The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.158 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Simanchal Naik ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. G.N. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellant under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.11 of 2003, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant U/s.498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R.I. six months 2. The case of the prosecution, tersely put, is that on 03.06.2002, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR alleging that his daughter had been subjected to persistent mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband the accused-appellant due to his repeated and unfulfilled demands for money and other valuable items. Acting on the said FIR, the police set the criminal law in motion and initiated investigation against the accused appellant. Prior to this, on 01.06.2002, upon receiving the news of his daughter’s untimely death, the informant had rushed to the matrimonial residence of the deceased, where an Unnatural Death (U.D.) case had already been registered by the local police, and an enquiry was underway. However, in light of the specific allegations made in the subsequent FIR, a prima facie case of cruelty and harassment came to be established against the accused, which was investigated and the accused- appellant was put to trial. Page 2 of 8 3. To substantiate the case put against the accused-appellant, as many as eight witnesses were examined out of which P.W. 1 was the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer and P.W.2 was a witness to the inquest, P.W.3 was a neighbor of the accused, P.Ws.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased, P.W.6 was a distance relative of the deceased and P.W.7 is her uncle. Apart from the oral evidences, other documentary evidences have also been exhibited by the prosecution to support the case against the accused-appellant. However, defence has not examined any witnesses. 4. The learned trial Court analysed the oral evidence and documents on record mainly on the points that, whether the death of the deceased was suicidal and whether soon before her death she was subjected to any kind of cruelty of harassment by the accused in connection with the demand for dowry. The learned Court below also examined that whether the willful conduct of the accused have driven the victim to commit suicide and whether there was any actual demand for dowry to the deceased and her family. Page 3 of 8 5. The learned trial court also examined the case through the lens of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113 and 106of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the prosecution failed to establish the date of marriage between the appellant and the deceased, which is a crucial requirement under the law, as both provisions apply only when the death occurs within seven years of marriage. In the absence of such foundational evidence, no presumption regarding dowry death or abetment of suicide arising out of cruelty could be drawn or inferred. Accordingly, the learned Court below rightly discarded this line of argument. 6. The learned Trial Court while examining the case in light of required ingredient of abatement as defined in Section 107 read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code found nothing on record to establish the same. However, the learned trial Court appreciating the evidence on record conclusively found that the woman was subjected to harassment by the accused-appellant. So, resultantly the court below convicted the appellant for offence U/s.498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant part of the judgement is stated herein for ready reference: Page 4 of 8
Decision
“19. Thus from the discussion as made above, the prosecution has failed to prove demand of any dowry by the accused at any point of time nor the prosecution establish the charges under section 304-B and 306 I.P.C. against the accused. But the prosecution succeeded in establishing the charge u/s 498-A I.P.C against the accused. 20. In the result while the accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s 304-B and 306 I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P. Act and acquitted there under, he is found guilty for the offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. only, and I convict him thereunder.” 7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 8. Heard Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Sarita Moharana, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 9. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued the case on merit and taken me to the evidence on record. After arguing for some time, he 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 would rather confine his argument to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the incident relates back to the year 2002. The appellant has undergone the rigors of Page 5 of 8 trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2005 (07.04.2005). The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 20 years. The appellant who was in his early-thirties then is now in his mid-fifties 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 to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the accused has already undergone about 9 months of the sentence. Page 6 of 8 10. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel at the Bar, although I affirm the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C., but thinks it appropriate to modify the sentence. Considering the entire features of the case, I could have dealt with the appellant under Section 4 of the P.O. Act. However, it has been brought to my notice by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, which has not been disputed by Mrs. Moharana, learned ASC that the appellant has already undergone a custody of about nine months. When the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for nine 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.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand), in default of which, the appellant shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one month. The fine amount shall be disbursed to the parents of the victim as per the procedure established under Section 357 Cr.P.C. Page 7 of 8 11. Accordingly, the CRLA is partly allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Ashok (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:18:06 Page 8 of 8