Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 688 (ORI)

Basistha Panda v. State of Orissa

2015-12-08

S.K.SAHOO

body2015
ORDER : S.K. Sahoo, J. 1. The petitioner Basistha Panda has filed this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking for bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 4410 of 2014 arising out of Bhubaneswar UPD Mahila P.S. Case No. 347 of 2014 (CID, Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 01 dated 12.01.2015) which was pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in which charge sheet has been submitted by Inspector of Police, CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. As per the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case has been committed to Court of Session and pending in the Court of Sri A.C. Behera, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.T. (S) No. 170 of 2015 awaiting trial. The petitioner was taken into custody on 25.11.2014 and his prayer for bail was turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No. 555 of 2015 vide order dated 19.05.2015. 2. On 15.11.2014 at about 9.45 p.m. one Mamata Samantaray, Chairperson of State Progressive Women's Forum, Bhubaneswar lodged the First Information Report before Mahila Police Station, Bhubaneswar UPD stating therein that Smt. Sradhanjali Panda (hereafter 'the deceased'), who is the wife of the petitioner and residing at Bhimpur Basti near New Airport Area was tortured by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law both physically and mentally. It is further mentioned in the First Information Report that the informant came to know from the neighbours of the petitioner that on 14.11.2014 the petitioner, his mother and sister attempted to kill the deceased by setting fire on her body after pouring petrol for which the deceased in order to save herself jumped into a well and she was rescued by the tenants. The informant also came to know from the neighbours that the petitioner had shifted the deceased to the hospital. The informant stated to have searched for the deceased at Vivekananda Hospital and Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar and Ashwini Hospital and S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack but could not locate her for which she apprehended danger to the life of the deceased. On receipt of such First Information Report, Bhubaneswar UPD Mahila P.S. Case No. 347 dated 15.11.2014 was registered under sections 498-A, 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On receipt of such First Information Report, Bhubaneswar UPD Mahila P.S. Case No. 347 dated 15.11.2014 was registered under sections 498-A, 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Suchismita Das, Sub-Inspector of Police of Mahila Police Station took up investigation of the case. 3. The Investigating Officer visited Vivekananda Hospital but the Medical Officer of the said hospital intimated him that since burn ward was not available, the patient was referred to Cuttack. Though the I.O. visited Casualty Department, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack immediately but there also she could not get any record regarding treatment of the deceased. The I.O. visited the spot on 16.11.2014, seized some burnt sarees and examined witnesses. On receipt of information that the deceased was under treatment at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, she along with her staff arrived there and made requisition to the DCP, Cuttack to depute an Executive Magistrate for the purpose of recording the dying declaration of the deceased. The I.O. herself also recorded the statement of the deceased on 16.11.2014 who stated that one Anil Sahoo threw something from her backside and ran away for which she caught fire and jumped into a well. She stated that the petitioner had not set her on fire. Dr. Santosh Kumar Behera, Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital examined the deceased in presence of Sitaram Satpathy, Executive Magistrate-cum-ACP Zone II, Cuttack and Dr. Kumarmani Jena, S.R., Surgery Department, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and found her to be conscious, cooperative and well-oriented and accordingly the Executive Magistrate after putting some formal questions, recorded her dying declaration on 16.11.2014. The deceased stated in her dying declaration that three days back on Thursday when she was strolling on the roof top with her child at about 1 p.m. and her husband had been to bring Biriyani, one Anil Kumar Sahoo who was earlier a tenant in their house, came there and threw something on her from her backside and fled away for which she caught fire. She stated to have thrown her child on the ground and ran downstairs and jumped into a well and at that time the petitioner ran towards her and with the help of Sahi people, rescued her from the well. She also told the petitioner that Anil Kumar Sahoo set her on fire. She stated to have thrown her child on the ground and ran downstairs and jumped into a well and at that time the petitioner ran towards her and with the help of Sahi people, rescued her from the well. She also told the petitioner that Anil Kumar Sahoo set her on fire. On a specific question put by the doctor, the deceased categorically replied that Anil is responsible. 4. On 22.11.2014 the IIC, Mangalabag Police Station received a casualty memo from S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack regarding the death of the deceased and accordingly registered Mangalabag P.S. U.D. Case No. 1714 dated 22.11.2014 and entrusted Sub-Inspector of Police S.K. Satpathy to inquire into the matter. On 23.11.2014 the Enquiry Officer conducted inquest over the dead body in presence of ACP, Zone-II, Cuttack and other witnesses. