The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK S JCRLA No. 105 of 2006 An appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh in S. T. Case No.28 of 2004. --------------------- Arta Meher ....... Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ....... Respondent For Appellants: - Mr. Biswajit Nayak Advocate For Respondent: - Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan Addl. Standing Counsel --------------------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 16.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By the Bench: The appellant Arta Meher faced trial before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh, in S.T. Case No.28 of 2004 for commission of offences punishable under JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 1 of 25 sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”) on the accusation that, being the husband of Lalita Meher (hereinafter “the deceased”), he subjected her to cruelty and within seven years of the marriage, committed her murder by throttling in connection with a demand for dowry. The learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2006, though acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 304-B of the IPC, but found him guilty of the offences under sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Prosecution Case: 2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the First Information Report (hereinafter “F.I.R.”) lodged by P.W.4 Khirod Meher, the brother of the deceased, on 31.05.2004 before the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized about forty days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. in accordance
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that the quality of evidence, and not the quantity, is decisive. The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses has remained unshaken and clearly establishes the demand of dowry, torture meted out to the deceased, her unwillingness to accompany the appellant back to matrimonial house and the convening of a meeting, pursuant to which, on the JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 20 of 25 assurance of the appellant not to subject her to further cruelty, the deceased was sent with him. Significantly, the death occurred on the very next day. In such circumstances, the non- examination of some official or other witnesses does not, in any manner, impair the credibility of the prosecution case. The evidence of the Investigating Officer further reveals that broken pieces of bangles were found at the spot, and the inquest report indicates that the dead body was brought from inside the house to the verandah where the inquest was held. The evidence of P.W.2, the father of the appellant also shows that the appellant was sleeping on a cot close to the deceased in the fateful night. The medical evidence conclusively establishes that the deceased died a homicidal death due to throttling. Although specific questions were put to the appellant under examination, he failed to explain the circumstances in which the homicidal death occurred. In view of section 106 of the Evidence Act, when facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden of explaining those facts lies upon him. While section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof, the failure of the accused to offer any explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge can be treated as an additional JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 21 of 25 link in the chain of circumstances, completing the prosecution case. In the case at hand, it is admitted that the homicidal death of the deceased occurred in the house of the appellant during the night, and the appellant was present in close proximity, sleeping beside the deceased, as stated by P.W.2. If the defence contends that someone else committed the crime, it ought to have been specifically stated and substantiated; however, the defence remains entirely silent on this point. 10. The scribe of the F.I.R. being examined as D.W.1 has stated that he did not see the informant (P.W.4) when on the dictation of the then O.I.C., Baunsuni P.S., he scribed the F.I.R. He further stated that since he was working as home guard under Baunsuni police station, he worked under the instruction of the O.I.C. The prosecution in the cross-examination has suggested that he scribed the F.I.R. as per the instruction of P.W.4 and gave necessary endorsement after scribing the F.I.R. and that being gained over by the appellant, he was concealing the truth and deposing falsehood. In view of such statement given by the scribe of the F.I.R., the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was a concocted F.I.R. and it was not lodged by P.W.4. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 22 of 25 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all acceptable. P.W.4 has specifically stated that he lodged the F.I.R. being scribed by D.W.1 and that under his instruction, D.W.1 scribed it. He further stated that the scribe read over and explained the contents of the F.I.R. to him and then he gave his signature thereon. He further stated that the scribe also signed the F.I.R. in his presence and he proved the F.I.R. as Ext.5, his own signature thereon as Ext.5/1 and the signature of the scribe as Ext.5/2. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had read up to 5th class and he had prior acquaintance with the scribe who was not his classmate nor colleague. No suggestion has been given to P.W.4 that the F.I.R. was scribed by D.W.1 on the dictation of the O.I.C., Baunsuni P.S. and that he had not dictated the scribe nor the F.I.R. was not read over and explained to him by the scribe and that his signature was subsequently taken in the written F.I.R. and that he has got no idea as to what was written in the F.I.R. Similarly, the I.O. has stated in the cross-examination that he had got no prior acquaintance with the scribe of the F.I.R. and that he had neither examined him nor cited him as a witness. He denied the defence suggestion that the F.I.R. has been scribed by D.W.1 to his dictation. