[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Nirod Kumar Mohanty & Another vs State Of Odisha … Opposite Party on 4 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.51 of 2025
Nirod Kumar Mohanty & another ... Petitioners
Mr. P.R. Chhatoi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite party
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
04.07.2025
Order No.
04. 1. Heard Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioners
assailing the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 passed in
connection with S.T. Case No.28/269 of 2024 by learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Pipili, whereby, an application under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. moved by them seeking discharge vis-a-vis
alleged offence was declined and rejected on the grounds inter
alia that such a decision is not legally tenable and hence, liable to
be interfered with in the interest of justice.
3. Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 happens
to be the mother-in-law of the deceased, who died by a suicidal
hanging. The submission Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel is that a
Page 1 of 7
case under Section 498-A,304-B,302 and 201 read with 34 IPC
was registered in the year 2014, but it has finally led to filing of
the chargesheet under Sections 498-A and 304(B) read with
Section 34 IPC besides Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The further
submission is that the chargesheet is filed only against the
petitioners and no others against whom similar allegations were
made and while claiming so, he refers to FIR dated 8 th April,
2014, a copy of which is at Annexure-1. The contention is that
there has been no ill-treatment meted out to the deceased or for
that matter, she was ever subjected to but considering the
omnibus allegations made against all, the chargesheet is filed.
Such is the submission of Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the
petitioners referring to the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and also
the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
copies of which are at Annexure-4 series. It is claimed that
petitioner No.2, namely, mother-in-law of the deceased is sick
and hence, she could not have committed the mischief against
the deceased, who being dissatisfied with her marital life
committed suicide and therefore, the filing of the chargesheet
under the alleged offences against her and the other petitioner is
unjustified and furthermore, the rejection of the application
under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
4. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State justifies the
impugned order dated 24th January, 2025 as at Annexure-6 with
the submission that there is prima facie material on record
especially with the filing of the chargesheet dated 25th March,
2015 i.e. Annexure-2 and hence, the petitioners shall have to
Page 2 of 7
face the trial. In other words, according to Mr. Swain, learned
AGA for the State, learned Court below did not commit any
error or illegality in declining discharge of the petitioners while
considering the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by
them. It is contended that the statements of the witnesses
recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do
reveal the involvement of the petitioners, as a result of which,
the deceased committed suicide. It is further contended that on
account of torture, the deceased received in the hands of the
petitioners and in view of death having been taken place within
seven years of marriage, the same since established with the
filing of chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2, the impugned order dated
24th January, 2025 at Annexure-6 is perfectly justified and hence,
not to be disturbed.
5. Perused the FIR i.e. Annexure-1. In fact, Pipili P.S.
Case No.129 dated 8th April, 2014 was registered under the
alleged offences including Section 302 and 201 IPC. However,
upon closure of investigation, the chargesheet under Sections
498-A and 304(B) read with Section 34 IPC besides Section 4 of
D.P. Act was filed against the petitioners only. The medical
documents as at Annexure-3 series relate to the deceased and it
has been referred to by Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the
petitioners to claim that she was under treatment for being
issueless. In so far as the statements of the witnesses and copies
thereof as at Annexure-4 series are concerned, it is further
claimed that the death of the deceased is not on account of any
such torture, rather, it was for the reason that she was happy with
Page 3 of 7
her marriage and for the fact being not able to give birth to a
child, referring to which, Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the allegation of the demand not
being fulfilled and hence, she was tortured is a falsehood. The
further claim is that petitioner No.2 was granted anticipatory bail
vide Annexure-5 and it was on the premise that the allegations to
be general in nature.
6. The question is, whether, a case for trial is made out
against the petitioners in filing the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2?
According to Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioners, if
at all any such allegation is to be believed, it is not directed
against petitioner No.2, namely, mother-in-law of the deceased.