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The doctors conducting post mortem examination opined that burn injuries to be ante mortem in nature and have been caused due to exposure to dry heat in the form of flame of fire and death was due to complications of extensive burn injuries sustained involving 90% of body surface. 5. On 22.11.2014 IIC, Mahila Police Station took over charge of investigation as per the direction of DCP, Bhubaneswar. The I.O. examined some witnesses who had accompanied the deceased to the medical and they stated that the deceased requested them to cure her but she has not disclosed either the name of Anil or the petitioner to have set her on fire. During course of investigation, it came to light that the deceased was an orphan lady and her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2012. After her marriage, she led a happy married life for about two to three months where after her sister-in-law Mina Panda who left her in-laws house, came to reside with them. The deceased was blessed with a male child and she disclosed regarding her torture by her in-laws family members to her foster mother Chandraprabha Samantaray who always advised her to tolerate all the difficulties. Ten days prior to the death of the deceased, the petitioner, his mother and sister quarreled with the deceased for which she was not taking meal for about 2-3 days. The mother of the deceased had come to her house for settlement of the dispute. Ten days prior to the death of the deceased, the petitioner, his mother and sister quarreled with the deceased for which she was not taking meal for about 2-3 days. The mother of the deceased had come to her house for settlement of the dispute. It further came to light that though the victim stated in her dying declaration that she was set on fire by one Anil Kumar Sahoo but the circumstantial evidence could not establish the complicity against the said Anil Kumar Sahoo rather prima facie evidence was found against the petitioner, his mother and sister. 6. On 25.11.2014 the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Court for the offence under sections 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code. The IIC, Bhubaneswar, UPD Mahila Police Station, examined the foster mother of the deceased namely Chandraprabha Samantaray and other witnesses. On the prayer made by the Investigating Officer, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Chandraprabha Samantaray was recorded by the Magistrate. During course of investigation, it was ascertained that after her marriage, the deceased was tortured by her husband (petitioner), mother-in-law and sister-in-law since long and it is the petitioner who set her body on fire in his house and shifted her for treatment. It was further ascertained that under pressure and threat of her husband and in-laws family members, the deceased had disclosed the name of Anil Kumar Sahoo instead of naming the petitioner before the Medical Officers, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack during recording of her dying declaration on dated 16.11.2014. Accordingly the case turned to one under sections 498-A/302 of IPC against the petitioner. So far as the mother and the sister of the petitioner are concerned, they were held to have committed the offences under section 498(A)/34 of IPC. 7. In pursuant to the office order dated 12.01.2015, Nilimarani Panda, Inspector, C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack took over charge of the investigation of the case. So far as the mother and the sister of the petitioner are concerned, they were held to have committed the offences under section 498(A)/34 of IPC. 7. In pursuant to the office order dated 12.01.2015, Nilimarani Panda, Inspector, C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack took over charge of the investigation of the case. After taking over the charge of the investigation, the new Investigating Officer examined the informant, visited the spot, examined the neighbours and tenants of the petitioner, seized the medical papers regarding treatment of the deceased at Sabarmati General Hospital Pvt. Ltd., examined the petitioner at Jharapada Jail after obtaining permission from the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, sent information to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar regarding turning of the case to one under sections 498-A/302/329/34 of IPC against the petitioner, Smt. Pramila Panda and Meena Panda @ Panigrahi. After collecting further materials, the I.O. was of the opinion that the petitioner at no point of time tried to save the deceased from burning rather to avoid resentment of the local public, admitted the deceased in private hospitals like Vivekananda Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack and Sabarmati Hospital at Cuttack and avoided the Government Hospital like Capital Hospital at Bhubaneswar. The I.O. examined the case record of Mangalabag P.S. U.D. Case No. 1714 dated 22.11.2014. It was also found during course of investigation that the petitioner was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. The materials collected on record also indicated that the deceased stated before her foster mother Chandraprabha Samantaray and her uncle Balabhadra Samantaray at different times that the petitioner was responsible for her burning. The I.O. submitted charge sheet under sections 498-A/302 of IPC against the petitioner and 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code against Smt. Pramila Panda keeping