SUM Hospital , Bhubaneswar where she had to be put on ventilator during treatment . As per the injury report Sukanti Biswal sustained a incised injury 5 x 2 x 1 cm on her scalp and another incised injury over her right eyebrow, for which a requisition had been submitted on 05.03.2026 to the Director, SUM Hospital for recording of her dying declaration. In the case diary ( no. IV) on 06.03.2026, it has been mentioned that as per the injury report of M.O in charge SUM Hospital, that injury on scalp of Sukanti was grievous in nature and injury on right eyebrow was simple and both injuries caused by iron rod and vegetable cutter . .It is stated that dying declaration under Section – 26 (a) BNS was received but it was not possible to record the dying declaration as the patient was on INVASIVE mechanical ventilator support. INVESTGATION IN THE CASE AND INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING INVESTIGATION

5. This case has been listed on a number of occasions and various orders have been passed after perusing the case diary and instructions submitted by the IIC, Pipili Police Station and the I.O. in the case.

6. In the copies of the case diaries produced for perusal of the Court, the statements of Sukanti Biswal, Bishnu Biswal, Jagannath Biswal and Maheswar Biswal are not available. The injury reports of Jagannath Biswal , Bishnu Biswal and Maheswar Biswal and discharge certificate of Sukanti Biswal are not available.

7. This Court has found from the instructions as well as entries in the case diary, that it has been the continuous effort of the I.O. after 27.02.2026 to leave out Lipi Swain from the case. He has therefore projected , one Santosh Swain to be the main accused and to have assaulted Sukanti Biswal with a Paniki even though the allegation in the FIR and statements of Basanti Biswal and Prahallad Biswal who were examined on 27.02.2026 is that Lipi @ Lipina Swain had assaulted Sukanti Biswal on her head with a paniki resulting in injuries. Only Santosh Swain has been arrested during investigation. AFFIDAVIT OF THE I.O.

8. Pursuant to the order of this Court on 23.04.2026 an affidavit has been filed by Sri Chittaranjan Das , SI of Police, Pipli Police Station, who is the IO in the case. In the affidavit at paragraph- 4, it has been stated that prime accused Santosh Swain assaulted the victim Sukanti Biswal by a Paniki to kill her, due to which she sustained injuries on her eyes and the accused persons used the same Paniki to assault Bishnu Biswal and Maheswar Biswal. It is also stated that Sukanti Biswal was initially admitted in CHC Pipli , then referred to capital Hospital Bhubaneswar due to severity of injury and shifted to SUM Hospital Bhubaneswar for the same reason. In sub-paragraph-2 of paragraph-4 , it has been stated that dying declaration of the victim could not be recorded as Sukanti Biswal he was in ventilator. On 29.04.2026 , the entry in the case diary ( No. X) indicates that the I.O.

contacted the MO of SUM Hospital and learnt that Sukanti Biswal had been discharged from the hospital on 08.04.2026 and was in fine condition . In the affidavit it has been stated that witnesses well proved the case against Santosh Swain , Ramesh Swain and Prakash Swain . The name of Lipi @ Lipina Swain has been consciously left out without any explanation for doing so .

9. Paragraph-4 of the affidavit dated 08.05.2026 is extracted below: “4. That, it is humbly submitted that during course of Investigation, it has been revealed that there was a ill feelings between petitioner Basanti Biswal's family and accused Santosh Swain's family over land dispute and illegal Balighat dispute. On dt.26.02.2026 at 9 PM, when petitioner's brother-in-law Jagannath Biswal, S/O - Dhadu Biswal went to a feast in the village end, accused Santosh Swain (32), S/O Abhimanyu Swain of vill- Pamasara, PS- Pipili, Dist-Puri was sitting on the canal bridge abused him in obscene languages due to previous grudge. When Jagannath Biswal opposed him, the accused Santosh Swain suddenly assaulted him and hit him on his head. Due to which he received sustained injury on his eyebrow. When the victim cried for help, petitioner's family went there to rescue him. In the meanwhile, the family members of

Santosh Swain i.e 1) Lipi Swain, D/o- Ramakant swain, 2) Bapina Swain, S/o- Ramakant Swain, 3) Ramesh Swain, S/o- Abhimanyu Swain, 4) Prakash Swain, S/o Abhimanyu Swain, 5) Dipak Kumar Pradhan, S/o Kailash Chandra Pradhan, 6) Raja Pradhan, S/o Kailash Pradhan and 7) Kailash Pradhan himself rushed into the matter with arms in their hand, and the accused Santosh Swain & his brother Ramesh Swain and Prakash Swain assaulted the family members of petitioner Basanti Biswal mercilessly and both family members were engaged into it. In the meantime, the prime accused person Santosh Swain assaulted victim Sukanti Biswal by a Paniki to kill her in life, due to which she received sustained injuries on her eye. The accused person used same Paniki to assault Bishnu Biswal and Maheswar Biswal due to which they received sustained injuries on their head. They immediately admitted to CHC, Pipili but due to severity the MO referred them to Capital Hospital, Unit-6. But due to severity of the situation of victim Sukanti Biswal, she shifted to SUM Hospital, BBSR, Hence, the petitioner reported this matter at PS for legal action. Further. it is pertinent to mention here that during course of investigation of the case, I have examined the complainant and recorded his statement U/s-180 BNSS, visited the spot, examined other witnesses and recorded their statements U/s-180 BNSS, who well proved the occurrence against the accused person Santosh swain, Ramesh Swain and Prakkash Swain. Issued injury requisition and requisition for recording Dying Declaration in favour of the victim Sukanti Biswal (48), S/o- Jagannath Biswal to Director, Sum Hospital, BBSR and collected the injury report, and Dying declaration recording in which MO mentioned she was unable to record the declaration as she was in ventilator. As we managed to apprehend the accused Prakash swain and as prima-facie evidence U/s- 126(2) /115(2)/ 118(1)/109(1)/117(2)/ 351(3)/3(5) BNS is well established against the accused person Prakash Swain (45), S/o-Abhimanyu Swain, of vill- Pamasara, PS- Pipili, Dist-Puri., I arrested him on 27.02.2026 at 11.50 P.M and forwarded him to Hon'ble court of JMFC, Pipili, Both parties served with 107 BNSS on 25.03.2026. Issued requisition for the CDR of the possible mobile numbers of the accused persons to Cyber Cell, Puri and managed to get the CDR details. Conducted raid at the parental house and other possible location to apprehend the other alleged accused persons various times and could be able to apprehend. Another prime accused person namely Santosh Swain, S/o- Abhimanyu swain of vill-Pamasara, PS-Pipili, Dist-Puri on 02.04.2026 at night.”

