The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.78 of 2010 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Satrughna Sahoo ……. Appellant State of Orissa & another ……. Respondents -Versus- For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 : Date of Judgment: 25.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant- Satrughna Sahoo under Section 374 (2) of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 09.02.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.3/9 of 2007 (arising out of G.R. No.322 of 2006), whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC..
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 3. The prosecution case in brief and terse is that the informant in this case married the accused Satrughna Sahoo on 13.05.1994. At the time of marriage, as per the demand, cash of Rs.1.00 lakh, 200 grams of gold ornaments and other household articles were given as dowry. After three to four months of marriage, the accused started torturing the informant both physically and mentally. The informant was not allowed to go to her parent’s house and she was threatened to be killed, if she would contact with her parents. On 15.01.2006, when the parents of the informant came to see her in the in-laws house, accused Satrughna Sahoo and his elder brother Gobinda Sahoo confined the parents of the informant in a room. When she protested, accused Satrughna Sahoo Page 2 of 12 assaulted her. However, her parents were allowed to go from her in-laws house. It is further alleged that, all the accused persons wanted to kill the informant by pouring kerosene on her. She raised alarm and some villagers came to her in-laws house. Police rescued the informant from the house of the accused on 18.01.2006. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home charges, examined total 9 witnesses to prove its case. Out of whom, P.W.1 is the brother of the informant. P.W.2 was the mediator and uncle of the informant. P.W.3 was the barber. P.W.4 was the Chairman of “Ashiyana”. P.W.5 is the father of the informant. P.W.6 is the mother of the informant. P.W.7 was the informant herself. P.W.8 was the S.I. of Police of Bhadrak Rural Police Station and P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution has exhibited the documents and marked the same as Exts.1 to 9 at the trial. None was examined on behalf of the accused persons, but filed some documents which were marked as Ext.A/1 to A/8. 5. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence. Accused Satrughna Sahoo stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. that his wife, the informant was insisting him to stay Page 3 of 12 with her in her parent’s house, but he refused and further stated that his father-in-law and brother-in-law asked him to pay money and he paid Rs.2 lakhs to them. The informant left the matrimonial house and foisted a false case against him and his family members. 6. The learned trial Court, by relying upon the testimony of P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 formed the opinion that the accused-appellant has meted out harassment mentally and physically to P.W.7 in order to fulfillment of the dowry demand. Therefore, held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has summed up its appreciation of evidence in paragraph-25, which reads as under: “25. In the instant case, P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 7 stated that the accused persons tortured P.W.7 in connection with demand of dowry. These witnesses have not specifically stated in their evidence that the accused Gobinda Sahu, Sashirekha Sahu, Kumari Indira Priyadarshani Sahu subjected P.W.7 to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. Their evidence regarding torture meted to P.W.7 is not convincing. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge U/S. 498-A I.P.C. against accused Gobinda Sahu, Sashirekha Sahu and Kumari Indira Priyadarshini Sahu. However the accused Satrughna Sahu cannot escape the liability in respect of the offence under Sec. 498-A I.P.C. in view of the material regarding torture meted to P.W.7 in connection with demand of dowry. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the parents of P.W.7. They visited the house of the accused persons on 15.1.2006 to see P.W.7. These two witnesses deposed further that accused Satrughna Sahu assaulted Page 4 of 12 P.W.7 in their presence and did not allow to take P.W.7 to their house. P.W.5 further states that P.W.7 was rescued by the police with the help of Asiyana (N.G.O.) on 18.12.2006. P.W.8, S.I. of Police was working then in Bhadrak (R) P.S. Her testimony is that on 18.1.2006 she along with staff of Asiyana and one Mangobinda Sahu (P.W.5) proceeded Baral Pokhari to rescue Sabita Sahu. She rescued Sabita Sahu and her children from the house of her in-laws. P.W.7 has also stated in the same line in her evidence. In addition to the above evidence, prosecution has filed three letters (M.Os.I to III) written by P.W.7 to her parents. In those letters, P.W.7 mentioned that she was not treated properly in her in-law’s house. In those letters, reference has been made about her life in the house of her in- laws and it is mentioned in those letters that her husband has subjected her to beating. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused person is that the above letters were manufactured for the purpose of the prosecution case. Perused the letters (M.Os. I to III) in careful manner. From the postal seals M.Os. I and II, it is revealed that they were written by P.W.7 in the year 1995 and 1999. M.O.III was written on 30.10.2005. Those three letters were seized by the I.O. (P.W.9) on production during the course of investigation. From the above material it cannot be said that M.Os. I to III have been manufactured for the purpose of this case. Accordingly, the contention of the counsel for the accused persons is without any substance. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.7 and her parents that they have spoken about the ill-treatment given to P.W.7 by accused Satrughna Sahu. P.Ws. 5 and 6 have stated that P.W.7 had complained to them of her plight in the house of her husband and particularly about the conduct of the husband of P.W.7. Having gone through the evidence of witnesses it is established that P.W.7 was harassed, tortured and assaulted by husband in connection with demand for more dowry. Accordingly, I find that there is sufficient evidence to prove that accused Satrughna Sahu tortured both mentally and physically to P.W.7 in connection with demand for more dowry and that he is liable to be punished U/S. 498-A I.P.C.” 7. The appellant was accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to Page 5 of 12 undergo R.I. for six months on the said count of conviction of the charges of 498-A IPC. 8. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforementioned findings which culminated into the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and hence, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that there are substantial developments, which have taken place after the impugned judgment was passed on 09.02.