The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.226 of 1990 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 18th August, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, District-Balasore in Sessions Trial No.9/24 of 1990. 1. Ratnakar Sutar; and 2. Jula Sutar ---- -versus- …. Appellants State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.S. Mohapatra, G. Mohanty & P. Pradhan (Advocates) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 21.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th August, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, District-Balasore in Sessions Trial No.9/24 of 1990 CRA No.226 of 1990 Page 1 of 5 corresponding to Bonth P.S. Case No.51 of 1988 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.). Bhadrak. By the impugned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for commission of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year for commission of the the said offence. 2. Prosecution case is that accused, Abhiram Sutar (since acquitted) had married the deceased (Jayantilata), who did not belong to the caste of accused persons. He (Abhiram) was having illicit relationship with the deceased for which the village gentries in which due to intervention of local gentries, their marriage took place in the village temple. When both of them were brought to their house, the brother and mother of Abhiram, namely, Ratnakar and Jula restrained them from entering into the house and on the interference of the father of Abhiram, they were allowed to live in another newly constructed room. It is alleged that the deceased was not provided with food for which frequent quarrel was going on and accused Ratnakar got them separated. It is further stated that accused Ratnakar also threatened the deceased to leave Abhiram and stay somewhere-else for which she was subjected to cruelty by these accused persons and committed suicide. CRA No.226 of 1990 Page 2 of 5 3. Upon registration of the criminal case under section 306/498-A/34 of the IPC, investigation started and on completion of the Final Form, the Trial commenced. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offences, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. That is how the Trial commenced. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants (accused persons), from the very beginning, instead of questioning the finding of guilt against these accused persons, as has been returned by the Trial Court, confined his submission only on the question of sentence. He submitted that taking into account the age of the Appellants (accused persons) and the rural background from which they hail, as they are now living on by running petty business and on cultivation and maintaining their family, as they have already undergone the mental agony of the criminal trial for about 35 years, the sentence of further imprisonment, as has been awarded would stand too harsh. He, therefore, submitted that it is a fit case that at this distance of time, keeping in view all the relevant factors in mind, the sentence be appropriately modified to the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergo. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent- State, while submitting that the offence for which the conviction has been recorded against these Appellants (accused persons) is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to CRA No.226 of 1990 Page 3 of 5 three years and fine, contended that the sentence of imprisonment for a period 1 (1) year, as has been awarded by the Trial Court commensurate the offence committed under that circumstance. 6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.7). 7. The Appellants (accused persons) stood charged for commission of the offence under section 306/498-A/34 of the IPC. Upon examination of the evidence of the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution, the Trial Court has found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charge under section 306/498-A of the I.P.C against accused Abhiram, but has found the prosecution to have proved its case against Appellants, namely, Ratnakar & Jula under section 498-A of the IPC while holding them not guilty under section 306 of the IPC. The Appellants (accused persons) hail from the rural background and as it appears, they have been undergoing mental agony of a criminal trial right from the year 1990 till now for more than three decades. Nothing is placed as regards their criminal antecedent and as the evidence would reveal, no such serious incident had ever happened during the period. CRA No.226 of 1990 Page 4 of 5 Cumulatively viewing of all these aforesaid, this Court is the view that the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by accused (Jula Sutar) for committing the offence under section 498-A of the IPC and payment of fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months by accused Ratnakar Sutar at this distance of time, would serve in the interest of justice and meets its ends. Accordingly, the Appellants’ conviction for the offence under section 498-A of the IPC being confirmed; they are sentenced as afore-stated. 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the modification as to the order of sentence dated 18th August, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, District-Balasore in Sessions Trial No.9/24 of 1990 to the extent as indicated above. (D. Dash), Judge. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 04-Jul-2024 14:56:15 CRA No.226 of 1990 Page 5 of 5