The High Court · 2001
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.184 of 2001 In the matter of an Appeal under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th August 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial Case No.27/51 of 1999. ---- Lalata Kumar Nayak …. Appellant State of Orissa …. Respondent -versus- Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode: ========================================================= For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Simon Jena, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. G.N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH DATE OF HEARING :03.05.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.05.2024 D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th August 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, in Sessions Trial Case No.27/51 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case No.1528 of 1998 corresponding to Bansada P.S. Case No.145 of 1998 of the file of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bhadrak. CRA No.184 OF 2001 Page 1 of 5 The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for offence under section-498-A of the Indian penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Prosecution case is that the accused had married Laxmi @ Chandrika Nayak, daughter of the Informant (P.W.5) sometime in June 1998. It is stated that at the time of marriage, besides demand of cash of Rs.7,000/- which had been given to the accused and his father namely, Lalit, who having faced the trial, since been acquitted, as per their demand, subsequently this accused, and his father (since acquitted) demanded more dowry. On 30.11.1998, this accused having visited the house of his father-in-law (P.W.5) had demanded cash of Rs.30,000/- as the requirement for arranging a job for him in Talcher. When the Informant (P.W.5) expressed his inability to pay the same, the accused while returning had gone to the shop of his brother-in- law and threatened him with dire consequences that unless he would be given the amount within three days, he would see something serious with his sister (wife of the accused). On 13.12.1998, the wife of the accused was found dead in the house. The Informant (P.W.5) came to know about the said fact of death of his daughter and he raised suspicion as to the involvement of CRA No.184 OF 2001 Page 2 of 5 this accused and others in killing his daughter (deceased). The Gramarakhi of the Bansada Police Station had lodged a written report with the Officer-In-Charge (OIC), Bansada Police Station for which U.D. case being initially registered, inquiry had been taken up and in course of that, inquest was held over the dead body and report to that effect has been prepared as also the dead body has been sent for postmortem examination. At this juncture, a written report being lodged by the Informant (P.W.5), who happens to be the father of the deceased, regular case being registered, investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.9) submitted the Final Form placing this accused and his father (since acquitted), to face the trial for commission of offence under section-498-A/304-B/302/201/34 of the IPC. 3. Learned Trial Court upon examination of evidence both oral and documentary and scrutinizing the same has held the prosecution to have failed to establish all the charges against the father of this accused namely, Lalit Mohan Nayak. Accordingly, he has been acquitted of the charges. This accused who is the husband of the deceased has been convicted only for the offence under section-498-A of the IPC. When the Trial Court has found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charges for commission of offence under section- CRA No.184 OF 2001 Page 3 of 5 304-B/302/201/34 of the IPC and section-4 of the D.P. Act, he has been found guilty of commission of offence under section-498-A of the IPC only. Accordingly, he had been sentenced as aforestated. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant from the beginning instead of questioning the finding of guilt against accused as has been returned by the Trial Court for commission of offence under section-498-A of the IPC, submitted that; looking at the present age of the Appellant which is around 55 years as against 30 years at the time of occurrence, as he hails from rural background and earns his living on daily wages, since he has undergone mental agony of criminal trial for more than 25 years, at this distance of time, sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone keeping the sentence of fine intact would be in the interest of justice and meet its end. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the sentence imposed on the Appellant commensurate the offence. 6. Taking into account the submissions made, the record being perused, it is seen that the Appellant when faced trial was aged about 30 years and by now, he has reached 55 years of age. The Appellant hails from rural background and it reveals from the evidence that at the relevant time, he was not doing any work and was in search of job. The Appellant has also remained CRA No.184 OF 2001 Page 4 of 5 in custody for two days short of two weeks. The Appellant having been charged for serious offence like section-304- B/302/201 of the IPC and section-4 of the D.P. Act, has simply been convicted for offence under section-498-A of the IPC. 7. Taking all these factors into consideration, in their proper perspective, this Court is of the view that for the commission of said offence under section-498-A of the IPC, at this distance time, after lapse of more than 24 years, the sentence of imprisonment for the period undergone with payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months would be serve the interest of justice and meet its end. 8.
Decision
The Appeal is allowed in part only as to the modification of the sentence to the extent as indicate above. For the conviction of the Appellant for the offence under section-498-A of the IPC, he is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for the period undergone and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. (D. Dash), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-May-2024 13:32:52 CRA No.184 OF 2001 Page 5 of 5