Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 274 (ORI)

Prakash Ku. Bisoi v. State of Orissa

2015-04-23

D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2015
JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No. 320 of 2014 corresponding to Fategarh P.S. Case No. 204 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Khandapara for offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/302/201/ 34 of IPC read with section 4 of IPC Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has married the deceased long back and out of their wedlock, one daughter and one son were born and they were living happily but for the reasons best known to the deceased, she committed suicide. According to him, the petitioner is not responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased and in view of the fact that two children are suffering without supervision of the petitioner, he may be released on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper. Learned standing counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased took place in the year 2009 and the deceased committed suicide within seven years of the marriage and there is material to show that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty by the petitioner on demand of money of Rs. 50,000/- as such the offence under section 304B is well made out against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had disposed of the dead body by cremating the same for which he is also liable under Section 201 of IPC. He submits to reject the bail application filed by the petitioner. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the case diary including the statement of witnesses and other materials on record, it appears deceased committed suicide by hanging but the dead body has been disposed of by the petitioner. The materials on record also disclose that she was being tortured physically and mentally by the petitioner while demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her person. Thus materials on record clearly prima facie show that the petitioner is responsible for unnatural death of the deceased. Sympathetic consideration for the children would. The materials on record also disclose that she was being tortured physically and mentally by the petitioner while demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her person. Thus materials on record clearly prima facie show that the petitioner is responsible for unnatural death of the deceased. Sympathetic consideration for the children would. have been raised but the allegation being serious one against the petitioner and nature of the act alleged in this case, I am reluctant to take any lenient view to release the petitioner on bail. In Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and Others, 2004 (i) Crimes 276 (SC) at paragraph 17 it is observed:- "It would be appropriate to construe the expression husband to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of husband to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as husband is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions." With due respect to the decision, I find husband is a crucial person to take care of the woman and such status of the husband is conferred with a view to playa crucial role for the wife and but not to torture or subject her to cruelty. That sacred duty is cast upon husband to preserve the relationship between the husband and wife. Penal provisions• have been made under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC to punish the husband if at all husband does not perform his sacred duty and fails to take care of the wife whose right is required to be preserved under the Constitution and laws made there under. Penal provisions• have been made under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC to punish the husband if at all husband does not perform his sacred duty and fails to take care of the wife whose right is required to be preserved under the Constitution and laws made there under. Hence in such case, even at the stage of bail, Court has to be very cautious to check aberration of rights of women at large, particularly the wife and to ensure the duties of husband are not vulnerable. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of act alleged, gravity of the offence and the fact that the dowry death is on rise in the society, keeping in view the larger interest of the women and society, I am loath to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence the petitioners prayer for bail being devoid of merit, stands rejected. Application dismissed.