Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2005 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 An application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgments dated 30.05.2006 and 10.05.2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bargarh in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 3/23 of 2004/2006 respectively, confirming the judgment dated 08.12.2003 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh in G.R. Case No. 492 of 1996/ Trial No. 164 of 1997. -------------- CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Purnananda Pradhan ..… Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa ..… Opp. Party --------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, Advocate For Petitioner on behalf of Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate For Opp. Party ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, A.S.C. CRLREV No. 435 of 2006 Joshobanti Pradhan ..… Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa ..… Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, Advocate For Petitioner on behalf of Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate For Opp. Party ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, A.S.C. CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 1 of 10 CORAM: HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 01.05.2024 Savitri Ratho, J Criminal Revision No 437 of 2006 filed by Purnanada Pradhan and Criminal Revision No 435 of 2006 filed by Joshobanti Pradhan have been heard and disposed of together as the petitioners vide judgment dated 08.12.2003 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh in G.R. Case No. 492 of 1996/ Trial No. 164 of 1997 had been convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and to undergo R.I two months for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act . by the learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh. Challenging the judgment of the learned JMFC, Bargarh, Purananda Pradhan had filed Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2005 which has been dismissed on 30.05.2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 3/23 of 2004/2006 filed by Joshobanti Pradhan has been dismissed on 10.05.2006, both by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh confirming their conviction and sentence. CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 2 of 10 PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.05.1994, the victim Sureswari (who was dumb and deaf) had married Purnananda Pradhan in the Gayatri Temple at Sambalpur. Her parents had given dowry articles to her husband as per their capacity at the time of marriage. But after few months of her marriage, the petitioner-Joshobati Pradhan (in BLAPL No. 435 of 2006) mother-in-law, the father-in-law (who died during pendency of the case) and her husband demanded more dowry such as a scooter and a cash of Rs.10,000/- from her and her parents. When Sureswari expressed her inability to pay the amount, the petitioners started torturing her physically and mentally. Subsequently, Sureswari delivered a female child on 03.05.1995. Though the information was sent to the petitioners, they had not came to see the new born baby. After delivery of the said baby, the father of Sureswari with the help of other villagers requested the petitioners a number of times to take back Sureswari and her daughter, but they replied stating that they would allow them live at village Nileipali, if Rs.10,000/- cash and a scooter towards the dowry was given . Then the informant lodged F.I.R. before the OIC, Attabira CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 3 of 10 and case was registered as P.S. Case No. 105 of 1996. During course of investigation, the I.O., visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized dowry articles and arrested the petitioners and submitted chargesheet. After completion of investigation, the petitioners took trial, being charged under Section 498-A IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act. DEFENCE PLEA 3. The plea of the petitioners is one of denial and false implication. 4. The learned trial Court fixed the following points for determination: (i) Whether the accused persons being the husband or the relative of the husband subjected Sureswari to cruelty mentally and physically ? (ii) Whether there was harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security ?, (iii)Whether the accused persons demanded dowry articles ? 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses including P.W.8-Chhabila Bhoi father of the victim and the CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 4 of 10 informant. The victim was not examined. The defence did not examine any witness. 6. The prosecution exhibited six documents. Ext.1 is the Seizure list, Ext.1/1 is the signature of P.W.6 on Ext. 1, Ext.1/2 is the signature of P.W.8 on Ext.1, Ext.2 is the signature of P.W.7 on the zimanama, Ext.2/1 is the zimanama, Ext.2/2 is the signature of P.W.8 on Ext.2/1, Ext.3 is the seizure list, Ext.3/1 is the signature of the P.W.8, Ext.3/2 is the signature of P.W.12, Ext.4 is the seizure list, Ext.4/1 is the signature of P.W.12 on Ext.4, Ext.5 is the Zimanama, Ext.5/1 is the signature of P.W.12 on Ext.5, Ext.6 is the seizure list, Ext.6/1 is the signature of P.W.12 on Ext.6. The accused persons did not examined any witnesses in their favour nor did exhibit any documents. TRIAL COURT JUDGEMENT 7. The learned Trial Court after threadbare analysis of the evidence on record, relying on the evidence of P.W.8-the father of the victim accepted the case of the prosecution of torture of daughter of the informant on account of unfulfilled demand for dowry and convicted the petitioners for commission of