The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 184 of 1994 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Padmabati Muduli and others ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 : Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. Four convicts jointly filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.05.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 320 of 1993 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 105/93), whereby while acquitting the accused persons of offence under Section 304-B IPC, convicted them under Sections 498-A/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and on the said count, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for further period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and one year of R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for further period of three months for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 2. While the appeal was pending, this Court was apprised of the fact that appellant no.1-Padmabati Muduli and appellant no.2- Balakrushna Muduli have expired. Therefore, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the appeal against those deceased appellants stood abated, in the absence of any motion on behalf of the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased appellants U/s.394 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to appellant nos.3 and 4. 3. None appeared for the appellants despite repeated calls.
Legal Reasoning
no.4 is also covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1. 16. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction recorded by the learned trial court in respect of appellant no.4-Bidur Muduli is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant no.4 to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant no.4 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 appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant no.4 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. 17. In so far as the appellant no.3 is concerned, in his case is as well the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is upheld and the sentence is modified to that of the sentence he has already 1 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 Page 12 of 14 undergone. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- on each count of the offence imposed by the learned trial court is increased to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) on the count of each offence. Accordingly, the appellant no.3-Kedarnath Muduli is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as a fine amount on the count of his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC as well as Section 4 of the D.P. Act, in default of making such payment, he shall undergo R.I. for a period of three months. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to that of the period the appellant no.3 has already undergone. In the event, appellant no.3 fails to deposit the fine amount within a period of two months, he shall be taken into custody forthwith. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the appellant no.3 shall be disbursed to the family of the victim in accordance with Section 357 Cr.P.C. 18. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as token of appreciation. Page 13 of 14
Arguments
Therefore, this Court requested Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned counsel, who was present in Court, to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae and he has readily accepted the same and after obtaining the entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. Page 2 of 14 4. Heard Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Bharati (deceased) was the natural born daughter of Ratha Swain. Since Satrughna (P.W.4), brother of Ratha was issueless, he adopted the deceased and after she came up her age, had been given marriage to accused Kedar. Prior to the marriage, there was demand of cash of Rs.13,000/-, a T.V. Set, gold ornaments weighing 5 Bharis, utensils and wooden furniture as dowry and only when P.W.4 agreed to satisfy the said demand, the marriage was settled after the advance payment of Rs.8,500/-. Ultimately, the marriage between Kedar and deceased was solemnised on 17.02.1989 and as agreed upon by P.W.4 gold ornaments, cash of Rs.8,500/-, utensils etc. were given except T.V. set and remaining amount of Rs.4,500/-. However, P.W.4 had promised that when funds were available he would give the same. But due to financial stringency, he could not keep his words for which the deceased was humiliated and tortured by her husband, in-laws and other family members. On coming to know this fact, P.W.4 Page 3 of 14 accompanied by P.W.1, his nephew, had been to the accused's house to bring the deceased, but the accused persons refused to send her saying that unless the remaining cash and the T.V. set were given, the deceased would not be allowed to go. They had again gone to the accused's house to bring back the deceased but it did not yield any result. Ultimately, being tortured in in-laws' house, the deceased breathed her last on 20.03.1993. About this sad incident no information was given to her parents. However, about 4 to 5 days thereafter, P.W.1 coming to know of the death of the deceased, made a written report to the local Police, where-upon the present case U/s 498-A, 304-B read with section 34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. 6. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, police registered the case and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial; they were put to trial after the charges were framed. 7. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased; P.Ws.2 and 3 were Page 4 of 14 the relatives of P.W.1. P.W.4 was the adoptive father of the deceased; P.W.5 is the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of the case. 8. The learned trial court on analyzing the evidence on record, has recorded its finding in so far as the offence for which the accused persons have been convicted to the following effect:- “7. The present case depicts a sad story of harassment and torture which, according to the prosecution was meted out to the deceased since the time of her marriage till she breathed her last and in order to prove the same the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5. P.W.1 the real brother of the deceased speaks of the demand made by the accused persons prior to the marriage. According to him, over and above the demand of cash of Rs.13,000/- they had demanded a T.V. set, gold ornaments weighing 5 bharis, utensils and furnitures. Out of the aforesaid demand, cash of Rs. 4500/- and the T.V. set could not be given because of financial stringency. To the same effect is the evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5. The learned defence Counsel submitted with vehemence that since the aforesaid witnesses are the relations of the deceased and their evidence is not corroborated by any implicit reliance should not be placed on their testimony. He further urges that the prosecution in all fairness should have examined Laxmidhar Naik who, according to P.W.4 was the mediator in the marriage and was in know of the alleged demand of dowry. I am not inclined to accept such contention, the reason being that Laxmidhar Naik happens to be the co-villager of the accused persons and had he been examined by the prosecution it was quite but independent witness, Page 5 of 14 natural that he would have unhesitatingly supported the defence. In the case like the present one relations are most natural witnesses. Neighbours and co-villagers of the bride-groom seldom come forward to give a true account of ill-treatment shown to a newly weded woman. In view of this, I would hold that for non-examination of Laxmidhar Naik no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. It