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 23 of 25 Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a concocted F.I.R. prepared on the dictation of the O.I.C. and not on the version of P.W.4 is not at all acceptable. 11. In view of the consistent evidence on record that within forty days of marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and due to such ill-treatment, she was unwilling to accompany the appellant to her matrimonial house, it is evident that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 498-A of the I.P.C. Similarly, since the deceased suffered a homicidal death by throttling and the appellant who was present with the deceased inside the house at the relevant time, has offered no explanation regarding the circumstances of her death, we are of the humble view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty under section 302 of the I.P.C. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under sections 498-A/302 of I.P.C. and the sentence passed thereunder stands upheld. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit in the Jail Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, the JCRLA stands dismissed. It appears that the appellant was directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2010. The JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 24 of 25 appellant shall surrender before the learned trial Court within three weeks from today, failing which the learned trial Court shall take necessary coercive steps in accordance with law to take the appellant into judicial custody to serve out the remaining sentence. 12. Before parting with the case, we place on record our appreciation to Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant, for rendering his valuable assistance in arriving at the decision above. We also appreciate the valuable assistance provided by Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel. The trial Court records, along with a copy of this judgment, be sent forthwith to the Court concerned, and a copy of the judgment be communicated to the learned trial Court. …………..…………………… S. K. Sahoo, J. ……………….………………………… Chittaranjan Dash, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th December 2025/AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Dec-2025 13:11:14 JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 25 of 25
Arguments
with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on the JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 2 of 25 demand of the appellant, a sum of Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousand) in cash and gold ornaments were given. After the deceased stayed in the house of the appellant for about ten days, both of them came to the parental house of the deceased and stayed there for two days, after which they returned to the appellant’s house. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that the appellant used to torture the deceased after consuming liquor and assaulted her with an iron rod, tube light and wooden stick. On the eve of the Sital Sasthi festival at Sambalpur, the appellant and the deceased again came to the parental house of the deceased. The appellant alone went to Sambalpur to witness the festival, while the deceased refused to accompany him. The deceased was also unwilling to return to her matrimonial home as she was being physically and mentally tortured by the appellant. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that a village Panchayat meeting was convened and pursuant to the decision taken by the village elders, on 30.05.2004 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased accompanied the appellant to his house. On the following day, i.e., on 31.05.2004, P.W.4 received information about the death of the deceased. He rushed to the JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 3 of 25 house of the appellant, found the dead body of the deceased and formed a firm opinion that the appellant had caused her death. On the version of P.W.4, D.W.1, Manu Nayak, scribed the report, which was presented before the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station. Accordingly, Baunsuni P.S. Case No.37 dated 31.05.2004 was registered under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. P.W.9, the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, after registration of the case, himself took up the investigation. He examined the informant, submitted a requisition to the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh, for deputation of an Executive Magistrate to hold the inquest and also deputed a Constable and the Grama Rakhi to guard the spot and the dead body. Upon reaching the spot, the Investigating Officer seized broken pieces of bangles, a saree and other articles under seizure list, Ext.8, examined other witnesses, and prepared the spot map, Ext.9. He searched for the appellant but found him absent. On 01.06.2004, the inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held in the house of the appellant in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and other witnesses and the inquest report was prepared. The dead body was then sent for post- JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 4 of 25 mortem examination and the wearing apparels of the deceased, produced by the Constable who escorted the dead body, were seized by the Investigating Officer under seizure list, Ext.7. On 02.06.2004, the appellant was arrested and forwarded to Court. The dowry articles were seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses, a seizure list was prepared, and the said articles were released in favour of the father of the deceased on execution of a zimanama, marked Ext.10. The Investigating Officer received the post-mortem report on 24.06.2004 and continued the investigation till 13.08.2004. Upon his transfer, the charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. of Police, R. N. Das, who, upon completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. Framing of Charge: 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after complying due formalities. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 5 of 25 Prosecution Witnesses & Exhibits: 4. