The High Court · 2014
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK GCRLA NO.01 OF 2024 In the matter of an Appeal under section-378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of acquittal dated 19th April 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial Case No.26 of 2010. State of Odisha ---- -versus- …. Appellant Dhuleswar Rout …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: =============================================== For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Nayak, Additional Govt. Advocate. For Respondents - Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING:02.01.2024 :DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08.01.2024 D.Dash,J. The State having filed this Appeal under section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has called in question the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial Case No.26 of 2010 acquitting the Respondent of the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and section 3(1)(x)(xi) of GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 Page 1 of 7 {{ 2 }} the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC & ST (POA) Act’). 2. Prosecution case is that accused Ranjan Rout (since dead) who happens to be the son of accused-Dhuleswar Rout had married Sanjukta Mallick (deceased) on 12.10.2007. Accused Ranjan (since dead) is of Khandayat caste, whereas his wife Sanjukta (deceased) was a member of Scheduled Caste Community being Kandara by caste. So, it is said that for that reason they were not accepted by the present accused. Both then stayed at Puri and there accused Ranjan (since dead) used to illtreat Sanjukta insisting her to bring cash of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. It is said that subsequently accused-Ranjan left Sanjukta in her parents’ house. The father (P.W.3) and brother (P.W.19) of deceased-Sanjukta having arranged a sum of Rs.50,000/- took Sanjukta to the house of accused-Dhuleswar. Dhuleswar having received the cash however did not allow Sanjukta to stay in his house for which accused-Ranjan and Sanjukta went to village Kacharamal and stayed there in a rented house. But few days thereafter, the house owner drove them out for which Sanjukta again came back to her parents’ house. Some days thereafter on 02.06.2009, they stayed together in the house of the same village in a portion of the house of Ratnakar Rout, the elder father of Sanjukta. On 17.06.2009 around 8 P.M. both proceeded to see ‘Rama Lila’ in that Page 2 of 7 GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 {{ 3 }} village and did not return. On 21.06.2009, dead body of the deceased was found in a half-buried condition in a dry pond of that village. Getting information, Cuttack Sadar P.S. U.D. Case No.07 of 2009 was registered, and the dead body of Sanjukta being exhumed in presence of Executive Magistrate and others, inquest over the same was made. Thereafter, basing on the report of Judhistir Mallick (P.W.19), brother of Sanjukta (deceased), Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.111 of 2009 was registered for commission of offence under section 498-A/302/304- B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section- 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC & ST (POA) Act and the investigation commenced. This accused-Dhuleswar and his son accused-Ranjan (since dead) faced the trial. This accused- Dhuleswar however in the said trial stood charged for commission of offence under section 498-A of the IPC and section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC & ST (POA) Act. 3. During Trial, the prosecution has examined in total twenty-eight (28) witnesses and proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 25. From the side of the defence, two witnesses have been examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the statement of Judhisthir Mallick (P.W.19) has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext. A. During trial, material Page 3 of 7 GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 {{ 4 }} objects having been produced, those have been marked as M.O. 1 to M.O. VII. 4. The Trial Court having examined the evidence on record and upon their analysis from all possible angles has final concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against both the accused persons. In view of the death of accused-Balia @ Ranjan Rout before grant of leave to Appeal, leave being granted to file the Appeal; the same is now confined to the order of acquittal of accused-Dhuleswar of the charges under section 498-A of the IPC and section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC & ST (POA) Act. 5. Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. P. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the accused-Dhuleswar at length. 6. Keeping in view the submissions made; we have carefully read the judgment of acquittal. We have also extensively travelled through the depositions of all the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.28 and have perused the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Exts.1 to 25. 7. This being an Appeal against the order of acquittal, as per the settled position of law, the interference with the order of acquittal is Page 4 of 7 GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 {{ 5 }} called for when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. The Court for the purpose has to ascertain that the judgment impugned is unreasonable and that relevant convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process. However, when the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not perverse and contrary to the materials on record and there stands no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused, no interference is warranted. It is now well settled with a catena of decisions of Apex Court that in an Appeal against acquittal, the following cardinal rules are required to be kept in mind which are:- (a) that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands strengthened by the acquittal of the accused in the Trial; (b) if two views are possible, a view favourable to the accused should be taken; (c) that the Trial Judge had the advantage of the looking at the demeanour of the witnesses; and (d) the accused is entitled to reasonable benefit of doubt, a doubt which a thinking man will reasonably, honestly and consciously entertain. 8. This accused-Dhuleswar is the father-in-law of the deceased- Sanjukta. P.W.1 is the wife of the brother of deceased-Sanjukta. She has GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 Page 5 of 7 {{ 6 }} stated that this accused was not agreeable for such marriage and as such, he did not allow accused-Ranjan to enter into the house with Sanjukta and stay with them for which accused-Ranjan went with Sanjukta to Puri. She does not state anything with regard to any cruelty being meted out by this accused at the deceased-Sanjukta, when she has stated about the dispute between the accused-Ranjan and Sanjukta and demand made by accused Ranjan. She never gone to the house of this accused. Similar is the evidence of P.W.2, who has further stated that this accused had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from Judhisthir (P.W.19). It is his evidence that accused-Ranjan was ill-treating Sanjukta. He has not cited any such particular instance/s as to the ill-treatment or cruelty being meted out at Sanjukta by this accused-Dhuleswar. Even the brother of deceased namely, Judhisthir Mallick (P.W.19) is simply stating that accused-Dhuleswar had no sanction for the marriage and as such did not accept Sanjukta as his daughter-in-law and allow her to stay in his house on the ground of her caste. Nothing more has been stated by him as regards any specific role to have been played by accused-Dhuleswar in ill-treating deceased. The deceased and accused Ranjan were not staying at the relevant time with the present accused-Dhuleswar in their house. When it is there in the evidence that from the beginning, accused- Dhuleswar had no consent for the marriage and did not allow accused- Page 6 of 7 GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 {{ 7 }} Ranjan and Sanjukta to stay in their house, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Dhuleswar received cash of Rs.50,000/-, does not appear to be trustworthy in the absence of any further evidence that even at times accused-Ranjan and Sanjukta were going to his house and that after said payment, they too had been but were not allowed. 9. It further appears that the Trial Court on detail analysis of evidence on record assigning good reasons has found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charges under section 498-A of the IPC and section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC & ST (POA) Act as against the accused; we do not find, such finding to be in any way unreasonable and based upon unjustifiable elimination of the material evidence available on record. Thus, we are of the view that the judgment of acquittal of the present accused-Dhuleswar does not warrant interference. 10.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. G. Satapathy, J. I Agree. Signature Not Verified Narayan Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jan-2024 16:34:38 GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2024 (D. Dash), Judge. (G. Satapathy), Judge. Page 7 of 7