Orissa High Court
Sarangdhar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 31 July, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.314 of 2003
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Sarangdhar Sahoo ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Mohammad Fardish, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 15.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant-
Sarangadhar Sahoo under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed
against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2003 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No.43 of 2000 arising out of
G.R. Case No.448 of 1998, whereby the present appellant and the co-
accused persons, namely, Chania @ Rasananda Sahoo are convicted forthe offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. and on that count, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo further R.I. for three months.
2. Heard Mr. Mohammad Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. The prosecution set the criminal law into motion against the
appellant and other co-accused persons pursuant to the registration of
Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.100 of 1998 on 11.08.1998. The
prosecution case in terse and brief is that:
(a) The co-accused Rasananda Sahoo (A1) married Puspalata (deceased)
on 03.06.1998. There was demand of dowry at the time of marriage like
scooter, cash of Rs.10,000/- etc. At the time of marriage, the scooter and
cash of Rs.10,000/- was given along with household articles. As the
remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- could not be given in time, the A1 and
Page 2 of 11
the present appellant made demand for the same. Puspalata was coercedfor non-fulfillment of demand.
(b) It is alleged that a plan was hatched between A1 and one Mathura
Naik (A3) to do away with the life of Puspalata. So, on 26.07.1998, A1
brought the deceased on his two wheeler as a pillion rider with a pretext
to take her to her parental house. Instead of taking her to the parental
house, she was taken to Barispada jungle along with A3 and there she
was killed. So as to keep the entire incident in vogue, A1 took a false
pretext before the police and lodged a report that the deceased Puspalata
was kidnapped by someone dealing a blow on him. The dead body of
Puspalata was screened.
(c) It is further alleged that about a fortnight thereafter, bones along
with some wearing apparels of the deceased Puspalata was recovered
inside a jungle. The dead body was identified and investigation was
taken up. The entire conspiracy and killing of Puspalata by A1 and A3
was exposed. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed against all the three
accused persons for alleged commission of offences punishable under
Page 3 of 11
Sections 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of theD.P. Act. The charges were framed and the appellants were put to trial.
4. The defence took a stance of denial in the entire case in toto. The
prosecution examined as many as twenty witnesses to establish its case
and defence examined four witnesses on their behalf. The prosecution
has relied upon numerous documents.
5. The learned trial Court by taking into consideration the entire
evidence brought on record has passed a very detailed and meticulous
judgment thereby recording acquittal of all the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 302/304-B/201/498-A of I.P.C.
However, the learned trial Court found the present appellant and A1
guilty of offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. Accordingly, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, the present
appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Page 4 of 11
7. Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset,
submitted that he would confine his argument to the quantum of sentence
alone. Therefore, I am not adverting to the merits of the case rather
suffice it to say that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is the
culmination of right appreciation of evidence, no fault could be found
from the judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. The sole ground of Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant
is that once the learned trial Court found the appellant not guilty either
for the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C., conviction
either under Section 3 or 4 of the D.P. Act is completely improper. He
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sakhi Mandalani vrs. State of Bihar and others, reported in, (1999)
5 SCC 705 and in the said judgment, it is held as under:-
“2. The appellant, who was the sister-in-law of the
deceased Manju Mandalani, was convicted under
Sections 304-B/34, 498-A of IPC and under Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She was
sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under
Section 304-B IPC; 3 years’ RI under Section 498-A
IPC; and 6 months RI under Section 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Section 34 of IPC,
by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. OnPage 5 of 11
appeal, the High Court acquitted her of the charges
under Sections 304-B/34 IPC giving her the benefit of
doubt. However, her conviction under Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was maintained.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
6. These sections make out independent offences,
but in the instant case it was the demand of dowry
coupled with harassment which constitutes the basis
of the prosecution case. Once the main part of the
charge under Section 304-B was not found
established, it was not possible to record conviction
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.”