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. P.W.1 Rama Meher stated that he knew the appellant as well as the deceased Lalita, the wife of the appellant. He deposed that the deceased had died more than a year prior to his deposition. After her death, the police came to the village, conducted the inquest over her dead body, prepared the inquest report, and obtained his signature on the same, marked as Ext.1. He stated that his house was adjacent to the house of the appellant. He further stated that during deceased’s lifetime, the appellant used to abuse her at times and also abused his parents. He claimed that he had no further knowledge about the case. P.W.2 Gopinath Meher, the father of the appellant, stated that about one and a half years prior, the appellant married the deceased, the daughter of Upendra Meher of village Bikalapali, and that after marriage she lived in his house. He stated that about fifteen days after the marriage, the appellant and the deceased went to Sambalpur to attend the Sitalsasthi festival and returned after about twelve days. After taking dinner on the night of their return, the appellant and the deceased slept JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 6 of 25 separately, and during the night, the deceased died. He stated that he could not say how the deceased died. He further deposed that after her death, the local police came to the village, held inquest over the dead body in his presence and prepared the inquest report. He also stated that the police seized the articles given at the time of the appellant’s marriage from his house and prepared the seizure list marked Ext.2. P.W.3 Subash Ch. Mishra a constable attached to Baunsuni Police Station, stated that on the basis of a command certificate issued to him, he proceeded to village Tikarapada. From there, he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary at DHH, Boudh for post-mortem examination. He stated that the Investigating Officer issued the dead body challan, marked as Ext.3, and that Ext.4 was the command certificate issued to him. He further stated that on 01.06.2004, the Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. After the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the wearing apparels of the deceased to him, which he produced before the Investigating Officer, who seized the same. P.W.4 Khirod Meher stated that the deceased Lalita was his sister and identified the appellant in Court. The deceased was married to the appellant on Akshaya Tritiya at Mahadev JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 7 of 25 Temple, Titipali. After marriage, she stayed at her matrimonial home and later visited her parental house on two occasions. During the Sital Sasthi festival, the deceased alleged ill- treatment by the appellant due to his habit of consuming liquor. A village meeting was convened in the presence of Mohan Meher and Bihari Meher, where the appellant admitted his misconduct and assured improvement, following which the deceased returned to her matrimonial home. On the next day, P.W.4 was informed that the deceased had died. On reaching the appellant’s house, he found the deceased was lying dead with ligature marks and nail marks on her neck, blood was oozing from her mouth, nostrils, and eye, and her tongue was protruding. He lodged the FIR (Ext.5), which was scribed by Manu Naik, and signed the same. He was present during the inquest and signed the inquest report (Ext.1/3). He further stated that dowry of Rs.6,000/- and one bhari of gold had been demanded and paid at the time of marriage. In cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased initially did not complain of ill-treatment but stated that she complained about assault 10-15 days prior to her death. He denied the defence suggestion that there was no dowry demand or that the appellant was not responsible for her death. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 8 of 25 P.W.5, Upendra Meher stated that he knew both the appellant and the deceased, who used to call him “Kaka,” and that P.W.4 was his son-in-law. He corroborated the fact of marriage of the deceased on Akshaya Tritiya and her stay in the matrimonial home for about one month and ten days. During Sital Sasthi, the deceased disclosed that the appellant had assaulted her with a tube light and split firewood. In a village meeting attended by Mohan Meher and Bihari Meher, the appellant admitted his guilt and assured not to repeat such acts. On the following day, Lalita was found dead in the house of the appellant. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no such meeting took place or that he was falsely deposing due to his relationship with P.W.4. P.W.6 Mohan Meher stated that he knew the appellant and the deceased and that they were married on Akshaya Tritiya. After Sital Sasthi, Lalita disclosed her unwillingness to return to her matrimonial home due to assault by the appellant. A meeting was held in which the appellant assured that he would not repeat such conduct. The deceased thereafter returned with the appellant, but on the next day, information was received about her death. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 9 of 25 In the cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that no such meeting was held or that he deposed falsely at the instance of the father of the deceased. P.W.7 Souvagya Ranjan Ranasingh, the Autopsy Surgeon conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 01.06.2004. He found bruises and nail marks on both sides of the neck, fracture of the hyoid bone, congestion of internal organs, and other injuries consistent with throttling. He opined that the death was homicidal in nature, caused by asphyxia due to throttling, and had occurred 24-30 hours prior to the post-mortem. In cross-examination, he reiterated that the injuries were ante-mortem and consistent with homicidal throttling. P.W.8 Banita Behera, the Police Constable stated that he was a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased, which were seized under a seizure list marked Ext.7. P.W.9 Udayanath Bantha, the Investigating Officer stated that he registered Baunsuni P.S. Case No.37 of 2004, conducted the investigation, held the inquest, seized material objects, arrested the appellant and his successor submitted the JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 10 of 25 charge-sheet. He confirmed that during investigation, statements were recorded regarding dowry demand, ill-treatment, and assault of the deceased by the accused. The prosecution also exhibited twelve documents. Ext.1 is the inquest report, Ext.2 is the seizure list showing seizure of all the articles given at the marriage of the accused, Ext.3 is the dead body challan, Ext.4 is the command certificate, Ext.5 is the plain paper F.I.R., Ext.5 is the P.M. report, Ext.7 is the seizure list, Ext.8 is the seizure list, Ext.9 is the spot map, Ext.10 is the zimanama, Ext.11 is the office copy of forwarding letter sending Exhibits to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and Ext.12 is the chemical examination report. Defence Plea: 5. