Jagannath Sahoo State of Odisha … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 10602 of 2023 Jagannath Sahoo State of Odisha ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Adv. Opp. Party Mr. B.K. Ragada, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. 05. ORDER 31.01.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Baliapanda P.S. Case No.62 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.229 of 2023 in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-1, Puri under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Charge sheet dated 04.08.2023 has been filed under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner, his sister-in-law Radha Basukhi, W/o. Kalakara Bsukhi and under Sections 306/34 of IPC against the accused Jhuna Maharana, W/o. Pabitra Maharana, keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. as
Legal Reasoning
per the case diary produced by Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejection on 01.09.2023 by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in B.A. No. Page 1 of 7 109/1001 of 2023. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the case diary. 4. The prosecution allegations in brief is that the deceased Loja Sahoo was married to the present petitioner in the month of November, 2022. The petitioner was beating her and they were quarreling regularly. He and family members were torturing her regarding demanding more dowry. One neighbor Jhuna Pradhan was also participating in the torture. On receiving information from the Police station on 08.04.2023, father of the deceased and other family members went to the spot and found the deceased lying dead on her bed. The informant alleged that the petitioner and other in-laws had killed her. The cause of death in the postmortem examination report has been stated to “due to suicidal hanging causing pressure on neck causing asphyxia and death.” 5. Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the rejection order submits that the charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B, 34 of IPC reed with Section 4 of the D.P. Act as there is no mention of Section 302 of IPC in the rejection order. He had submitted that the petitioner is aged about 21 years and is in custody since 04.08.2023 and since Page 2 of 7 charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of IPC, the petitioner may be released on bail and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The petitioner is the only earning members in his family and he has old parents. As per the allegations he wanted till arrival of his in-laws before cremating the dead body which is proof of his innocence. He further submits that the allegations are omnibus in nature for which the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not made out. 6. Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail stating that the death has been taken place within five months of marriage. He placed the statement of Prakash Sahu who is the relative of the deceased and submitted that the allegations clearly make out a case under Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC against the petitioner. 7. On 11.10.2023, Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the deceased has committed suicide and the petitioner and his family members had no role to play and that independent witnesses (neighbours) had stated that when they went to the spot they found her hanging. He had filed copies of statements of some of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. Mr. A.P. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel who was Page 3 of 7 appearing on the said date had submitted that chargesheet dated 04.08.2023 has been filed under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/ 34 IPC against the petitioner and his sister in law Radha Basuki and under Section 306/34 IPC against co-accused Jhuna Maharana, but investigation has been kept open. Referring to the case diary, he has submitted that the neighbours have stated that hearing about the death when they came to the house they found the deceased lying dead on the bed. 9. After perusing the statements of witnesses Madhab Nayak, Lila Nayak, Ambika Mana, Susanta Mana and Pabitra Maharana submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the statements of the same witnesses available in the case diary discrepancy was noticed in the statements. In the statements produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was found that the witnesses had stated that they had seen the body of the deceased hanging, while in their statements available in the case diary, these witnesses have interalia stated that they saw the body of the deceased lying on the bed . These witnesses have been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. So on the said date the copies of the statements filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner were directed to be kept in a sealed cover after supplying a set for supply to Mr. A.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. Page 4 of 7 10. Mr. A.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has also been directed to submit the case diary containing the chargesheet and statement of witnesses after preparing copy for his reference and the said copy had been directed to be kept in a sealed cover by the Registry. 11. The Registry has also been directed to call for a scanned copy of the LCR (including the charge sheet and statements of witnesses recorded under Section–161 Cr.P.C., post mortem examination report etc.) from the Court of the learned JMFC- I, Puri. 12. The I.I.C., Baliapanda Police Station who conducted investigation and examined these witnesses had been directed to file an affidavit regarding these discrepancies. It is stated that the copy of the LCR which has been received, has been reported by the Registry to have been kept in a sealed cover. 13. The affidavit has been filed by Susanta Kumar Sahu, S/o. Late Arakhita Sahu working as Inspector-in-charge, Jamboo Marine Police Station, Dist. Kendrapara who has stated that he is working as the I.I.C., Jamboo Marine Police Station and also the I.O. of this Case. He has stated as follows:- “3. That I have recorded the statement of Lila Nayak, Susanta Mana, Madhab Nayak, Susmita Sahoo, Pabitra Moharana, Lalita Sahoo, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on dated 8.4.2023 including other witnesses in Page 5 of 7 connection with Baliapanda Police Station Case No. 62/ dated 8.4.2023 Under Section 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/34 of IPC, read with Section 4 D.P. Act. 4. That all the witnesses have stated that on getting information, they came and found that the body of the deceased Loja Sahoo was lying dead on the bed in her bed room at her in laws house and I had recorded the statement under this light and said statements recorded are enclosed with the case records. 5. That the discrepancies in the statements of Lila Nayak, Susanta Mana, Madhab Nayak, Susmita Sahoo, Pabitra Moharana and Lalita Sahoo which has been purportedly recorded on 8.4.2023, wherein they have stated that they have found the dead body of the deceased, Loja Sahoo, hanging from ceiling by a Saree as ligature in the bed room, has not been recorded by me on 8/4/23. It is further humbly submitted that the deponent also disputes the signatures appearing in the aforesaid statements. 6. That the case was registered Under Section 498- A/304-B/ 302/34 IPC R/W Sec. 4 DP Act. And during course of investigation the case was supervised by Sri Niranjan Sabar, Dy. S.P. Puri and found the case to be true U/S 498-A/304-B/306/34 IPC R/W Sec. 4 DP Act against accused husband Jagannath Sahoo, Radhabasuki, and Laxmi Sahoo. And U/S 306/34 IPC against, Jhuna Moharana. 7. That in P.M. report, a team of doctors opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Page 6 of 7 suicidal hanging due to pressure on neck causing asphyxia and death; the P.M. report is enclosed with the C/R.” 14. In view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased, the circumstances in which the body of the deceased was found by the witnesses as per the case diary, I do not consider this to be fit case to release the petitioner on bail as this stage. 15. The BLAPL is dismissed. 16. It is open to the petitioner to move for bail afresh, in case there is delay in completion of the trial. 17. In view of the discrepancy in the two sets of statements, the Addl. D.G., Crime Branch is directed to depute a competent officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter. Necessary papers shall be handed over to the officer for the said purpose by the Registry. 18. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application. 19. Copy of this order be handed over to the learned State Counsel for transmission to the Addl. D.G. Crime Branch. …………………… Sukanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 15-Apr-2024 20:46:10 (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 7 of 7