AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K.Mishra, J.
In this CRA, the convicts-appellants assail the conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in
Sessions Trial No.249/34 of 1999 as per the judgment dated 26.09.2000 whereby they were found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections
498-A, 304-B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘the IPC’ for brevity) read with Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
During pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1-Uchhab Rout, appellant no.3-Gokula Rout and appellant no.6-Pathani Rout have died. This fact has
been intimated to us by Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. The documents received by him from the I.I.C., Dharmasala
Police Station have been sent through E-mail of the Court and the same forms part of the record.
So, the appeal is taken up on behalf of the surviving appellant nos.2-Nakula, appellant no.4-Pitabas Rout and appellant no.5-Gobinda Rout.
The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows:
The prosecution allegation is that deceased Sailabala @ Rukmini got married to accused-Uchhab Rout on 4.5.1996. At the time of marriage, there
was demand of Rs.30,000/-, 5 tolas of gold and 10 tolas of silver besides other articles. The demand was fulfilled. After four months of her marriage,
accused Uchhab Rout raised a further demand of Rs.30,000/- towards dowry and it was supported by his brothers. Accused Uchhab Rout left Saila
@ Rukmini in the house of her parents. The deceased stayed in the house of her parents for 5 to 6 months. Thereafter, accused Uchhab Rout took
her to join a Sudhi ceremony. After the Sudhi ceremony was over, again accused-Uchhab Rout left Saila in her parents’ house. At that time the
deceased had given birth to a female child. This time, accused Uchhab Rout threatened Saila @ Rukmini to bring money if she would return to her
father-in-law’s house. Thereafter, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, arranged money and apprehending the conduct of accused Uchhab Rout,
wanted to execute a receipt after making payment. Accordingly, P.W.1 along with other villagers went to the house of the accused persons and
wanted to effect a settlement. It was decided that the father of the deceased would pay Rs.13,000/-and, accordingly, P.W.1, the brother of the
deceased, was ready to make payment. While making payment, P.W.1 and the gentlemen of the village wanted to execute a receipt by the accused
persons, but accused Uchhab Rout declined to execute the same. Therefore, P.W.1 returned back home without making payment.
P.W.1 got information after 6 to 7 days that somebody was lying dead in the paddy field of village-Bharatpur. Hearing this news and apprehending the
conduct of accused Uchhab, he along with his father and others rushed to the spot and found that the dead body of Saila @ Rukmini was lying in a
paddy field. Having seen this, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, lodged a written report before the O.I.C., Jenapur Police Out-Post. Ext.1 is the
F.I.R. After F.I.R. was lodged, the police and the Magistrate came to the spot and held inquest over the dead body. P.W.1 signed on the inquest
report. The deceased had been killed by strangulation by means of a rope. Ext.2 is the inquest report. While the deceased was staying at her
parents’ house she had complained that she was tortured and beaten at times by accused Uchhab Rout for additional dowry demand of money.
Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation placed charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of
the IPC read with Section 4 of the Act.
The defence took the plea of complete denial and false implication in the crime.
Out of twelve witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1, Trilochan Jena is the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is Rajkishore Das,
P.W.3 is Ainthu Charan Jena, P.W.4 is Kartik Parida, P.W.5 is Gouranga Bal, P.W.6 is Krushna Ch. Jena, P.W.7 is Sadhu Charan Jena, P.W.8 is
Sudarsan Pradhan, P.W.9 is Babaji Rout, P.W.10 is Upendra Pradhan, P.W.11 is the lady Asst. Surgeon who conducted postmortem examination
over the dead body of the deceased, and P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer.
The defence examined one witness.
As far as motive is concerned, P.W.1 has been examined to prove that there was motive of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased.
This witness P.W.1, Trilochan Jena has stated that the occurrence took place on 04.05.1996. His sister Sailabala was given in marriage with accused
Uchhab Rout. At the time of marriage there was a demand of Rs.30,000/- cash, five tolas of gold and 10 tolas of silver. The demand was fulfilled.
About four months after the marriage, Uchhab himself raised demand for another Rs.30,000/- towards dowry and it was supported by his brothers. To
pressurize them to fulfill the additional demand, Uchhab brought and left Sailabala in his house. Sailabala stayed in his house for 5 to 6 months
thereafter, Uchhab took her to join a Sudhi ceremony. After the Sudhi ceremony was over, again Uchhab brought Saila and left her in his house
keeping with him his daughter who was born through Saila. At that time, he had threatened Saila to return with money. They wanted to effect a
settlement and in presence of bhadralogs such as Gouranga Bal, Kartika Ch. Parida, Rajkishore Das, Babaji Rout, it was decided that he must pay
Rs.13,000/- and return Saila. Accordingly, he arranged money and took Saila to the house of Uchhab. While making payment he wanted from
Uchhaba to execute a receipt but he declined to do so. So, he returned back without making payment.
Six to seven days after her returning without making payment, he got information that somebody was lying dead in a paddy field of village
Bharatpur. He, his brother and others went to see the dead body and found there Saila’s dead body. Having seen this, he lodged a written report
before the O.I.C., Jenapur Outpost.