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial. From the side of the defence, the Grama Rakhi who was the scribe of the F.I.R. was examined as D.W.1. The witness stated that he did not know the accused present in the dock but knew the informant. He had studied up to +2 (Arts) and had been working as a Grama Rakhi under Baunsuni Police Station for the last ten years. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 11 of 25 On being confronted with Ext.5, he stated that on 31.05.2004, he scribed the F.I.R. (Ext.5) at the dictation of the then Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, Mr. Bantha. As per the instruction of the O.I.C., he made the endorsement marked Ext.5/2 and signed the F.I.R. He further stated that, to the best of his recollection, he did not see the informant on that day and the informant did not put his signature (Ext.5/1) in his presence. He clarified that, being subordinate to the O.I.C., he acted strictly as per his instructions. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he belonged to village Baidyanathpur, situated about one kilometre from Baunsuni Police Station, and that Tikarapara was a large sahi within the jurisdiction of Baunsuni Police Station, located about half a kilometre away. He stated that he was occasionally deputed for law and order duties and, having worked as a Home Guard for about ten years, he was acquainted with most villagers within the local limits of the police station. He admitted knowing Gopi Meher, the father of the appellant, who worked as a tailor. He denied the suggestion given by the prosecution that he had scribed the F.I.R. at the instruction of the informant Khirod Meher (P.W.4) or that the endorsement Ext.5/2 was made after scribing the F.I.R. He further denied the suggestion JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 12 of 25 that he had been won over by the appellant or that he had suppressed the truth and deposing falsely. Findings of the Trial Court: 6. The learned trial Court, after assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, held that the evidence of P.W.7, who conducted the post-mortem examination, clearly indicated that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, caused by throttling leading to asphyxial death. The learned trial Court further held that the essential ingredients of the offence under section 304-B of the I.P.C. were not made out and, therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the said charge. However, upon taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.4, the brother of the deceased, P.W.5, the father-in-law of P.W.4, and P.W.6, a co-villager, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that their testimonies clearly established that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty at the hands of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant was held guilty of the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 13 of 25 The learned trial Court disbelieved the defence plea that the death might have been caused due to diarrhoea or stomach-related ailments in view of the specific and cogent medical evidence on record pointing to death by throttling. On the basis of the positive and consistent evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, the learned trial Court further concluded that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased by throttling her neck and, accordingly, held him guilty of the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. Contentions of the Parties: 7. Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that most of the material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Although the charge sheet cited as many as twenty nine witnesses, only nine witnesses were examined during trial, and the Investigating Officer who had taken over the charge of investigation from P.W.9 was also not examined. It was further argued that, in view of the evidence of D.W.1, the scribe of the F.I.R., who stated that the F.I.R. was scribed at the dictation of the Officer-in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, it would appear that from the very inception, the prosecution attempted to concoct a false case against the JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 14 of 25 appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of any direct evidence and considering the nature of the circumstantial evidence on record, the chain of circumstances was not so complete as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, it was urged that it is a fit case for extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. Per contra, Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel, supported the impugned judgment and argued that the occurrence had taken place within forty days of the marriage. According to him, there is consistent and cogent evidence on record regarding the demand of dowry and the cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellant, on account of which she was unwilling to accompany him to her matrimonial home. The evidence of P.W.6 also corroborates that a meeting was held wherein, upon the assurance given by the appellant that he would not ill-treat the deceased any further, she was sent with him. Significantly, the death occurred on the very next day. It was further argued that the medical evidence adduced by P.W.7 clearly established that the death was homicidal, caused by throttling leading to asphyxial death. Since the deceased was in the company of the appellant and the appellant failed to offer any explanation as to how the deceased met with such a death, JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 15 of 25 the burden cast under section 106 of the Evidence Act remained undischarged. