Sakuntala Pani And Others vs State Of Orissa on 18 July, 2025

Orissa High Court

Sakuntala Pani And Others vs State Of Orissa on 18 July, 2025

           THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            CRLA No. 20 of 2004

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code)


Sakuntala Pani and others           .......                          Appellants

                                   -Versus-

State of Orissa                      .......                          Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. D.K. Mishra,
Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 11.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal filed by the appellants

under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2004 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.
(Sessions) No. 48 of 2003, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted

the three appellants of the charges under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC read

with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for

one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default R.I. for seven days in

lieu of conviction under Section 498-A IPC, R.I. for seven years and to

pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-B

IPC and R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default R.I.

for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.

Act.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and

Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the deceased Dali Pani

married to appellant no.3 on 06.03.2002. At the time of marriage there

was a demand of Rs.50,000/-, besides other articles. Due to bad financial

condition, the father of the deceased paid Rs,20,000/- at the time of

marriage and assured to pay the balance amount afterwards. It is alleged

that due to non-payment of the balance amount, the deceased was

Page 2 of 11
tortured and ill treated. The informant had also requested the accused

persons not to torture the deceased and assured to pay the balance

amount. On 27.07.2002 night the informant received the information that

the deceased died. The informant suspected that the accused persons had

killed the deceased, for which FIR was lodged on 28.07.2002 under

Section 498-A/302/304-B/34 IPC read with 4 of the D.P. Act.

4. After investigation, charges were framed against the appellants for

the offences as mentioned above and they were put to trial. The

prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses to prove its case,

whereas the defence took a stand of denial. The most important witness

the prosecution examined to establish its case is P.W.1, who is the father

of the deceased, P.W.2 is the uncle of the deceased, whereas P.Ws.3 and

4 are co-villagers, those who have supported the case of the prosecution

and the prosecution used their testimony for corroborating with the

testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. The other witnesses are the witnesses to the

inquest, seizure and the witness to the fact that appellant no.2 had taken

the deceased to the hospital and the doctor by examining the deceased

Page 3 of 11
declared her dead. The trial court dealt with the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that all the appellants

are guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-B/498-A IPC along

with the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and accordingly

imposed the sentence on each count. Aggrieved by the aforesaid

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed

the present appeal.

5. The present appeal is pending since 2004. While the appeal was

pending, the appellant no.3, the husband of the deceased died on

23.08.2011, whereas the appellant no.1, the mother-in-law of the

deceased died on 12.04.2012. Therefore, the appeal qua the appellant

no.1 and appellant no.3 stood abated. Therefore, the present appeal qua

appellant no.2 only survives.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant no.2 at the outset

submitted that he would confine his argument to the quantum of sentence

and the nature of offence. He has pointed out that appellant no.2 was

arrested on 28.07.2002 and she was released on bail vide order dated

Page 4 of 11
11.09.2002. Hence, she has already undergone the custody for one

month and fourteen days. Mr. Mishra, has taken me to the evidence of all

the witnesses and pointed out that none of the witnesses have made any

specific allegation against the appellant no.2, save and except stating that

all the accused persons have committed the crime. The appellant no.2 is

the sister-in-law of the deceased and there is not a single sentence uttered

by any of the witnesses making any specific allegation against the

appellant no.2. Even then, the court below by invoking the doctrine of

presumption convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under

Section 304-B IPC. Mr. Mishra, further submitted that in so far as the

charge under Section 498-A IPC or for that matter Section 4 of the D.P.

Act, there is no iota of evidence brought on record to suggest that the

present appellant being sister-in-law of the deceased has demanded the

dowry or meted out tortured to the deceased.

7. In the light of the submission made by Mr. Mishra, I have

meticulously gone through the evidence on record. True that none of the

witnesses have made any single allegation against the present appellant

Page 5 of 11
except saying that all the accused persons have tortured, demanded

dowry and poisoned Kalpana (deceased). The independent witnesses

P.W.8 and P.W.14 have also corroborated with the same. P.W.8 stated

that “I took deceased Kalpana, accused Subhendu, his sister-in-law and

Biranchi Pani in my car to Kosala hospital but at the hospital after

checking, the doctor declared her dead and advised us to take her back.

So, we brought back her dead body to the house. He further deposed

that Subhendu requested me to take my car to his father-in-law’s house.

