The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.271 of 2014 (In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Sri Ananda Sahu ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. B.K. Ragada, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 24.07.2024 : Date of Judgment: 29.10.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Criminal Appeal No.24/38 of 2011-13, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bargarh in C.T. Case No.65/16 of 2010 has been confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant’s daughter, namely, Mini Sahu had married the petitioner Ananda Sahu 13 years back. Out of their wed-lock, a son and a daughter were born. After marriage, the husband of the informant’s daughter was subjected to ill- treatment and tortured on the demand of dowry for which a criminal case was initiated against him. However, subsequently, they amicably settled their dispute and stayed together peacefully for some time. Again, the husband started torturing her for not getting enough from her parents’ house. So, on 25.01.2009, the daughter of the informant had gone to her father’s house and got a gold necklace (kanchi mali) and a pair of ear flower (kana phula) from her father and went to her in-law’s house in the evening. Subsequently, she consumed poison due to torture meted out to her. On 28.01.2009, she was shifted to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The informant came to know about the death of his daughter on same night. So, the informant lodged F.I.R. before Bargarh Police Station. On the basis of such allegation, Bargarh P.S. Case No.52 Page 2 of 10 of 2009 was registered against the accused persons and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498-A/306/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. 3. To bring home charges, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. In proof of their defence, the defence examined one witness, i.e., D.W.1, namely, Suresh Suna. 4. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, found that the accused persons were not guilty of commission of the offences under Sections 306/34 of the IPC and were acquitted of the charges. However, the learned trial Court found them guilty under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and convicted them thereunder and sentenced the present petitioner (Ananda Sahu) to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for three months. However, the learned trial Court sentenced the co-accused, namely, Mukhi Sahu, to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo S.I. for six months. Page 3 of 10 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bargarh in C.T. Case No.65/16 of 2010, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.24/38 of 2011-13 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. The appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 18.01.2014, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court and returned the following finding: “12. * * * * * * In the present case, the prosecution has placed a circumstance of initiation of a criminal case by the deceased against her husband for subjecting her to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The deceased was staying at her father's house during that period. The evidence of P.W.8,9,10,11 and 15 indicates that an attempt had been made by the accused persons and the dispute was resolved with the intervention of others and the deceased went with her husband during Dusharra in the year 2009. Some days thereafter, the accused persons again started torturing the deceased. It is submitted by the defence counsel that the P.Ws.8,9,10,11 and 15 have only made general allegations against the accused persons and there are no specification as to what kind of ill- treatment or trouble was meted out to the deceased which led her to commit suicide. Actually, there is nothing on record to show the manner in which the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment with the demand of dowry during the period between her having taken to her husband's home and her tragic end. Thus, the prosecution has failed to place cogent and convincing circumstance to establish that the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment to to disturb her mental such extent which is sufficient Page 4 of 10 the mental condition equilibrium which drove her to commit suicide. There is no specific evidence that the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no specific evidence regarding the conduct and mental condition of the deceased prior to her death. There is also no convincing material on the case record to hold that the deceased was so much of emotional disorder resulting frustration that she was forced to end her life. So I find no material to hold that there was desperation and frustration on the part of the deceased prior to her death which led her in committing suicide. It is also noticed that there is no specific evidence regarding like depression, frustration, psychotic, mentally disturbed, mental or emotional disorder or distress, sense of disappointment etc. on the part of the deceased which drove her to end her life. Even the parents; sisters and brother though gave evidence in the present case have not stated about any such mental condition of the deceased. Another circumstance may be taken into consideration. It is alleged that the death of the deceased took place in the village of the accused persons. But the accused persons have not made any attempt to disclose the real cause of death of the deceased. In Indian criminal justice system, an accused cannot be compelled to give against himself. So no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused persons for their not disclosing the cause of death of the deceased. It is seen that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused - persons having abetted commission of suicide by the deceased may necessarily be drawn. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to establish any reasonable possibility of the deceased having committed suicide due to abetment of the accused persons. For the reasons as given above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 306, IPC against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. However, as discussed earlier prosecution has proved the offence U/s 498-A/34 I.P.C against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.” Page 5 of 10 6. The petitioner has challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below in the present Criminal Revision Petition. 7. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 8. Perused the impugned judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by both the Courts below against the petitioner and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record. 9. The petitioner was subjected to trial on the charges punishable under Sections 498-A/306/34 of the IPC. 10. P.W.15 is the father of the deceased and informant in this case; P.W.8 is the wife of informant; P.W.9 is the son of the informant; P.Ws.10 & 11 are the daughters of the informant; P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 were the co-villagers of the accused persons; P.Ws.1, 2 & 17 were the seizure witnesses; P.Ws.14 & 18 were the doctors, who conducted the Post-Mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and P.W.16 was the I.O. of the case. P.W.15 stated that the deceased married the petitioner 13 years prior to the occurrence and out Page 6 of 10 of their wed-lock, a son and a daughter were born. P.Ws. 2 to 7, 12 & 13, who were the co-villagers of the accused persons, also admitted that the deceased was staying with her husband. The accused persons, in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., have also admitted the alleged marriage of the deceased with the petitioner and also admitted they are blessed with a son and a daughter. The defence has made suggestion during cross-examination of P.W.15 that the deceased was married to one Samaru Sahu prior to her marriage with the petitioner and that there was a mutual divorce between them in presence of the village gentries. In the present case, there was no direct evidence regarding the person, who had seen the incident which resulted in death of the deceased. The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. 11. Appreciating and analyzing the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded an acquittal in favour of the accused persons of the charge levelled against them under Section 306 of the IPC. However, they were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced Page 7 of 10 to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for three months. Insofar as the co- accused person Mukhi Sahu is concerned, she was sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo S.I. for six months. 12. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed Criminal Appeal No.24/38 of 2011-13 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh. Vide judgment dated 18.01.2014, the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal in toto while confirming the conviction and sentence awarded against the petitioner. 13. This Court vide its order dated 15.04.2014 admitted the petitioner to bail during the pendency of the present revision petition. 14. I have gone through the evidence on record and evaluated the findings of the Courts below. The learned appellate Court has appreciated the evidence on record meticulously and concurred with the finding of the learned trial Court. The evidence which has come on record through depositions of P.Ws.8, 9, 10, 11 & 15 are unimpeccable Page 8 of 10 and trustworthy. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to give any indulgence in the matter while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Revision Petition fails insofar as conviction against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2009 and at that point in time, the petitioner was aged about 30 years, and in the meantime, 15 years have lapsed, thus, a lenient view should be taken against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is already settled in his life and the aggrieved parties have also moved on in life. 15. The incident had taken place in the year 2009 and the present Revision Petition is pending since 2014. It appears from record that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about three months without remission. Taking into consideration the aforementioned, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Court below for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is liable to be modified to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence awarded against the petitioner Page 9 of 10 for commission of the offence under Sections 498-A of the IPC stands modified barring the fine amount. Insofar as the fine amount imposed on the petitioner for alleged offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned, the same is rather altered and the petitioner is liable to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), in default of making payment, the petitioner shall undergo R.I. for a further period of two months. The fine amount imposed on the petitioner for the aforementioned offence shall be deposited by him to be disbursed to the daughter of the deceased as compensation in accordance with the provision of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Decision
16. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 29th October, 2024/Amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Nov-2024 14:17:45 Page 10 of 10