The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.96 of 2012 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Sangram Sahu ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. B.B. Routray, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. B.K. Ragada, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute that at the time of commission of the offence, the alleged accused was the juvenile, as his date of birth was 16.07.1993 and the alleged offence had taken place on 15.08.2010. Therefore, the alleged accused in the instant case being admittedly the juvenile is treated as the Juvenile-in-Conflict with Law (J.C.L.). 9. On analysis of the evidence on record brought by the prosecution, the C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bargarh found the J.C.L. guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/ 498-A/34 IPC read with Section-4 of the D.P. Act. In view of the said conviction, the learned trial Court passed the following sentence: The Social Investigation Report submitted by the Sub- “16. Divisional Probation Officer, Bargarh is perused by the Board. The report reveals that the family of the J.C.L. is poor middle class standard of living in the society. The report further reveals that the J.C.L. was working as a readymade dress seller and he was earning Rs.1500/- per month. No criminal record was reported by the local people during enquiry by the Probation Officer. Thus there is nothing to indicate that the J.C.L. had committed any offence prior to the occurrence in this case. Further the report reveals that bad Association was responsible for commission of the crime. However, in the present case, it is seen that the J.C.L. along with his family members subjected the deceased to cruelty for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry Page 5 of 11 which led her to commit suicide. No doubt, such action is disturbing phenomenon and is a growing evil in the society. So such offenders should be dealt with severely. The material on case record reveals that the date of birth of the J.C.L. is 16.07.1993. Thus taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case in which offence was committed and regard being had to the age, character and antecedents of the J.C.L. as well as in the interest of the J.C.L. and the public, the Board feels it expedient to direct the J.C.L. shall be sent to Special Home. Accordingly, it is directed that the J.C.L. be kept in the Special Home for a period of three years as per Section 15(1) (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The pre-conviction detention period of the J.C.L. in the Observation Home be set off against his sentence.” 10. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Court below, the J.C.L./ petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.14/50/1 of 2011 before the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Bargarh. The Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 03.02.2012 rejected the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. 11. Having failed in his appeal, the J.C.L./petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition. 12. Heard Mr. B.B. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Page 6 of 11 13. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record. 14. In the instant case, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is clinching and consistent with the F.I.R. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The J.C.L./petitioner has put-forth a defence that the deceased was unhappy for her marriage with him, as he was younger to the deceased. Out of frustration, she has committed suicide. 15. Learned trial Court dealt with the defence taken by the J.C.L. and recorded the following finding: “14. On the other hand, the plea of the defence is a complete denial to the allegations made by the prosecution. The J.C.L. during his examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. took the plea of his false implication in this case. According to him, the deceased was unwilling in her marriage with him. She was insisting him on her leaving at her father’s house. She was also assaulting him. One day when he returned to his house from market, he saw the deceased died by committing suicide. So he had informed the matter to Police. The defence has also gave suggestion in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 5 and 6 that the deceased was not satisfied with her marriage as the same was solemnised with the J.C.L. who was younger to her. Further it is suggested by the defence to these witnesses that as they did not listen to her, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging with her own “Odhani”. It is further suggested by the defence in the cross- Page 7 of 11 examination of P.W.6 that the deceased was not satisfied with the sexual desire with her husband. However these witnesses denied to such suggestion of the defence. The defence also led no evidence to substantiate its plea by adducing evidence on this aspect. So such plea of the defence is not acceptable in absence of acceptable evidence to that effect. However from the evidence on record along with the plea of the J.C.L., it is seen that there was no congenial atmosphere in the house of the J.C.L. The consistent evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 indicates about torture to the deceased by the J.C.L. and his family members due to non-fulfillment of their alleged demand. This also gets corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7, 8 and 10 before whom P.W.6 had disclosed about the same. P.W.14 has also stated about the same. Thus I find that the prosecution has proved that the deceased was subjected to torture by the J.C.L. and his family members due to non-fulfillment of their unlawful demand. On going through the evidence on record along with the plea of defence, it is clear that there was misunderstanding between the husband and the wife and the deceased was staying at the house of her husband in an unhappy atmosphere. So in such circumstances, the defence has to explain satisfactorily as to how the deceased died which was exclusively within the knowledge of the J.C.L. and his family members. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no material worthy of credence to hold that the deceased was hypersensitive and that for other reason and not account of cruelty she had lost normal frame of mind and being overcome by unusual psychic imbalance, decided to end her life by committing suicide. The plea of the defence is that the deceased was not satisfied in her marriage with the J.C.L. as he was younger to her. This plea of the defence is not substantiated by acceptable evidence. I am also unable to accept that this circumstance is sufficient enough to lead a wife to commit suicide. However, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly establishes that the deceased was subjected to torture from the very beginning of her marriage life. So such acts of the J.C.L. and his family members were quite likely to destroy the normal frame of mind of the deceased and to drive her to frustration and mental agony to end her life by committing suicide. Thus I find that the prosecution has proved the offences under Section 304-B/498- A/34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Page 8 of 11 the J.C.L. beyond all reasonable doubts. But it is seen that it has failed to prove the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. beyond doubts.” 16. The Appellate Court has gone by the finding recorded by the trial Court and agreed with the conclusion drawn by the trial Court. 