the investigation open under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. During course of further investigation, the I.O. examined the Medical Officer of Sabarmati Hospital, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, seized the bed head ticket of the deceased from S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and examined the doctors who were present at the time of recording of dying declaration at the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, examined Sri Sitaram Satpathy, A.C.P., Zone-II, UPD, Cuttack, treating physician of Vivekananda Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He received the report of the Scientific Officer from SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar which indicated that inflammable substances like petrol, diesel and kerosene could not be detected in the exhibit marked as 'A'. The I.O. examined some further witnesses, arrested co-accused Meena Panda for commission of offence under section 498-A/34 of IPC, examined the doctor of Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack. After completion of further investigation, charge sheet was also submitted against Meena Panda under section 498-A/34 of IPC. 8. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was a love marriage and it appears from the material on record that the deceased had filed one F.I.R. against Anil Kumar Sahoo at Airfield Police Station on the basis of which Airfield P.S. Case No. 220 of 2014 was registered under section 307 of IPC for which the said accused bore grudge against the deceased and committed the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the deceased sustained burn injury and jumped into a well, it is the petitioner who along with help of the neighbours, brought out the deceased from the well and the petitioner immediately shifted her to the Vivekananda Hospital, Bhubaneswar for her treatment but as there was no treatment facility available for burn injuries, the deceased was taken to Ashwini Hospital and then to Sabarmati Hospital and then to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner informed the foster mother of the deceased namely Chandraprava Samantray regarding the burn injury sustained by the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by Mamata Samantray, who is the Chairperson of State Progressive Womens' Forum, Bhubaneswar and the allegation that her organization was aware about the dowry torture and ill-treatment of the deceased by the petitioner and his family members should not be accepted inasmuch as they have not taken any action previously and the victim had also not complained before them. Learned counsel further submitted that from 16.11.2014 to 22.11.2014, the deceased was under treatment at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital where she succumbed to her burn injury and the records indicate that the petitioner was all along attending the deceased till her death. Learned counsel further submitted that from 16.11.2014 to 22.11.2014, the deceased was under treatment at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital where she succumbed to her burn injury and the records indicate that the petitioner was all along attending the deceased till her death. He further emphasized that the Investigating Officer made requisition for recording the dying declaration of the deceased and she also examined the deceased who stated before her that it is Anil Sahoo who is responsible for setting her on fire. Mr. Panda contended that the dying declaration was recorded by the ACP Zone-II, UPD, Cuttack-cum-Executive Magistrate in presence of Govt. doctors and at that time no relatives of the deceased were present and after the doctors certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a statement, the dying declaration was recorded and in the dying declaration, the deceased had again implicated the said Anil Sahoo to have committed the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasized that the statement given by the foster mother of the deceased and her relative namely Balabhadra Samantaray are fabricated. It is contended that when Chandraprabha Samantaray was examined on 16.11.2014 by the Investigating Officer, she did not whisper anything regarding dying declaration but in her statements dated 28.11.2014 before police and on 02.01.2015 before Magistrate, the witness has stated that the deceased disclosed before her that the petitioner set fire to her and the petitioner also pressurized her to tell falsely that Anil Sahoo had set her on fire. Mr. Panda further submitted that the witness Balabhadra Samantaray was examined on 05.01.2015 and he repeated the statement of Chandraprabha Samantaray and therefore those belated concocted statements cannot be considered at this stage to detain the petitioner further in jail custody. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is in custody for about a year and charge sheet has also been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or absconding of the petitioner, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, Additional Govt. