The High Court · 2021
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2078 of 2022 Minatibala @ Minati Samantaray & Another …. Petitioners Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.B. Dash, Addl. P.P CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 06. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 17.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the Parties. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the further proceeding of the case in connection with G.R. Case No.286 of 2022 arising out of Jankia P.S. Case No.75 of 2022, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Khordha. 3. The background facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.2 lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Jankia P.S., alleging that the marriage of his daughter, namely Jyotsna Pradhan, was solemnised with Sunil Samantaray, the son of Petitioner No.1, on 14th July 2021. It was further alleged in the report that the Petitioners, along with the husband of the deceased and her other in-laws, were responsible for the murder of the said Jyotsna Pradhan with premeditation and that her in-laws used to inflict torture upon her. It was further stated that the daughter of Opposite Party No.2 lodged a written report that the deceased had committed suicide. However, subsequently, Opposite Party No.2, apprehending some foul play in the death of his daughter, alleged it to be a case of murder. On the basis of this information, Jankia P.S. Case No.75 of 2022 was registered and investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and daughter-in-law. The case, having been committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, was later transferred to the Senior Civil Judge (Women’s Court), Khurda, and registered as S.T. Case No.71 of 2022. In the said sessions case, the learned court framed charges under Sections 498-A/306/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. 4. In the course of the trial faced by the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased, nine witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 5 are, respectively, the father (informant), sister, brother, and mother of the deceased. P.W.4 is her cousin brother; P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted the post- mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased; P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the cousin brothers of the accused’s father; and P.W.9 is the I.O. None of the witnesses, being the kith and kin of the deceased, disclosed that the death was Page 2 of 6 attributable to the accused persons in the said case. They also did not whisper anything with regard to any kind of ill- treatment or cruelty being meted out to the deceased after her marriage. P.W.1, being the informant, absolutely feigned ignorance about any such information by which his daughter could be said to have been driven to commit suicide. The evidence, on the other hand, is candid that the deceased had a tendency to commit suicide and had attempted the same on an occasion before her marriage. As seen, the witnesses are only those related to the informant, who were supposed to have tacit knowledge with regard to any torture being inflicted on the deceased and whether her decision to commit suicide was in any manner attributable to the conduct of the accused persons. All the witnesses examined stated that the deceased was leading a blissful married life after her marriage, and keeping in view her tendency, she might have committed the suicide. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased stated that there was no external injury detected by him except the ligature mark on the neck, which was oblique, 8 cm below the chin and above the thyroid cartilage on the right side, and 6 cm below the posterior hairline. He opined that the injury was ante-mortem in nature and that the pressure abrasion present over the neck was consistent with the ligature mark, and that the death was due to asphyxia and venous congestion caused by ante- Page 3 of 6 mortem hanging. The cause of death as opined by the doctor, not being controverted in any manner, was held to be due to suicidal hanging, and in the absence of evidence of any nature showing that such suicide had been caused or abetted by the accused persons, the learned court acquitted them of the charges. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, in view of the aforesaid evidence, there is absolutely no chance of conviction of the present Petitioners if the trial proceeds against them. He further submitted that the Petitioners are none other than the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that the further proceeding would only be an abuse of process of law and that the proceeding against them be quashed. 6. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in its judgment dated 15th July 2022 broadly reads as follows:- “11. In the case in hand P.W.1 to P.W. 5 who all are relative of the deceased has P.W.7 has deposed regarding the suicide of the deceased but non deposed a single word alleging any sort of ill- treatment by any of the accused persons. Instead, during cross-examination they have deposed that the deceased was in her matrimonial home. As per them she had some mental issue. P.W. 1 deposed that she had once attempted suicide before her marriage also. Nobody deposed anything implicating the accused persons. P.W.9 is the I.O. who has deposed the steps taken by him during investigation. He is no living happily Page 4 of 6 doubt a post occurrence witness whose evidence is no way helpful for proving the cause of suicide in absence of oral evidence though his evidence is helpful to draw inferences when read with other circumstantial evidence. 12. From the above evidence advanced by prosecution witnesses it is crystal clear that neither the informant nor any if relative of the deceased has supported the prosecution case in any manner. Except the FIR there is no evidence against the accused persons. With respect to the evidentiary value of Ext: P-4, it is settled principle of law that F.I.R is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the statement of the maker. But, in the instant case FIR got no corroboration from any source. Unless there is any corroboration of contents of FIR by the maker thereof or any trustworthy and credible evidence of any witness to the occurrence satisfying the required ingredients of alleged offence, mere admission of the informant i.e. P.W. 1 about lodging of the F.I.R. marked as Ext. P-1, cannot be held as proof of alleged offences. Hence, it can be concluded that there is no iota of evidence against the accused persons. In view of the above discussion, it becomes crystal clear that the Prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case u/s 306/498-A I.P.C.” This Court while dealing with a similar matter in the 7. matter of Amar Dhal and Another vs. State of Odisha (2023), reported in 89 OCR-679 quashed the proceeding in consonance with the ratio of decision passed in the matter of Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Routray and another vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2011(1) OLR 1052 and Aditya Kumar Page 5 of 6 Rath vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2008) 41 OCR 233 taking a cue from the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Akhilesh Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence deposed by the close relatives of the deceased, no fruitful purpose would be served by directing the Petitioners to face trial, as the chance of conviction is bleak. Considering the above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present Petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.286 of 2022, arising out of Jankia P.S. Case No.75 of 2022, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Khordha, stands quashed. 9. Hence, ordered. The CRLMC is allowed. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Sarbani Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2025 18:02:09 Page 6 of 6