Sandhyarani Jena And Others vs State Of Odisha

I. A. No.262 of 2021

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.

The realization of fine amount shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

I. A. No.263 of 2021

This is an application for bail by the Appellants-Applicants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, who are the mother-in-law, the father-in-law and the brothers-in-law of the deceased respectively.

They have all been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years; for the offences under Sections 304-B/34 I.P.C. to undergo RI for 10 years each; for the offences under Sections 498-A/34 I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for six months; and for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, RI for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to RI for three months. These sentences were directed to run concurrently by the judgment dated 25th February, 2021 of the trial Court in S.T. Case No.3/390 of 2016-2015.

The case of the prosecution was that two months after the marriage of the deceased took place with Appellant No.5 on 19th April, 2014, the in-laws, the younger brothers-in-law and husband tortured the deceased physically and mentally inter alia demanding a motorcycle and threatened to kill her if she did not meet the demand. The incident itself took place on the intervening night of 22nd / 23rd October, 2014 when Appellant No.2 informed the father of the deceased (informant) that the deceased had set herself on fire. According to the informant, he and his relatives came to know that the accused persons had poured kerosene on his daughter and set her on fire. Over 20 days after the incident, on 13th November, 2014 at around 10 AM the deceased died in the hospital. P.S. case was registered at the Singla Police Station on 17th November, 2014.

The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Importantly, the independent witnesses viz., the neighbours-P.Ws.5 and 6 and P.Ws.11 and 12 turned hostile. In other words, they did not support the story of murder of the deceased by the accused by pouring kerosene on her. Rather, they disclosed that the deceased informed them that when she was filling kerosene in the lamp, some of the kerosene spilt on the floor; after lighting the match and lighting the lamp, she threw the lighting match on the floor, which then caught fire and resulted in her getting burnt.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, the dying declaration recorded by the doctor in the hospital did not support its case. That dying declaration, as translated by the learned counsel for the Appellants, bears out above version given out by the P.Ws.5, 6, 11 and 12. In fact, the deceased added in the dying declaration that on hearing her shout, her husband i.e. Appellant No.5 rushed and tried to douse the fire by covering her with a bed sheet.

The Court finds that the judgment of the trial Court till para 29 of the judgment lists out the evidence and submissions of the counsel and that the entire analysis of the evidence is contained in one paragraph i.e. para 30. However, para 30 contains no discussion of the evidence as such but only the conclusion drawn by the trial Court on such evidence. There is no indication to the reader why the trial Court has omitted discussing the dying declaration of the deceased to the independent witnesses and to the doctor, while accepting purportedly the dying declaration made by her to her parents implicating the accused.

Having heard Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellants and Smt. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, it appears to the Court that the present Appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour for grant of bail at this stage. The Court nevertheless hastens to add that the observations in this order are only for the purposes of grant of bail and will not influence the final decision in the appeal. Accordingly, Appellants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are directed to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the present appeal subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The application is disposed of.

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

..............................