He himself scribed the F.I.R. Ext.1 is the FIR. Ext.1/1 is his signature.
After the F.I.R. was made Police and Executive Magistrate came to the spot and performed inquest over the dead body. He signed the inquest
report recording his opinion as to the cause of death of Saila that she was killed by the accused persons by strangulation by means of a rope. Ext.2 is
the inquest report. Ext.2/1 is his signature. During Saila’s stay at his house after marriage, she complained that she was tortured and was beaten
at times by Uchhab for the additional demand of money.
In the cross-examination, he further stated that the left hand of Saila was affected with paralysis for which she was unable to attend to her work. He
had no knowledge that Saila was tortured by the accused’s family because of her inability to work. She complained that Uchhab and her family
member were asking for money.
Four months after the marriage, he learnt about the additional demand of money but did not intimate the police or any other persons regarding such
demand. In a settlement the villagers asking him to pay Rs.13,000/-. But it was not reduced into writing. The above settlement took place in the house
of the accused on 23.11.1997. They called some of the villagers of the accused village. But only Nabaghana Rout came. After seeing the dead body
of Saila, he did not go to the house of the accused persons to ask them regarding Saila’s death etc.
Taking into consideration the materials available on record, the late accused Uchhab Rout has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498-
A and 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act. Rest of the accused persons including the surviving appellant nos.2, 4 and 5 have been convicted
for commission of offences under Sections 201/498-A/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur. Since
only late Uchhab Rout was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act and the surviving
appellants have only been convicted for the offences under Sections 201 and 498-A/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Act, there is no necessity
to discuss the materials available on record regarding the nature of death of the deceased and the related aspects. At present, we are concerned only
with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur with regard to the conviction of the surviving appellants under Sections 201
and 498-A/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act.
At the earliest stage, Mr. Akash Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no specific over act against these three
appellants. In other words, he submitted that none of the twelve witnesses have made any specific allegation of dowry torture and demand of dowry
against these appellants.
Though this fact was not initially admitted by Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel, but after going through the records in Court, he
admitted that there is no specific allegation against any of these surviving appellants so far as the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and
Section 4 of are concerned. There is also no material on record to show that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt so
far as the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC is concerned. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not made any specific
allegation regarding the demand of dowry and torture, in the sense that whatever they have stated on oath are very omnibus and general. They have
not stated the date and time of such demand. They have not specified the place where such demand has been made. They have not stated about the
statement made by the accused regarding such demand of dowry and torture. So, we are of the opinion that in this case, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case regarding the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act against the appellants.
So far as offence under Section 201 of the IPC is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no material on record to
show that actually these three surviving appellants did any act of concealing and destroying the evidence of commission of offence under Section 304-
B of the IPC.
In fact, the only discussion regarding the concealment and disappearance of evidence appears at paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment.
A careful reading of paragraph 12 reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur has recorded that there is ample evidence against
accused Uchhab Rout, the husband of the deceased, to connect him with the crime. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of her death.
Till her death, she was quite healthy. Her dead body was thrown in a paddy field in a hurry and the parents as well as the kith and kin of the deceased
were not informed about her death. The hasty disposal of the dead body by throwing it in a paddy field is a strong circumstance against the accused
persons. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that the circumstances so presented formed a complete chain which unerringly pointing to accused
Uchhab Rout, the husband of the deceased, as the murderer of deceased Saila @ Rukmini. However, it is interesting to note that though the learned
Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the husband of the deceased namely Uchhab Rout who is the late appellant no.1 has committed
murder of the deceased, he has not recorded conviction of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
These circumstances were also relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused person namely, Nakula Rout, Gokula
Rout, Gobida Rout and Pathani Rout to fasten the offence under Section 201 of the IPC because the deceased was staying in her father-in-law’s
house and she alongwith her husband were residing in a joint family. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that it could not be understood
how the other accused persons could not know regarding death of the deceased and how the dead body was thrown in a paddy field. So, he
concluded:-
(a) ‘apparently, the above named accused persons caused disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment’.
Similarly in the discussion at paragraph 13, without referring or discussing any evidences on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge come to the
conclusion that the said appellants are also liable for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. Though, initially, the learned Additional Standing
Counsel, Sk. Zafrulla was not admitting that there is no evidence on record, but after reading of the evidence of the witnesses, he fairly admitted that
there appears to be no direct evidence regarding disappearance of material evidence to record conviction under Section 201 of the IPC against the
surviving appellants.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur has erred in recording the conviction against the
surviving appellant nos.2, 4 and 5 under Sections 498-A and 201/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act. Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the
conviction of the surviving appellants for the aforesaid offences and consequent sentences. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, unless their
detention is required in any other case. It appears that the surviving appellants are on bail. So, their bail bond be cancelled.
Accordingly, the CRA is disposed of.
The L.C.R. be returned back to the trial court forthwith.
As restrictions are continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High
Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.