17. The demand of dowry and the torture meted out to the deceased which lead to the commission of suicide has been clearly borne out from the evidence of all the witnesses. The Appellate Court in para-11 of the judgment has held as follows: “11. P.Ws. 6, 8, 10 and 14 had been to the spot soon after the occurrence and found injury on the neck of the deceased. P.W.17 has stated to have seized the ‘Odhani’ of the deceased from the spot used for such hanging under seizure list Ext.12. Ext.10 is the Querry requisition made by P.W.16 to the concerned Medical Officer for his opinion as to whether the death of the deceased by hanging can be possible by the seized ‘Odhani’. The opinion of the concerned doctor is found in the affirmative on the verification of the seized ‘Odhani’ produced before him by the Constable No.246 Ramakanta Rout of Sohela P.S. There is no cross-examination to this effect made by the defence. P.W.17 has also seized the wearing apparels of the appellant under Ext.14. Ext.8 is the seizure list of sample blood, nail clippings, scalp hair of the J.C.L. Ext.6 is the seizure list of wearing apparels and ornaments of the deceased made by P.W.17. He has also prepared the sketch map of the spot which is marked Ext.11. It is clearly revealed from the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 that a phone call was received on 16.08.2010 at about 11 A.M. about the death of the deceased in the house of the appellant and accordingly P.W.6 along with others proceeded to the spot and found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her neck and other parts of her person. He has also stated about the inquest made over the dead body of the deceased by Police under Ext.1. Ext.2 is the F.I.R. lodged by Page 9 of 11 him at Sohela P.S. P.W.7 is a witness to inquest who has supported the stand of P.W.6 on this point. P.Ws. 8, 10 and 14 had been to the spot on 16.08.2010 and noticed the injuries on the neck of the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is clear that on 15.08.2010 the deceased had also telephoned P.W.5 stating that the J.C.L. and others subjected her to torture and assault the dowry demand. On considering the oral evidence adduced by the above witnesses as well as the medical evidence led by P.W.9, it is clear that the death of the deceased was caused by hanging which had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances because of the cruelty and harassment caused by the J.C.L. and others.” for non-compliance of 18. I find no reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the learned Courts below in view of the unimpeachable evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, I am not inclined to give indulgence to the J.C.L./petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Petition. 19. Perusal of the proceeding of this Court dated 17.02.2012 indicates that the J.C.L./petitioner remained in the Special Home pursuant to the conviction for about one year and nine months. The incident had taken place in the year 2010. At that point of time, the petitioner was only 15 years old. The present Criminal Revision Petition is pending since 2012. Therefore, question of sending the J.C.L./petitioner to the Special Home at this belated stage after lapse of about one and half decades would serve no purpose. Since the J.C.L./petitioner has already undergone the Page 10 of 11 period of detention in the Special Home for about one year and nine months, I consider it deem fit and proper to reduce the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court to that of the sentence of detention already undergone by the J.C.L./petitioner. 20. With the aforesaid modification, the present Criminal Revision
Arguments
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 18.07.2024 : Date of Judgment: 30.07.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.: Bargarh in Criminal Appeal No.14/50/1 of 2011, whereby the order of conviction and sentence dated 24.10.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M.- cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bargarh in Juvenile G.R. Case No.242/26 of 2010 has been confirmed. 2. The prosecution case is that, the informant in the present case had given his second daughter Rukmini Sahu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in marriage with the Juvenile-in-Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as “the J.C.L.”) on 08.07.2010 as per their caste and custom. He had gifted some articles to the deceased at the time of her marriage. After the marriage, the deceased was staying with her husband at her in-law’s house in Sohela. The J.C.L. (present petitioner) and his parents were not satisfied with the articles given to the deceased at the time of her marriage. So, they subjected the deceased to torture demanding a colour T.V., bi-cycle, gold ornaments etc. The father of the J.C.L./petitioner had also threatened the informant of dire consequences, if their demand was not fulfilled. They also did not allow the deceased to perform customary visit to her parent’s house. On several occasions, they had intimated their demands to the informant and his family Page 2 of 11 members. The informant had also assured to fulfill their demand to the extent of his ability and requested them not to subject the deceased to torture. Expecting peaceful settlement of the matter, he had not reported the matter to the Police. On 15.08.2010 at about 8 P.M., there was a telephonic conversation between the deceased and her mother. The deceased, had disclosed about physical torture on her by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry during the telephonic conversation. The informant came to know about the same from his wife. On 16.08.2010 at about 11 A.M., he came to know over phone that his daughter (the deceased) died. So, he went to the village of the J.C.L./petitioner and found the dead body of the deceased with mark of assault and bleeding. The deceased was killed by her husband and in- laws due to non-fulfillment of their demand. So, the informant lodged F.I.R. in pursuance of which Sohela P.S. Case No.115, dated 16.08.2010 was registered and investigation was taken up. 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the J.C.L. Accordingly, he faced enquiry in the present case. Page 3 of 11 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 17 witnesses and 14 documents were exhibited. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. 5. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and directed that the J.C.L./petitioner be kept in the Special Home for a period of three years as per Section 15(1) (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 6. The J.C.L. has faced the enquiry for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302/304-B/498-A/34 IPC read with Section-4 of the D.P. Act. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the J.C.L. examined 17 witnesses. P.W.6 was the informant. P.W. 5 was the wife of the informant, P.W.14 was the son-in-law of the informant whereas P.Ws.3, 8 & 10 were the witnesses, who have deposed that the informant disclosed before them regarding the demand of dowry made by the J.C.L. and their family members. P.W.7 was the witness to the inquest of the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.4, 11, 12, 13 & 15 were the seizure witnesses. P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who had conducted the Post Page 4 of 11 Mortem of the deceased whereas P.Ws.16 & 17 were the Investigating Officers in the present case. 8.
Decision
Petition is disposed of. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 30th July, 2024/Subhasis Mohanty, Personal Assistant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 29-Aug-2024 18:41:27 Page 11 of 11