is further submitted by the defence counsel that the prosecution evidence is at variance as to when 8500/- out of total demand of Rs.13,000/- had been given to the accused persons. In this context, he draws my attention to the averments made in the F.I.R. and urges that it is not mentioned there-in as to whether payment of any cash was made either prior to or at the time of marriage. So, this being a material omission, evidence of P.W.1 the informant as well as that of P.Ws 4 and 5 regarding payment of Rs.8500/- towards, dowry should not be believed and relied upon. Law is quite clear that F.I.R. need not contain the details of the prosecution case. Only a gist of the incident is required to be mentioned so as to put the law into motion. However, if there is an omission of material fact, it may have some effect on the prosecution case but that itself alone will not be sufficient to discard the whole prosecution case as untrue. In the case at hand, F.I.R. allegations would indicate that there was demand of cash of Rs. 13,000/-, a T.V. set etc. but the fact of making payment of Rs.8500/- as deposed to by the witnesses did not find mention. However, it is clearly mentioned there- in that since the remaining dowry as demanded could not be given the accused persons were torturing the deceased. This pre-supposes that deceased's father had made some payment out of total demand of Rs.13,000/-to the accused persons. The above being the averment in the F.I.R, the consistent evidence of the P.Ws 1, 4 and 5 that only the remaining amount of Rs. 4500/- and a T.V. set were to be given later on cannot be dis-believed. Page 6 of 14 It is no doubt true that defence in order to prove that there was not at all any demand of dowry has examined lone witness D.W.1, but it is difficult to accept his testimony on its face value because of the fact that it was not at all suggested to P.W.4, the adoptive father of the deceased that D.W.1 as a co-villager was present at the time of marriage negotiation. D.W.1 also further speaks that he attended the marriage where nothing had been given by P.W.4 as dowry. It is common knowledge that dowry is given not to the knowledge of the invitees who attend the marriage. It is a matter in between the parents of the bride and bride-groom. I, therefore, discard the evidence of D.M.1 in toto since it is not trust- worthy.” The learned trial court has also recorded its finding in the following paragraph-9 of its judgment regarding the charges under Section 304-B IPC, of which the appellants are acquitted: “9. Coming to the offence U/s 304-B, I.P.C the prosecution has absolutely led no evidence that the death of the deceased occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances although admittedly she died within 7 years of her marriage. It is no doubt true that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment but evidence is lacking that the death was otherwise than under normal circumstances. It need be mentioned that the autopsy doctor under post-mortem report Ext. 6 could not give a definite opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Further, the prosecution also could not be able to lead any other evidence to prove that the death of the deceased was otherwise than under normal circumstance. In this view of the matter, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the aforesaid charge to the accused persons.” Page 7 of 14 In so far as the acquittal of the appellants for offence under Section 304-B IPC is concerned, there is no appeal preferred by the State. Hence, this Court need not delve upon the said issue anymore. 9. Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants submitted that the conviction is only based on the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 and all the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial court ought to have carefully scrutinized their evidence. 10. The reasoning recorded by the learned trial court makes it clear that the learned trial court has carefully appreciated the evidence and implicitly reliance has been placed on the said evidence. However, merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded particularly in the case of present nature. The evidence of demand of dowry and harassment is always exposing to the relatives of the victim. Therefore, the direct relatives of the victim are the natural witnesses. Hence, their testimony cannot be discarded merely they are related to the victim. I am not in Page 8 of 14 agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Mishra to disbelieve the evidence of all the witnesses, those who are related to the victim. 11. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants has also taken me to the evidence of all the witnesses to point out the contradictions. Per contra, Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has read out that part of the evidences, which are consistent in so far as demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased-victim by the appellants are concerned. There are specific allegations made against the appellants in the testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no escape on the part of the appellants from their recorded guilt under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 12. As a last straw on the back of the camel, Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in the event this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned trial court, the Court may take a lenient view in so far as the sentence is concerned. He has pointed out that the incident relates back to the year 1989. The Page 9 of 14 appellants were convicted in the year 1994 and since then the appeal is pending. More than three decades have already been lapsed in between and, therefore, much has changed by now. He submitted that at the time of incident appellant no.3 was aged about 25 years, whereas appellant no.4 was 23 years of age. Hence, at present appellant no.3 is aged about 61 years and appellant no.4 is 59 years of age. He further submitted that, over the years, they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating them 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 them but also upon their family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. In view of the changing situation and passing of more than three decades, Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the sentence may be modified taking into consideration the entirety of the fact and circumstances of the case. 13. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.07.2025, the IIC, Erasama Police Station has placed on record a report dated Page 10 of 14 08.08.2025. As per the report, the appellant no.4 is at present terminally ill. The report also supported with medical documents. As per the medical documents, appellant no.4 is suffering from High Grade Dysplasia. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Mishra, in so far as appellant no.4 deserves attention. 14. Taking into consideration the aforementioned report and the fact that more than three decades have been passed in between, while affirming the judgment of the learned trial court regarding the conviction recorded by it for offence under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, I modify the sentence in so far as appellant no.4 is concerned by granting him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr. P.C. on the facts scenario of the case. 15. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant no.4, clean antecedents, his health conditions, and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1989, I am of the considered view that the appellant no.4 is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant Page 11 of 14
Decision
19. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th of December, 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: 10-Dec-2025 11:30:37 Page 14 of 14