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, Additional Govt. Advocate, on the other hand while opposing the prayer for bail contended that the victim was an orphan since her childhood and she was brought up at SOS (Save our Soul) at village- Khandagiri at Bhubaneswar and while she was reading in College, the petitioner came in contact with her and they got married at Kedar Gouri temple, Bhubaneswar on 24.7.2012 and their marriage was registered before the Marriage Officer, Khurda at Bhubaneswar and they were blessed with a male child who was only one and half years at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State further contended that after five months of marriage, disturbance started between the couple when the sister of the petitioner started staying with them deserting her husband and children. The learned counsel further contended that on 11.11.2014 the petitioner contacted his mother-in-law namely Chandraprabha Samantaray over phone and informed her that the victim was not taking her food and Chandraprabha talked with the deceased and consoled her. On 12.11.2014 the deceased also talked with her foster mother who came to the house of the petitioner immediately and found that the deceased had been assaulted and there were injuries on her body. On 12.11.2014 the deceased also talked with her foster mother who came to the house of the petitioner immediately and found that the deceased had been assaulted and there were injuries on her body. When Chandraprabha Samantaray threatened the in-laws of the deceased to go to the police station, they apologized for their behaviour and on 13.11.2014 the victim had been to SOS village to meet her foster mother and returned from there and on 14.11.2014 Chandraprabha Samantray received a telephone call regarding the burning of the deceased from the petitioner at about 2.30 p.m. Learned counsel for the State further urged that the conduct of the petitioner is very suspicious and the deceased was shifted to Vivekananda Hospital, Bhubaneswar after the occurrence where no facility was available for treatment for the patient receiving burn injury and she was not taken to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar which was very close to the house of the petitioner and when the deceased was referred by the Vivekananda Hospital Authorities to Cuttack for treatment, she was taken to Ashwini Hospital, CDA, Cuttack and Ashwini Hospital referred the deceased to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack but the petitioner took the deceased to Sabaramati Hospital where no facility was available for treatment of the burn injury patient and after keeping the patient for two days in the said hospital, the deceased was referred to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital where she was admitted on 16.11.2014 and the deceased succumbed to death on 22.11.2014. He further submitted that there has been deliberate delay in treatment given to the deceased in a better hospital with a motive to see that her condition deteriorate so that she would not be in a position to name the real culprit. Learned counsel for the State further contended that although the petitioner was very much present in the house at the time of occurrence but he never tried to rescue the deceased from the well when she jumped into well and he had never intimated about the incident to the police. Learned counsel for the State further emphasized that the deceased had made dying declaration before her foster mother Chandraprabha Samantaray where she had stated that it is the petitioner who had burnt her in the house and keeping the future of her son in mind, she has stated the name of Anil Sahoo as an accused. Learned counsel for the State further emphasized that the deceased had made dying declaration before her foster mother Chandraprabha Samantaray where she had stated that it is the petitioner who had burnt her in the house and keeping the future of her son in mind, she has stated the name of Anil Sahoo as an accused. The deceased further stated that the petitioner had threatened her not to disclose about the incident if she wanted the welfare of her son for which she falsely stated the name of Anil Sahoo to have committed the crime. The said statement was also repeated before her uncle Balabhadra Samantaray (brother of her foster mother Chandraprabha Samantaray). Learned counsel further urged that though the petitioner had taken a plea that he was not present in the house when the occurrence took place but the eye witnesses have stated that he was very much present in the house at the time of occurrence and none of the eye witnesses have seen the said Anil Sahoo in the house of the petitioner at the time of occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, from the available materials on record, it is prima facie clear that it is none else but the petitioner who has committed the crime and therefore the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 9. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the postmortem report, it is apparent that that the deceased sustained burn injuries which are ante mortem in nature and caused due to exposure to dry heat in the form of flame of fire and cause of death was due to complications of extensive burn injuries sustained involving about 90% of body surface. 10. The main material in the case seems to be the dying declarations of the deceased made before the Executive Magistrate-cum-ACP Zone II, UPD, Cuttack in presence of the doctors as well as before her foster mother Chandraprava Samantray and uncle Balabhadra Samantray at different point of times. It is the settled principle of law that the dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it appears to be voluntary, reliable, untutored, unprompted and trustworthy and made in a fit state of mind without any kind of pressure or fear. It is the settled principle of law that the dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it appears to be voluntary, reliable, untutored, unprompted and trustworthy and made in a fit state of mind without any kind of pressure or fear. A dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner preferably in the