The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.314 of 2003 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Sarangdhar Sahoo ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Mohammad Fardish, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 15.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant- Sarangadhar Sahoo under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No.43 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.448 of 1998, whereby the present appellant and the co- accused persons, namely, Chania @ Rasananda Sahoo are convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and on that count, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for three months. 2.
Legal Reasoning
“8. Further, the Trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW1, PW-3 and PW-7 to hold that the gifts given to Accused No.1 at the time of marriage were voluntarily given by the bride’s family. The Trial Court noticed the statements of the relatives of the deceased wherein they have admitted that giving money to the groom for buying wedding dresses was a customary practice within their community. The Trial Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Sakhi Mandalani v. State of Bihar (1999) 5 SCC 705 to hold that when the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the accused for the major offences such as 498-A of the IPC, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act was improper. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to its case against the accused under the DP Act beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the accused were acquitted of all the offences. 17. Further, the facts in the case herein can be differentiated from the facts in Mandalani (supra). While referring to Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, in Mandalani (supra) this Court has held at paragraph 6 on page 707: These sections make out independent offences, but in the instant case it was the demand for dowry Page 7 of 11 coupled with harassment which constitutes the basis of the prosecution case. Once the main part of the charge under Section 304-B was not found established, it was not possible to record conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.” It is clear from the paragraph about that this Court did not lay down, as a general principle of law, that in all cases where the prosecution fails to prove an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, there is no need to consider the case of the prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. We therefore, find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/Accused No.2.” On the strength of the said judgment, Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment of Sakhi Mandalani (supra) is no more a good law. 10. Confronted with such position of law, Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant conceded the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and submits that the appellant was arrested on 17.08.1998. He was admitted to bail on 19.02.1999. Therefore, during trial, the appellant remain in custody for about six months. After the judgment, the appellant was again taken into custody on 27.11.2003 and this Court vide its order dated 22.12.2003 enlarged the appellant on bail pending the appeal. Therefore, in toto, the appellant has undergone Page 8 of 11 custody of seven months. At the time of incident, the appellant was 42 years of age. He is the elder brother of A1, who had married the deceased Puspalata. The allegation against the present appellant is only regarding the demand of dowry. There is no allegation made by the prosecution regarding his involvement in so far as causing the homicidal death of the deceased and that’s what is the finding of the learned trial Court also. It is pointed out that the present appellant has a clean antecedent. At present he is at his early 60s., leading a respectful life along with his family. The learned Counsel additionally submits that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. It is also stated that the appellant has also undergone one month in custody. Page 9 of 11 Therefore, Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant submits that instead of sending the appellant to custody to serve out the remaining sentence, he may be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 11. Regard being had to the procrastinated judicial process undergone, his societal position, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1998, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also squarely covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra reported in 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469. 12. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to Page 10 of 11 appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period of and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months. However, in relation to the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court i.e. Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), the same shall be paid as per the procedure as contemplated under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the parents of the victim, in default of which, the appellant shall undergo R.I. for three months.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Mohammad Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution set the criminal law into motion against the appellant and other co-accused persons pursuant to the registration of Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.100 of 1998 on 11.08.1998. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that: (a) The co-accused Rasananda Sahoo (A1) married Puspalata (deceased) on 03.06.1998. There was demand of dowry at the time of marriage like scooter, cash of Rs.10,000/- etc. At the time of marriage, the scooter and cash of Rs.10,000/- was given along with household articles. As the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- could not be given in time, the A1 and Page 2 of 11 the present appellant made demand for the same. Puspalata was coerced for non-fulfillment of demand. (b) It is alleged that a plan was hatched between A1 and one Mathura Naik (A3) to do away with the life of Puspalata. So, on 26.07.1998, A1 brought the deceased on his two wheeler as a pillion rider with a pretext to take her to her parental house. Instead of taking her to the parental house, she was taken to Barispada jungle along with A3 and there she was killed. So as to keep the entire incident in vogue, A1 took a false pretext before the police and lodged a report that the deceased Puspalata was kidnapped by someone dealing a blow on him. The dead body of Puspalata was screened. (c) It is further alleged that about a fortnight thereafter, bones along with some wearing apparels of the deceased Puspalata was recovered inside a jungle. The dead body was identified and investigation was taken up. The entire conspiracy and killing of Puspalata by A1 and A3 was exposed. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons for alleged commission of offences punishable under Page 3 of 11 Sections 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The charges were framed and the appellants were put to trial. 4. The defence took a stance of denial in the entire case in toto. The prosecution examined as many as twenty witnesses to establish its case and defence examined four witnesses on their behalf. The prosecution has relied upon numerous documents. 5. The learned trial Court by taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record has passed a very detailed and meticulous judgment thereby recording acquittal of all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/304-B/201/498-A of I.P.C. However, the learned trial Court found the present appellant and A1 guilty of offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Page 4 of 11 7. Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that he would confine his argument to the quantum of sentence alone. Therefore, I am not adverting to the merits of the case rather suffice it to say that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is the culmination of right appreciation of evidence, no fault could be found from the judgment of the learned trial Court. 8. The sole ground of Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant is that once the learned trial Court found the appellant not guilty either for the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C., conviction either under Section 3 or 4 of the D.P. Act is completely improper. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakhi Mandalani vrs. State of Bihar and others, reported in, (1999) 5 SCC 705 and in the said judgment, it is held as under:- “2. The appellant, who was the sister-in-law of the deceased Manju Mandalani, was convicted under Sections 304-B/34, 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC; 3 years’ RI under Section 498-A IPC; and 6 months RI under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Section 34 of IPC, by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. On Page 5 of 11 xxx appeal, the High Court acquitted her of the charges under Sections 304-B/34 IPC giving her the benefit of doubt. However, her conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was maintained. xxx xxx xxx 6. These sections make out independent offences, but in the instant case it was the demand of dowry coupled with harassment which constitutes the basis of the prosecution case. Once the main part of the found charge under Section 304-B was not established, it was not possible to record conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.” Mr. Fardish, learned counsel submits that same is the view of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Dash vrs. State of Orissa, reported in, 2003 (Supp.) OLR (NOC)-966, this Court as well held that once the appellant found not guilty either of the offence under Section 498-A or 304-B of I.P.C., the main part of the charges is not established, therefore, it would not be possible to record a conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Relying upon these two judgments, Mr. Fardish, submits that the conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 4 of the D.P. Act after having acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B/498-A of I.P.C. is not sustainable. Page 6 of 11 9. To counter the same, Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has relied upon the three Judge judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.953 of 2008 in the case of Krishnoji Rao Keserekar vrs. State of Karnataka. She has relied upon paragraphs-8 and 17 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
Decision
13. With the above observation, the CRLA is accordingly disposed of. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:23:51 Page 11 of 11