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 498- A/302 of the I.P.C. 8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we now proceed to examine the evidence on record to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased met with a homicidal death. Apart from the inquest report (Ext.1), which indicates that the dead body was found inside a room of the appellant and was thereafter brought to the verandah where several injuries were noticed on the person of the deceased, including broken bangles seized from the spot, the medical evidence also assumes significance. P.W.7, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at the District Headquarters Hospital, Boudh, stated that he noticed the following injuries:- “i) There is a fracture of hyoid bone; JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 16 of 25 ii) There is extensive subcutaneous bruising detected below the nail marks below the dissection.” P.W.7 has opined that the cause of death was homicidal throttling leading to asphyxial death and that the time since death was approximately twenty four to thirty hours at the time of conducting the post-mortem examination. He preserved the viscera during the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report as Ext.6. In his cross-examination, when a specific suggestion was put as to how he arrived at the conclusion of homicidal death, the doctor clarified that there was fracture of the hyoid bone and extensive subcutaneous bruising detected beneath the nail marks on dissection, which are classical findings in cases of throttling. On the basis of these findings, he concluded that the death was due to homicidal asphyxia caused by throttling. A peculiar defence plea, though no specific plea was taken by the appellant himself, was sought to be introduced through his father, examined as P.W.2, who turned hostile but stated that on the date of occurrence, after taking dinner, the appellant and the deceased slept separately. However, he admitted that he did not know how the deceased died. He further JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 17 of 25 stated that the deceased slept on the outer verandah while the appellant slept on a cot close to her. He also claimed that he did not notice any injury on the person of the deceased, but found that she had passed stool in her saree and had vomited. If, as stated by P.W.2, the appellant was sleeping close to the deceased and the death was homicidal by throttling, an explanation was clearly expected from the appellant. However, the appellant has not offered any explanation whatsoever, even when specific questions were put to him in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C in that respect. Therefore, in our considered view, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded, on the basis of the medical evidence adduced by P.W.7 that the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased died a homicidal death due to throttling leading to asphyxial death. 9. Coming to the evidence of the informant (P.W.4), the brother of the deceased, he stated that on the day of Akshaya Trutiya, the appellant and his deceased sister got married in a temple. At the time of marriage, a demand for dowry of cash amounting to Rs.6,000/- and one tola of gold was made from the side of the appellant and, in compliance with such demand, the said cash and gold were given to the appellant. He further stated JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 18 of 25 that three to four days after the marriage, both the appellant and the deceased came to his house, stayed there for some time, and thereafter returned to the matrimonial home. About fifteen to twenty days thereafter, they again came to his house with the intention of visiting the Sitalsasthi festival at Sambalpur. However, the appellant went alone to witness the festival, leaving the deceased behind. After returning from Sambalpur, when the appellant asked the deceased to return to the matrimonial home, she refused, complaining that the appellant was ill-treating her after consuming liquor. Finding no alternative, a meeting was convened, wherein the appellant admitted his conduct and assured that he would not ill-treat the deceased in future. On such assurance, the deceased was allowed to accompany the appellant to her matrimonial home. P.W.4 further stated that on the very next day, he received information regarding the death of the deceased and rushed to the appellant’s house. When confronted, the appellant maintained silence. He noticed ligature marks around the neck of the deceased, nail marks on both sides of her neck, blood oozing from her mouth, nostrils and right eye, protrusion of the tongue, and bite marks on the tongue. JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 19 of 25 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the gentlemen in whose presence the meeting is alleged to have been held, namely Mohan Meher and Bihar Meher, were not examined by the prosecution and that no explanation has been offered for withholding such material witnesses. We are not impressed by the said submission inasmuch as P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 have consistently deposed that a meeting was convened when the deceased expressed her unwillingness to accompany the appellant due to the torture inflicted upon her and that pursuant to the assurance given by the appellant that he would not torture or ill-treat the deceased any further, she was permitted to accompany the appellant to his house and therefore, non-examination of the said two persons cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case or to hold that no such meeting had ever been taken place.