form of "question and answer" and as far as practicable in the words of the maker of the declarant stands on a much higher footing and should be given preference over the oral testimony relating to such dying declaration which may suffer from all infirmities of human memory and human character. The opportunity of a dying man to identify the culprit, the capacity of that man to remember the facts stated which has not been impaired at the time of making declaration, absence of any material regarding tutoring to such person by the interested parties, disclosure at the earliest opportunity are all the factors which are to be taken note of by the Court at the time of appreciating the evidentiary value of the dying declaration. In case of Sudhakar v. State of M.P. reported in (2012) 53 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 117, it is held as follows:- "20. The 'dying declaration' is the last statement made by a person at a stage when he is in serious apprehension of his death and expects no chances of his survival. At such time, it is expected that a person will speak the truth and only the truth. Normally in such situations the courts attach the intrinsic value of truthfulness to such statement. Once such statement has been made voluntarily, it is reliable and is not an attempt by the deceased to cover up the truth or falsely implicate a person, then the Courts can safely rely on such dying declaration and it can form the basis of conviction. More so, where the version given by the deceased as dying declaration is supported and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, there is no reason for the Courts to doubt the truthfulness of such dying declaration." In case of Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22 , it is held as follows:- "17. More so, where the version given by the deceased as dying declaration is supported and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, there is no reason for the Courts to doubt the truthfulness of such dying declaration." In case of Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22 , it is held as follows:- "17. Hence, in order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction." In case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1993 (2) Supreme Court Cases 684, it is held as follows:-- "18............A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment, such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. If there are more than one dying declaration then the Court has also to scrutinize all the dying declarations to find out if each one of these passes the test of being trustworthy. If there are more than one dying declaration then the Court has also to scrutinize all the dying declarations to find out if each one of these passes the test of being trustworthy. The Court must further find out whether the different dying declarations are consistent with each other in material particulars before accepting and relying upon the same." In case of Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 69 wherein it has been held that a person suffering from 99% burn injuries could be deemed capable enough for the purpose of making a dying declaration. The Court in the said case opined that unless there existed "some inherent and apparent defect", the Trial Court should not have substituted its opinion for that of the doctor. In case of Vijay Pal v. State reported in (2015) 61 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 329, it is held as follows:- "17. ...... the dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice, provided the communication is positive and definite. There cannot be any cavil over the proposition that a dying declaration cannot be mechanically relied upon. In fact, it is the duty of the Court to examine a dying declaration with studied scrutiny to find out whether the same is voluntary, truthful and made in a conscious state of mind and further it is without any influence. xxx xxx xxx 20. Thus, the law is quite clear that if the dying declaration is absolutely credible and nothing is brought on record that the deceased was in such a condition, he or she could not have made a dying declaration to a witness, there is no justification to discard the same. ........" 11. In the present case the dying declaration which has been recorded by Executive Magistrate-cum-ACP, Zone-II, UPD, Cuttack Mr. Sitaram Satpathy on 16.11.2014 in presence of Dr. Santosh Kumar Behera, Asst. Professor, Department of Surgery and Dr. Kumaramani Jena, S.R., Surgery Department both are of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack in absence of any relatives or attendants of the deceased exonerates the petitioner from the complicity of the crime. The deceased has named one Anil Kumar Sahu to have committed the crime. Santosh Kumar Behera, Asst. Professor, Department of Surgery and Dr. Kumaramani Jena, S.R., Surgery Department both are of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack in absence of any relatives or attendants of the deceased exonerates the petitioner from the complicity of the crime. The deceased has named one Anil Kumar Sahu to have committed the crime. This declaration has been recorded, as it appears after ascertaining the fit state of mind and that to in a question answer form. Dr. Santosh Kumar Behera, Asst. Professor, Surgery was examined by the Inspector, CID, Crime Branch, Cuttack and he has stated that in order to ascertain whether the patient was well oriented or not, he put some questions to the patient and then in presence of the Executive Magistrate, the statement was recorded in which the Executive Magistrate Sitaram