INSTRUCTIONS DATED 03.07.2026 and 13.07.2026

10. Pursuant to order dated 24.06.2026 , instructions were called for regarding developments which have taken place in the case . In the instructions dated 03.07.2026 of the S.I. Pipli Police Station , it is stated that 90 days period is going to be completed on 27.05.2026, hence charge-sheet No.286 dated 27.05.2026 was submitted under Sections 126(2) / 115(2) / 118(1) / 109(1) / 117(2) / 351(3) / 3(5) of the BNS against accused persons Prakash Swain and Santosh Swain keeping investigation open under Section 193(9) of the BNSS and as investigation is going on and the culprits Lipina Swain, Bapina Swain, Ramesh Swain, Deepak Pradhan, Raja Pradhan, Kailash Pradhan will be detained as soon as possible. But copy of the chargesheet was not sent for perusal of this Court.

By letter / instructions dated 13.07.2026, the IO has sought for time to arrest Lipi @ Lipina Swain. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

11. In Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujarat : 2010 (12) SCC 254, the Supreme Court while upholding the order of the High Court directing for investigation of two cases by the State CID, quashed the charge sheets in the two cases. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted below : “25. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer "is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth". (Vide R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822; and Mahmood Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69).”

12. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 347, the Supreme Court has observed that the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. Delay should stand in the way of further investigation if further investigation will help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice.

13. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 762, the Supreme Court while considering the power of the Magistrate to direct for further investigation has observed as follows: - “41. …..The power of the Magistrate to direct “further investigation” is a significant power which has to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.”

ANALYSIS

14. From perusal of the affidavit as well as the instructions, of the IIC and the I.O., the FIR, the statements of witnesses Basanti Biswal and Prahallad Biswal which were recorded on the date of registration of FIR, it is apparent that the I.O. has subsequently changed the prosecution case by trying to shield / protect Lipina Swain who had been alleged to have assaulted injured Sukanti Biswal on her head with a paniki. When it has been alleged in the FIR, and in the statements of Basanti Biswal and Prahallad Biswal who were examined on 27.02.2026 that Sukanti Biswal had been assaulted with the paniki by Lipi @ Lipina Swain, he has subsequently prepared a few statements after about a month that co Santosh Swain had assaulted Sukanti on the head with a paniki. The statements of the injured have not been recorded during investigation.

15. After filing of the affidavit on 8th May, 2026, instruction dated 03.07.2026 of the I.O. was received, where it was stated that 90 days period is going to be completed on 27.05.2026, hence charge-sheet No.286 dated 27.05.2026 was submitted under Sections 126(2) / 115(2) / 118(1) / 109(1) / 117(2) / 351(3) / 3(5) of the BNS against accused persons Prakash Swain and Santosh Swain keeping investigation open under Section 193(9) of the BNSS and as investigation is going on and the culprits Lipina Swain, Bapina Swain, Ramesh Swain, Deepak

Pradhan, Raja Pradhan, Kailash Pradhan will be detained as soon as possible.

CONCLUSION

16. In view of the above discussions, I am satisfied that the investigation in the case is not fair and the I.O. Chittarajan Das has made all efforts to leave out Lipi @ Lipina Swain, without any justification. As stated earlier, he has not examined or collected the injury reports of all persons alleged to have been injured in the case. Most importantly, he has not examined Sunakti Biswal who had been discharged from the hospital, before submitting the chargesheet. Investigation in the case is therefor neither fair no unbiased. It appears to be highly interested and does not inspire confidence.

17. To ensure that the public does not lose faith in the police and investigation in Pipili PS Case No.131 of 2026, is free from bias and is conducted properly, I am satisfied that the investigation in the case should be handed over to an independent authority, in this case the State Crime Branch.

18. It is therefore directed the CID, Crime Branch should reinvestigate into Pipili PS Case No.131 of 2026.

19. The case diary in Pipli P.S. Case No.131 of 2026, along with related records be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Cuttack within a period of two weeks.

20. It is expected that investigation in the case will be conducted in accordance with law and completed expeditiously.

21. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the CRLMP is disposed of.

22. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

23. Copy of the Case diary be returned to the learned State Counsel.

24. Copy of this order be communicated to the learned JMFC, Pipili before whom the chargesheet has been filed.

(Savitri Ratho)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 13th July, 2026/RKS/Subhalaxmi

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jul-2026 14:24:36 Signature Not Verified