The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 85 of 2005 Gopabandhu Satpathy …. Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate assisted by Ms. Ayushi Mehta, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr. Karunakara Gaya, Additional Standing Counsel …. CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE Order No. 09.
Decision
ORDER 03.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Karunakar Gaya, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) for the opposite party-State. 3. The petitioner is the husband who came to be convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short ‘the DP Act’) by a judgment dated 10.03.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cuttack in G.R. Case No.275 of 1988. 4. After having convicted the petitioner of the aforesaid offences, the learned trial Court sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year for each of the two offences. 5. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Page 1 of 4 trial Court giving rise to Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1999. The appellate Court, i.e. the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Cuttack, upon thorough re-appreciation of evidence adduced at the trial, came to a conclusion that the finding of conviction and the order of sentence accorded by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act could not be sustained. The appellate Court, by a judgment dated 09.11.2004 accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. The appellate Court, however, confirmed the finding of conviction of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and modified the sentence from one year to imprisonment up to the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for six months. 6. The said judgment and order of the learned appellate Court dated 09.11.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1999 is under challenge in the present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. 7. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailing the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, has submitted that considering evidence adduced at the trial, after having come to a definite conclusion that the charge of offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act could not be said to have been proved, the learned appellate Court ought not to have confirmed the finding of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. He has argued that it is manifest from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the allegation was of demand of Page 2 of 4 dowry which could not be proved and, therefore, the appellate Court rightly set aside the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. 8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the Court’s attention to Section 498-A of the IPC to submit that so as to constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, the prosecution is under obligation to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of the explanation appended thereto. He submits that ‘cruelty’ as defined in the explanation to Section 498-A of the IPC can have two components, namely: “(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 9. The ‘cruelty’ as defined under clause-(b) of the explanation to Section 498-A of the IPC, means harassment with a view to coerce such woman to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that none of the ingredients available under clause-(b) of the explanation under Section 498-A of the IPC could be established at the trial. He forther submits that in order to establish an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC with the aid of clause-(a) to the explanation, the prosecution is required to prove that the willful conduct of cruelty was of such nature that that was likely to drive the woman to commit Page 3 of 4 suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. He argues that there is no iota of evidence adduced at the trial to the effect that the alleged conduct was of the nature that had driven the petitioner’s wife to commit suicide or that had caused such grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. He accordingly, submits that in the absence of the essential ingredients under clause-(a) to the explanation, the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC could not be said to have been established. 10. After having gone through the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, I find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. I do not find any evidence on record to establish that the conduct of the petitioner was of the nature falling within the meaning of cruelty under clause-(a) of the explanation to Section 498-A of the IPC. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment dated 09.11.2004 of the learned appellate Court is hereby set aside. The petitioner stands acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. He stands discharged of the liabilities bail bonds/sureties. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 13:59:06 Page 4 of 4