Mr. Fardish, learned counsel submits that same is the view of this
Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Dash vrs. State of Orissa, reported in,
2003 (Supp.) OLR (NOC)-966, this Court as well held that once the
appellant found not guilty either of the offence under Section 498-A or
304-B of I.P.C., the main part of the charges is not established, therefore,
it would not be possible to record a conviction under Section 4 of the
D.P. Act. Relying upon these two judgments, Mr. Fardish, submits that
the conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 4 of the D.P.
Act after having acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B/498-A of
I.P.C. is not sustainable.
Page 6 of 11
9. To counter the same, Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State has relied upon the three Judge judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.953 of 2008 in the
case of Krishnoji Rao Keserekar vrs. State of Karnataka. She has relied
upon paragraphs-8 and 17 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
“8. Further, the Trial Court relied upon the evidence
of PW1, PW-3 and PW-7 to hold that the gifts given to
Accused No.1 at the time of marriage were voluntarily
given by the bride’s family. The Trial Court noticed the
statements of the relatives of the deceased wherein they
have admitted that giving money to the groom for
buying wedding dresses was a customary practice
within their community. The Trial Court relied upon
the decision of this Court in Sakhi Mandalani v. State
of Bihar (1999) 5 SCC 705 to hold that when the
prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the
accused for the major offences such as 498-A of the
IPC, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act
was improper. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that
the prosecution had failed to its case against the
accused under the DP Act beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, the accused were acquitted of all the
offences.
17. Further, the facts in the case herein can be
differentiated from the facts in Mandalani (supra).
While referring to Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, in
Mandalani (supra) this Court has held at paragraph 6
on page 707:
These sections make out independent offences, but
in the instant case it was the demand for dowryPage 7 of 11
coupled with harassment which constitutes the basis of
the prosecution case. Once the main part of the charge
under Section 304-B was not found established, it was
not possible to record conviction under Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.” It is clear from the
paragraph about that this Court did not lay down, as a
general principle of law, that in all cases where the
prosecution fails to prove an offence punishable under
Section 304-B of the IPC, there is no need to consider
the case of the prosecution for offences punishable
under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. We therefore,
find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel
for the appellant/Accused No.2.”
On the strength of the said judgment, Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi,
learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment of Sakhi
Mandalani (supra) is no more a good law.
10. Confronted with such position of law, Mr. Fardish, learned
counsel for the appellant conceded the conviction recorded by the
learned trial Court and submits that the appellant was arrested on
17.08.1998. He was admitted to bail on 19.02.1999. Therefore, during
trial, the appellant remain in custody for about six months. After the
judgment, the appellant was again taken into custody on 27.11.2003 and
this Court vide its order dated 22.12.2003 enlarged the appellant on bail
pending the appeal. Therefore, in toto, the appellant has undergone
Page 8 of 11
custody of seven months. At the time of incident, the appellant was 42
years of age. He is the elder brother of A1, who had married the
deceased Puspalata. The allegation against the present appellant is only
regarding the demand of dowry. There is no allegation made by the
prosecution regarding his involvement in so far as causing the homicidal
death of the deceased and that’s what is the finding of the learned trial
Court also. It is pointed out that the present appellant has a clean
antecedent. At present he is at his early 60s., leading a respectful life
along with his family. The learned Counsel additionally submits that the
appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar
nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him. Over the years,
he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently
leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it
is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be
counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also
upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any
repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. It is
also stated that the appellant has also undergone one month in custody.
Page 9 of 11
Therefore, Mr. Fardish, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
instead of sending the appellant to custody to serve out the remaining
sentence, he may be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act.
11. Regard being had to the procrastinated judicial process undergone,
his societal position, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had
taken place in the year 1998, I am of the considered view that the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also
squarely covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra
reported in 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469.
12. 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 to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to
be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a
period of six months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to
Page 10 of 11
appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period of
and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior
and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation
Officer during the aforementioned period of six months. However, in
relation to the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court i.e.
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), the same shall be paid as per the
procedure as contemplated under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the parents of
the victim, in default of which, the appellant shall undergo R.I. for three
months.
13. With the above observation, the CRLA is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:23:51 Page 11 of 11