The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.5528 of 2023 Udasini Mohanty and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A. K. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. A. Panda, Advocate for O.P.2 CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 20.01.2025 Heard. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking Order No. 08. 1. 2. quashing of the entire proceeding in connection with C.T. Case No.384 of 2020 arising out of Jajpur Sadar P.S. Case No.40 of 2020 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498- A/302/304-B/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet in the present case was filed on 29.11.2020 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34/306/406 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Page 1 of 5 4. The petitioners being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were shown as an absconder. Therefore, the trial vis-à-vis these accused persons have been splited. The principal accused being the husband of the deceased had faced the trial. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur in C.T. (Sess.) Case No.46 of 2020 vide its judgment dated 26.11.2022 has recorded an acquittal in favour of the co-accused namely Ranjit Mohanty, who faced the trial. The learned trial Court inter alia has returned the following finding while acquitting the accused:- “7. As regards to the allegation of charge U/s.302 I.P.C. the prosecution can prove such charge either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In this case there is no direct evidence against the accused to hold him liable for the death of Sujata. No circumstance has been brought on to the record to complete a chain so as to reach to an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused who has killed Sujata and none else. First of all there is no material on record to hold that the death of Sujata is a homicidal one. No doubt Sujata died due to the injury. The witnesses examined by burn prosecution have not stated that just before the fire, the accused was found near Sujata or proximate to the burning of Sujata. Sujata was in the house of the accused and only because Sujata died sustaining burn injuries in her matrimonial house no liability can be fixed on the accused unless some incriminating circumstances are shown to connect the accused in the crime. In such circumstances the certainly circumstance. In such circumstances certainly the accused is not to explain the circumstance. There is no material to suggest that the death was a the accused to explain is not Page 2 of 5 homicidal one, no liability can be fixed on the accused. So the charge U/s. 302, I.P.C. fails.” On the strength of the aforementioned findings, the present petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal prosecution initiated against them. 5. The informant/opposite party No.2 is the father of the deceased. He had also filed an affidavit before this Court on 17.01.2024 inter alia stating as under:- “2. That in the meantime, the husband-co-accused who was facing trial, has been acquitted vide judgment dated.26.11.2022 in C.T (Sess) No. 46 of 2020 on the ground that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not utter any demand of dowry or any torture towards the deceased Sujata Swain, rather the deceased was staying happily in her matrimonial house, after about nine months. While the deceased was cooking food in the kitchen, her body caught fire. 3. That the FIR under a lodged misconception and on the instigation of others. But in fact, my deceased daughter, while cooking food in the kitchen, expired due to burning. There was no demand of dowry or torture from the side of the accused persons. Accordingly, in trial I had adduced evidence. After all evidence, learned trial the husband namely Ranjit court acquitted Mohanty.” I had 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principal accused i.e. the husband of the deceased who faced the trial has already been acquitted and the informant himself has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he has no grievance left Page 3 of 5 against the present petitioners. On the basis of the same, he submits that subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the petitioners are serious in nature. The charge-sheet has been filed for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. apart from other allied offences, hence, quashing of the entire criminal proceeding vis-à-vis the present petitioners, who have been absconding is not permissible under law. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have given a careful consideration to the entire sequence of events and the documents placed before this Court. I am of the considered view that the petition does not deserve merit. The petitioners have to face the trial as they have been absconding. However, taking into consideration the facts scenario of the present case and the nature of evidence which has borne on record vis-à-vis the co-accused, who has faced the trial and the fact that the informant has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he has no grievance left against the petitioners, I am of the considered view that once the petitioners surrender before the Court below on or before 15.02.2025, they shall be released on bail and the Page 4 of 5 petitioners shall face the trial. It is expected that the trial court shall do well to see that the trial of the case is concluded as early as possible. 9. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jan-2025 12:35:41 Page 5 of 5