the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 5 of 10 8. The petitioner-Purnananda Pradhan (in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006) had filed Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2005 in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. The petitioner-Joshobanti Pradhan (in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006) had filed Criminal Appeal No. 3/23 of 2004/2006 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. APPELLATE COURT JUDGEMENT The learned appellate court referred to the evidence of P.W.8 father of the victim and the informant, and found that it receives corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6, 7, 10 and 11 and that the judgment of the lower court is a well discussed one and conclusion did not require any second opinion and dismissed both the appeals. SUBMISSIONS 9. On 09.04.2024 a submission had been made on behalf of Mr. D.P.Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned counsel that the matter had been settled between Purnananda Pradhan (petitioner in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006) and the victim and they were staying together under one roof as husband and wife and that Joshobanti Pradhan (petitioner in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 6 of 10 CRLREV No. 435 of 2006) was dead. He was granted time to file a joint affidavit and the learned State Counsel had been asked to obtain instructions. On 25.04.2024, Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel produced the instructions of the IIC, Attabira Police Station which stated that the petitioner-Joshobanti Pradhan was alive and staying with Purnananda Pradhan (petitioner in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006) and the victim Sureswari was staying in her father’s house in village Dunguripali, Remanda while the petitioner-Purnananda Pradhan was staying with his second wife Sabitri. 10. Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the impugned judgments on merit and submits that since almost 30 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence and the petitioners were arrested and had been detained in jail custody for some time, if the convictions are confirmed, the sentences may be modified to the period undergone by them. 11. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that there is an ample material for upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section – 498-A / CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 7 of 10 34 IP.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Relying on evidence of the parents of the victim i.e. P.W.1-mother and P.W.8- father, who are witnesses to the assault on the victim and have also stated that petitioner-Purnananda Pradhan (in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006) demanded Rs.10,000/- cash along with a scooter for which he lodged F.I.R. and that their daughter was not being given proper food to eat due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand, he submits that the Criminal Revisions should be dismissed, and the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and 4 of the D.P. Act upheld. He submits that petitioner- Purnananda having married a deaf and dumb girl and thereafter having ill-treated and harassed her, deserves no indulgence for which his sentence should not be reduced. As regards petitioner- Joshobanti Pradhan (in CRLREV No. 435 of 2006) in view of her advanced age which is almost 80 years, he does not have any serious objection if the punishment is reduced to the period undergone. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 12. I have carefully gone through the depositions of the witnesses and the impugned judgments. Both the Courts have CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 8 of 10 considered the evidence of the P.Ws more specifically P.W.8, father of the victim who has given a vivid account of the torture and ill-treatment of the victim and demand of dowry by the accused persons and convicted them in the manner mentioned. I find no illegality in the impugned judgments regarding conviction of the petitioners under Section – 498-A IPC and Sec-4 of the D.P.Act and confirm the same. SENTENCE 13. I however find merit in the submission of the learned for modification in sentence. 14. Joshobanti Pradhan (petitioner in CRLREV No. 435 of 2006) is alleged to have tortured a deaf and dumb lady, but considering her advanced age (which is about 84 years now) as per report of the Police, I am not inclined to send her to custody after almost 30 years of the occurrence. In her case, sentence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act is converted to a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 498-A of IPC. No separate sentence is imposed for commission of offence under CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 9 of 10 Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The fine amount if realized, shall be paid to the victim 15. In case of the Purnananda Pradhan (petitioner in CRLREV No. 437 of 2006), in view of lapse of almost thirty years, the sentence under Section 498-A of IPC is modified. He is used to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more. No separate sentence is imposed for commission of offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The period undergone as UTP shall be set off. 16. With the modification in sentence, the CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 and CRLREV No.435 of 2006 are dismissed. ……………………… (Savitri Ratho, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 1st May, 2024. Puspanjali Mohapatra, Personal Assistant. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Jun-2024 18:17:41 CRLREV No. 437 of 2006 Page 10 of 10