Satpathy and Dr. Kumarmani Jena have also put their signatures. Sitaram Satpathy, ACP-cum-Executive Magistrate and Dr. Kumarmani Jena have also stated about the recording of the dying declaration. The dying declaration sheet which was produced by the State not only contains the signatures of the doctors and the Executive Magistrate but also the signature of the deceased. Prima facie there appears to be no infirmity in the recording of dying declaration and it appears that after taking all precautions and after evacuating the relatives and attendants of the deceased, the dying declaration was recorded in a free atmosphere. The two persons who have stated about the oral dying declarations made by the deceased before them are Chandraprava Samantray and Balabhadra Samantray. Both of them are related to the deceased. It seems that the deceased in her oral dying declaration has implicated the petitioner to be the author of the crime and she has also stated before her foster mother that she was pressurized and threatened by her in-laws family members to state against Anil. Thus even in the oral dying declaration before Chandraprave Samantray, the deceased stated to have made a dying declaration before the doctors but falsely named Anil to be the culprit. Thus even in the oral dying declaration before Chandraprave Samantray, the deceased stated to have made a dying declaration before the doctors but falsely named Anil to be the culprit. Whether the deceased at all made any subsequent oral dying declarations before these two witnesses or not and whether she falsely implicated Anil in the recorded dying declaration due to pressure and threatening of the petitioner and her in-laws family members or not and whether "she was though in a fit state of mind but not in a free state of mind" and why the witnesses to the oral dying declaration disclosed the same at a belated stage are all the matters to be adjudicated at the time of trial and it would not be proper for this Court to observe anything in that respect. In view of the statements of the doctors of the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as well as ACP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Cuttack and the manner in which dying declaration has been recorded after taking all precaution after testing the fitness of mind and evacuating the relations and attendants of the patient so as to avoid any kind of tutoring, I am of the prima facie view that the recorded dying declaration can be accepted at this stage for the purpose of consideration of bail application as there appears to be no infirmity in the same. 12. Apart from the recorded dying declaration, the statements available on record indicate that the petitioner had also participated in the rescue operation of the deceased from the well. Though some witnesses have stated about this aspect in a different manner but the statements of Sanjida Begum and Gunanidhi Sethy clearly indicate that the petitioner participated in the rescue operation of the deceased. 13. The conduct of the petitioner in shifting the deceased from one hospital to the other to save her life and remaining present with the deceased at the SCB Medical College and Hospital from 16.11.2014 till her death is another factor which goes in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner took the deceased only to the hospitals where treatment for burn injury facilities were not available cannot be prima facie accepted. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner took the deceased only to the hospitals where treatment for burn injury facilities were not available cannot be prima facie accepted. The doctors of Sabarmati Hospital and Ashwini Hospital have treated the deceased for burn injuries and the concerned medical documents have also been seized from the respective hospitals. Why the deceased was not taken to the Government Hospital at the initial stage is a question which is to be taken note of by the Trial Court after affording opportunity to the petitioner in that respect. 14. There are some allegations available on record that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioner, his mother and sister and the informant Mamata Samantaray, Chairperson of State Progressive Women's Forum claims to be aware of the same. No report has been submitted before any authority prior to her death in that connection. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was a love marriage as it appears from the statement of Chandraprava Samantray which was solemnized on 24.6.2012 and they were blessed with a son. There is no allegation of demand of dowry. 15. The petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2014 and in the meantime after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the case has been committed to the Court of Session for trial. Nothing has been pointed out by the State that there is any chance of absconding of the petitioner. The nature of materials as per my humble opinion is such that there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Without detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merit of the case but taking note of the post occurrence conduct of the petitioner in rescuing the deceased from the well, shifting the deceased from hospital to hospital for the purpose of providing treatment to her to save her life, the contents of the recorded dying declaration, absence of any chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence and taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) with two local sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper. Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.