So, Satya and Gopal Pradhan went in my car to village Gurujang and

called the father of Kalpana stating that the condition of his daughter

was serious. The parents of Kalpana came with us in our car to our

village”. This part of evidence is being corroborated with the testimony

of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the presence of the present appellant no.2 along

with Subhendu in the entire sequence of event is also apparent. P.W.14,

who was the doctor, deposed that on 27.07.2002 at about 2.00 A.M. at

night some family members of the accused had brought the dead body of

the deceased and had kept the same on the road in front of the Kosala

hospital. They requested me to see the patient. So, I saw the patient who

Page 6 of 11
was inside the car and declared her to be dead and advised them for post

mortem of the dead body. But they did not accept my advice and took

the dead body somewhere else. The testimony of said P.W.14 also stood

corroborated with the testimony of P.W.8 and other witnesses. In the

same breath the evidence of P.W.3 needs to be read, who has stated that

“I saw Kalpana was lying dead and foam was coming out of her mouth

in my presence and the accused persons requested the informant not to

report the fact at the police station and when the informant asked them

to disclose the truth, they disclosed that they had killed Kalpana by

giving poison. Then the informant lodged the FIR at Chhendipada Police

Station and police came and held inquest over the dead body of Kalpana

and prepared the inquest report in my presence”. This witness has also

deposed regarding the demand of dowry. The testimony of P.W.3

directly corroborated with the testimony of P.W.2, who has stated that

the accused Subhendu offered to return the cash of Rs.20,000/- and the

other dowry articles and also offered another Rs.15,000/- and requested

not to report the matter to the police. The witness has also stated this

offer was made in presence of other witnesses. Apart from that the

Page 7 of 11
evidence of other witnesses are also clear and unambiguous and

trustworthy to be relied upon. However, it is true that none of the

witnesses have very specifically taken the name of appellant no.2, but

the complacity of appellant no.2 in commission of the crime cannot be

ignored because of her presence in the scene of crime and participation

in the offence. Therefore, the trial court appreciated the evidence in

detail and arrived at the conclusion, as has been mentioned above.

8. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the

judgment of the trial court recording of conviction against the appellant

no.2. However, the submission of Mr. Mishra regarding the quantum of

sentence needs to be considered in view of the fact that the incident had

taken place in the year 1998 and at that point of time appellant no.2 was

42 years of age and at present the appellant no.2 is 68 years of age. In the

meanwhile, the mother-in-law of the deceased and husband of the

deceased has already been expired. The appellant is a lady and she is at

the evening of her life. Therefore, sentencing her to custody to serve out

the remaining period of sentence would be harsh at this stage. Therefore,

Page 8 of 11
the prayer of Mr. Mishra to consider for grant of benefit under the

Probation of Offender’s Act is worth consideration. The appellant no.2

has also requested the learned trial court for grant of benefit under the

Probation of Offenders Act, which was turned down by the learned trial

court, inter alia stating as under:-

“11. I am not inclined to extend the benefit of the Probation
of Offenders Act in favour of the convicts in this case as the
convicts have not only demanded dowry of cash of
Rs.50,000/- at the time of the marriage negotiation but have
also tortured and assaulted the deceased after the marriage
demanding for payment of balance Rs.30,000/- resulting in
death of the deceased otherwise than on normal
circumstance within 7 years of her marriage which is
otherwise known as a case of dowry death and if such type of
offenders are left unpunished without any exemplary
punishment there would be no end and to cases of dowry
death which are increasing day to day in the present
society.”

9. Much water has already flown under the bridge by now and about

thirty years have already lapsed in between. The appellant no.2 is now

become very old. Therefore, I am inclined to consider the prayer made

by Mr. Mishra for grant of the benefit of the Probation of Offender’s

Act.

Page 9 of 11

10. It is a fact that in the meantime the other two appellants have

expired. In the prevailing scenario, regard being had to the age of the

appellant no.2 and her societal status, clean antecedents and the fact that

the incident had taken place in the year 2002, I am of the considered

view that appellant no.2 is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of

Offenders Act read with Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The case of the appellant

no.2 is also covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case

of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1

and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa2.

11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far

as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing

the appellant no.2 to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs appellant

no.2 to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for

a period of one year on her executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to

appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period

1
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
2
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250

Page 10 of 11
and in the meantime, the appellant no.2 shall keep peace and good

behavior and she shall remain under the supervision of the concerned

Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of one year.

However, the sentence regarding payment of fine is enhanced to

Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), which shall be disbursed to the father

of the deceased in accordance with Section 357 Cr.P.C, in default of

payment of fine, the appellant no.2 shall undergo S.I. for one month.

12. With the above observation, the CRLA is partly allowed.

(S.S. Mishra)
Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 18th July, 2025/Ashok

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 21-Jul-2025 18:48:41 Page 11 of 11