The contention is that the allegations against the in-laws are
omnibus in nature and therefore, the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2
against petitioner No.2 could not have been filed. The statements
of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are of the
outsiders and not the family members of the deceased as referred
to by Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the
same admittedly suggest that the deceased was not pulling on
well with petitioner No.1 and she was unhappy for being
issueless and, hence, committed suicide. But, to counter the
same, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State refers to the
statements of the informant father and others recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. during and in course of investigation to
claim that there is allegation against petitioner No.2 as well
besides petitioner No.1 and therefore, rightly, at the end, upon
Page 4 of 7
closure of the investigation both of them have been
chargesheeted as per Annexure-2.
7. On a reading of the FIR i.e. Annexure-1, the allegation
is no doubt found to be omnibus and it is against all the in-laws
including petitioner No.2. The allegations are to the effect that
the petitioners and other in-laws, since the demand of a Gold
chain was not fulfilled, ill-treated the deceased. The chargesheet
i.e. Annexure-2 is apparently filed on the premise that there is
allegation against the petitioners and the death of the deceased is
on account of such ill-treatment. It is made to suggest from
Annexure-2 that there is nexus between the death of the
deceased and the conduct of the petitioners in particular. Even
though there have been allegations against the father-in-law, as
made to reveal from Annexure-1, the chargesheet is filed against
the husband and mother-in-law only. It is not revealed from the
chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 as to the reason why petitioner No.2
has been singled out. Nevertheless, the contention from the side
of the State is that the allegations as per Annexure-1 and filing of
the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 prima facie established a case of
torture and unnatural death of the deceased. On a closure reading
of the statements of the other witnesses including the informant
father recorded during investigation, this Court finds that there
has been allegation against other in-laws but principally, it is
directed against petitioner No.1, namely, husband of the
deceased. As per the statement of the informant father under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is also made to reveal that sometime
before the death of the deceased i.e. on 18th February, 2014, she
Page 5 of 7
had returned back from her in-laws house with petitioner No.1.
Such statement also reveals that on being confronted, petitioner
No.1 admitted about the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased and
promised not to commit the same in future.
8. On a sincere reading of the statements of the witnesses,
this Court finds that the deceased was ill-treated and petitioner
No.1 is primary responsible and it was on account of non-
fulfillment of demand of Gold chain, as was earlier stated by her
family. It may be said that the allegations are more or less aimed
at and directed against petitioner No.1 and not others including
petitioner No.2. As it is made to understand, on complete reading
of the entire evidence with reference to the Case Diary produced
in Court by Mr. Swain, learned AGA, it was petitioner No.1 to
be entirely answerable for the unfortunate death of the deceased
wife. It is also made to understand that petitioner No.1 was
jobless by then and he was not having good terms with the
deceased wife. From Annexure-3 series, it is also made to reveal
that the deceased was under treatment being issueless. The Court
further finds that immediately after the death of the deceased, the
fact of such death was informed to the informant father none
other than by petitioner No.2. Of course, other allegations have
been made regarding ill-treatment to the informant father and
others after the death of the deceased but chargesheet is filed
only for offences under Sections498-A and 304(B) IPC.
9. Having considered the evidence with reference to
Annexure-1 and chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 and also the
Page 6 of 7
statements of material witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., the Court reaches at a conclusion that the allegations are
general and the cause of death of the deceased is on account of
any such ill-treatment was due to the conduct of petitioner No.1
and no one else. In other words, the Court is of the humble view
that the learned Court below, while considering the application
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. could not have declined discharge vis-
à-vis petitioner No.2 and therefore, the impugned order dated
24th January, 2025 at Annexure-6 is liable to be interfered with
and modified.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in
part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 24 th
January, 2025 at Annexure-6 passed in connection with S.T.
Case No.28/269 of 2024 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Pipili on the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is modified to
the extent as aforesaid thereby discharging petitioner No.2 and
not petitioner No.1. In the circumstances, however, there is no
order as to costs.
12. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 08-Jul-2025 18:21:55 Page 7 of 7
[ad_2]
Source link