The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.294 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Harihar Naik ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Trial(Sessions) No.202/2004/51/2004, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to further undergo R.I. of six months. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. a) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows: Binati Naik, sister of Dukhabandhu Naik (P.W.5), was married to the accused Hari @ Harihar Naik as per caste and customary rites. She lived with the accused in her matrimonial home for about two years. However, owing to domestic discord, the accused, under the influence of liquor, often physically assaulted her. On such occasions, when Binati tried to return to her parental home, her brother Dukhabandhu (P.W.5) persuaded her to adjust to the situation and left her back at her husband’s house. Eventually, a village meeting was convened, wherein the father of the accused executed a written undertaking assuring that the accused would not torture his wife. b) On 07.11.2003 at about 5 P.M., P.W.5 received a phone call from the accused informing him that his sister’s health condition was serious. Immediately, P.W.5 along with his younger brother rushed to the accused’s house and found Binati was in a critical condition. They Page 2 of 8 shifted her to Jarapada Hospital, where the doctor, upon examination, declared her dead. Suspecting foul play, P.W.5 lodged the First Information Report (Ext.2) at Jarapada Police Station. The report was received at about 3 A.M. on 08.11.2003 by Debadatta Baral, the then Officer-in-Charge, who registered Jarapada P.S. Case No. 85/2003 and directed Palma Charan Das (P.W.7), Sub-Inspector of Police, to take up the investigation. c) After completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC, or in the alternative under Section 306 IPC. The accused having pleaded not guilty, faced trial. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges against the accused, has examined as many as seven witnesses, however none has been examined by the defence. 5. The learned Trial Court, upon a detailed appreciation of the evidence and analysis of the case from various angles, examined whether the charges against the accused could be sustained. Particular reliance was placed on the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 5, and 6, who were close relatives of the deceased. On scrutiny, the Court found that the evidence Page 3 of 8 suffered from serious lacunae, which created doubt regarding the prosecution case in so far as the offences under Sections 302 of IPC or, in the alternative, 306 of the IPC are concerned. Accordingly, the accused was extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted of those charges. However, the Trial Court found the allegation of cruelty against the deceased to be proved through the consistent testimony of the relatives of the deceased. The Court observed: “Disclosure of cruelty would normally be made to the related persons. Hence, their testimony cannot be rejected as interested witness. I have closely scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws. 2,5 and 6 in particular and found that there evidence clearly discloses that Binati Naik was subjected to physical cruelty by her husband (accused). In the above circumstances and for the foregoing reason the accused held guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted thereunder as per the provision of Section-235(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code.” 6. Aggrieved, by the Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Page 4 of 8 7. This Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 5, and 6, though being relatives of the deceased, is cogent, trustworthy, and consistent on the aspect of cruelty meted out to Binati Naik by the accused. Their testimonies stand corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and have rightly been accepted by the Trial Court. It is a settled position of law that when the prosecution evidence inspires confidence, the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased cannot by itself be a ground to discard their testimony. The Trial Court has correctly distinguished between the lack of sufficient proof regarding the charge of murder or abetment of suicide, and the clear proof of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Hence, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder warrants no interference. 8. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that keeping in view the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellant in this case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellant he Page 5 of 8 submitted on the quantum of sentence that the incident pertains to the year 2003. The appellant has undergone the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2005 (18.07.2005). The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 20 years. The appellant who was in his late twenties then is now in his late forties and therefore, sending him to custody for fulfilling his remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The learned Counsel further submitted 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. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the accused-appellant has Page 6 of 8 already undergone about 6 months of the sentence, which have not been controverted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 9. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel at bar, although as mentioned in the above paragraphs, I affirm the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the appellant U/s.498-A IPC , but think it appropriate to modify the sentence. Considering the entire features of the case I could have dealt the appellant U/s.4 of the P.O. Act. However, when the Appellant has already suffered imprisonment for six months, injustice would be compounded if I now grant him the treatment under the Probation of Offender’s Act. I would, therefore, while affirming conviction, reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. However, in the fitness of the case, I feel it appropriate, to increase the fine amount to that of Rs.10,000/- , in default of which the appellant shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one month. The fine amount shall be realized to the Page 7 of 8 parents of the Victim(if alive) as per the procedure established U/s.357 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the CRLA is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th of September 2025/ Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:56:40 Page 8 of 8