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Bhadrak. The development which has taken place has been brought on record by way of filing of an affidavit dated 12.08.2025. The relevant part of the said affidavit reads as under: “2. That during the pendency of the above mentioned case, the divorce proceeding between the appellant and the respondent no.2 in C.P. No.253/2007 continuing before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack culminated in a decree of divorce with permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- to the wife-respondent no.2 and Rs.10,00,000/- to the daughter Monalisha towards her marriage expenses. The copy of the judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed in C.P. No.253/2007 is annexed herewith as Annexure-1. 3. That it is further stated that the wife-respondent also filed a criminal proceeding for maintenance in Crl. Proceeding No.282 of 2006. Both the Civil Proceeding in C.P. No.253/2007 filed by the husband for divorce and criminal proceeding in Crl. P. No.282 of 2006 were heard analogously. In the criminal proceeding the Page 6 of 12 amount of Rs.10,00,000/- fixed for wife- respondent towards permanent alimony was segregated to Rs.4,00,000/- for the wife and Rs.3,00,000/- each for the son and daughter. The judgment dated 24.1.2019 passed in Crl. Proceeding No.282/2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure-2. 4. That thereafter, an execution case in (C.P.) Execution Case No.3 of 2020 was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to implement the judgment passed in C.P. No.253/2007. In the said execution case the total amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the permanent alimony granted in favour of the wife and children was paid on 25.02.2021 and the same was received by the wife. The order dated 25.02.2021 passed in (C.P.) Execution Case No.3 of 2020 showing the payment of permanent alimony is enclosed herewith as Annexure-3. 5. That on the strength of this affidavit, the documents showing the settlement and payment of permanent alimony towards the wife and children are brought on record for proper adjudication of the matter.” 10. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties have indeed settled their dispute and the permanent alimony has already been paid to P.W.7 by the appellant to her satisfaction. On the basis of the aforesaid development, which has unfolded in the present case after the impugned judgment, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the affidavit and the annexures attached to the affidavit. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack vide its judgment dated 27.11.2019 in Civil Proceeding No.253 of 2007 declared Page 7 of 12 the marriage between the appellant and the informant (P.W.7) dissolved. The Court has also fixed the permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) for P.W.7 and the daughter of the appellant. The divorce proceeding was initiated by the appellant against P.W.7 on the ground of cruelty. The proceeding was contested by P.W.7. The learned trial Court, by appreciating the evidence brought on record, in that case recorded the following findings: “8. From the above evidence on record it is found that the marriage and birth of both children are admitted by the petitioner and the respondent and the allegations and counter allegations is there, in the way the evidence of the petitioner shows that the respondent without any reason did not keep any physical relationship with her on her own went to her parental house on 18.1.2006 and from that day both are staying separately from each other. Though the petitioner has taken the ground of cruelty but so far the cruelty relating to the misbehavior of the respondent is concerned, this Court does not find much material in that aspect even if both the witnesses i.e., the petitioner and one of his co-villager were cross- examine by length but their evidence could not held to be believable in absence of any specific ground of dissention or the exact details of quarrel or dissentions of any date. In a general way the petitioner has made allegation that the respondent was not behaving the petitioner and his family members in a well manner and even never cooking food for them. Admitted facts remains that both the petitioner and the respondent stayed as husband and wife for a period of 12 years i.e. from the year 1994 till the year 2006. However since 2006 both the petitioner and the respondent are staying separately and on the lodging of FIR one criminal case is pending in which the petitioner was convicted and now it’s appeal against the conviction is subjudice. Considering staying apart from the year 2006 is well admitted by both parties and in between 13 Page 8 of 12 years have been lapse and it is pertinent to mentioned here that now both the children of parties are staying with the respondent. The respondent during her evidence stated that she apprehends danger to her life as because there is every possibility that the petitioner may again try to kill her as he had tried earlier the same. 09. It is well settled principle that when the husband and the wife stays separately for a period of 13 years that itself is a desertion. Furthermore, till the criminal appeal against the petitioner basing on the FIR filed by the respondent is pending there cannot be good relationship or harmonious relationship between both the parties.” 12. There was parallel proceeding initiated by P.W.7 against the appellant which was ended up before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in CP Execution Case No.3 of 2020. Vide order dated 25.02.2021, the said proceeding was also disposed of, as the appellant has made the entire payment to P.W.7. Therefore, there is no doubt that the appellant has settled the dispute with P.W.7. This is a matter arising out of a matrimonial discord. 13. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The parties have now settled their dispute in every aspect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajesh Chaddha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 671 has held as under: “13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Page 9 of 12 Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.4 appropriately encapsulates this essence as under: indicating “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 14. The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and Page 10 of 12 the divorce decree has attained further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law.” finality, hence any 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by taking into account the fact that the marriage between the accused and the victim has been dissolved by a decree of divorce forming the opinion that the conviction recorded against the accused-appellant under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act is liable to be quashed, as continuation of the appeal would be an abuse of the process of law. 15. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the State has no serious reservation regarding the same. 16. Taking into consideration the fact scenario of the present case and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the present Criminal Appeal deserves merit and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 09.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.3/9 of 2007 (arising out of G.R. No.322 of 2006) is set-aside and the appellant is entitled to the acquittal. Page 11 of 12 17. Taking into consideration the aforementioned, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. The bail bond, if any, furnished by the appellant stands discharged.
Decision
18. The Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 25th Day of September, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 27-Sep-2025 09:28:52 Page 12 of 12