Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 27 (ORI)

STATE v. SUDARSAN PARIDA

2011-01-12

S.K.MISHRA

body2011
JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. In this appeal, the State assails the acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC for brevity and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'D.P. Act' in S.T. Case No. 26/ 181 of 1993 of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the deceased Jayanti Parida, who happens to be the sister of the informant Banchhanidhi Parida of village Raipur was given in marriage to the accused Sudarsan Parida, son of Ramchandra Parida of that village in the year 1986. At the time of marriage, dowry articles were given as per the demand of the accused persons, except one gold necklace, promised to be given later on. The deceased, after her marriage, whenever visited her father's house used to complaint of harassment and ill-treatment on her by the accused persons for not giving of gold necklace promised to be given at the time of marriage. She was reluctant to go in-law's house. One year previous to her death, the deceased came to her father's house and remained there for about a year. Her father-in-law, namely, accused Ramachandra subsequently came and took her to his house and with a word of promise to the deceased's parents not to assault her any more. The prosecution further alleges that, on 20.04.1993, the deceased committed suicide by hanging from the beam of her bed room in the house of the accused persons. The informant getting news of the death of the deceased came to the house of the accused and saw the deceased hanging from the beam of her bed room by means of a rope. He informed about this incident to Benudhar Sahu and Padmanav Barik and went to Langaleswar market (to convey the news of the deceased to her father). Then, he lodged a report at the Singla Police Station. On the basis of which, Singla P.S. Case No. 27 of 1993 was initiated and investigation was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Then, he lodged a report at the Singla Police Station. On the basis of which, Singla P.S. Case No. 27 of 1993 was initiated and investigation was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Thus, the accused persons stood trial for the aforesaid offences, wherein they took the plea that they have not tortured or ill-treated the deceased or demanded any dowry. They have also taken secondary plea that the marriage between the deceased and the accused Sudarsan Parida took place eight years prior to her death. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it examined as many as 7 witnesses during course of trial and the defence examined one witness. The defence tendered into evidence of a card purported to be the invitation card for the marriage between the appellant Sudarsan Parida and the deceased. 4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence led on behalf of both the parties came to the conclusion that the marriage has been solemnized on 5.7.1984 and, therefore, the offence u/s 304-B of the IPC is not attracted. The learned Addl. Session judge has further came to the conclusion that the offence u/s 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are not made out in view of evidence available on record. 5. In course of hearing, the learned Addl. Government Advocate very emphatically submitted that the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and relied upon the invitation card, which is not proved in accordance with law. It is also submitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that there are clinching material against the appellants for securing a conviction u/s 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and further urged that the materials on record do not warrant a conviction on reversal of the acquittal order. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal preferred by the State. 6. It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and they did not speak about the exact date of solemnization of marriage between the appellant Sudarsan Parida and the deceased. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal preferred by the State. 6. It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and they did not speak about the exact date of solemnization of marriage between the appellant Sudarsan Parida and the deceased. They have indicated that the marriage took place in the year 1986. P.W. 1 has stated that the marriage took place 6 to 7 years prior to her death. P.W.2, on the other hand, stated that the marriage took place 7 to 8 years, prior to his evidence, in the month of Asadh. P.W.4 stated that the solemnization of the marriage took place in the year 1986. However, defence have taken a specific plea that the marriage took place beyond 7 years in the year 1984 and in this case D.W. 1, who acted as the priest for solemnization of the marriage has been examined on behalf of the defence. He has proved Ext. A, which is the invitation card. This document reveals that the marriage took place on 05.07.1984. There is no clinching evidence from the side of the prosecution that the marriage took place in the month of Asada, 1986 as the evidence of all the three witnesses are not consistent with each other. On the other hand, the evidence led on behalf of the defence is a very clear and it is seen from the Ext-A that the marriage take place on 05.07.1984. This Court comes to the conclusion that the marriage between the deceased and the accused Sudarsan Parida took place on 05.07.1984 and since the suicide was committed on 20.04.1993, the death of the deceased occurred beyond 7 years and, therefore, the offence u/s 304-B of the IPC is not attracted. 7. No charge has been framed u/s 306 of the IPC. So, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be interfered with at this stage as there is no illegality in it. The only other question, which remains for determination in this case is whether the acquittal of the accused persons or the respondents for the charge u/s 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are justified or not. The only other question, which remains for determination in this case is whether the acquittal of the accused persons or the respondents for the charge u/s 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are justified or not. The learned counsel for the respondents took the Court to the evidence of P.W. 1, who happens to be the father of the deceased, at paragraph-7 the witness stated on oath that out of love and affection he had given the articles to his deceased daughter as she is her only daughter. He had given Rs. 5,0007- to his son-in-law out of affection. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, however, submitted that there was a demand of additional gold necklace, for which the deceased was subjected to torture. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the materials on record has come to the categorical finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 regarding alleged theory of cruelty on the deceased is highly improbable. There are also lots of discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which has been taken note by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the reported case of Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P., (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 60, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that due to proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial Court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not open to the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial Court's decision was wrong. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has enlisted the circumstances, in which the orders passed by the trial Court can be set aside as follows:- i. the trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii. the trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; iii. the trial Court's judgment is likely to result in 'grave miscarriage of justice'; iv. the trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; iii. the trial Court's judgment is likely to result in 'grave miscarriage of justice'; iv. the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v. the trial Court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi. the trial Court has ignored evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (this list is illustrative and not exhaustive) 9. It is seen from the records that the trial Court's conclusion regarding facts of the case is not palpably wrong nor it has taken erroneous view of law. It is nor argued by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the judgment has resulted in grave miscarriage justice or that the entire approach of the trial Court was patently illegal or that it is unjust and unreasonable. Thus, keeping in view such principles, this Court comes to the conclusion that this is a case where it can be said that there are no compelling and substantial reasons for reversing judgment of acquittal passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid discussion in the preceding paragraph, this Court comes to the conclusion that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity requiring the appellate Court's interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.