Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 419 (ORI)

Mina Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2016-06-03

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. Cherishing the dream of a beautiful future, the nervous bride keeps her feet in the house of her in-laws. She expects a motherly love from her mother-in-law, blessings of father from her father-in-law, caring and sharing attitude from her life partner, fair treatment by her in-laws in the smooth journey of her marital life. What a pity when she gets everything on the wrong side? Most painful is when other women like mother-in-law and sister-in-law join hands together in subjecting her to harassment and torture in connection with demand of dowry. Bitter experiences in her matrimonial home bring tears in her eyes. The tentacles of torment of dowry squeeze all her happiness and sometimes she is forced to meet her tragic end in flames being droused with kerosene. Shameless greedy in-laws try to give a different colour to such condemnable happenings but while trying to escape from the clutches of the law, sometimes they are caught and punished for their wrongdoings. 2. The law was set into motion in this case with the presentation of the First Information Report by one Dibakar Behera of village Balia under Kujanga Police Station in the district of Jagatsinghpur before the Inspector in Charge, Kujanga Police Station on 6.9.2015 wherein it is stated that the neice of the informant namely, Mamina Behera (hereafter “the deceased”) had married to one Ramachandra Sahoo, who is the son of the petitioner on 18.7.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs in Laxminarayan Temple at Balia. Prior to the marriage, all the demand which were raised from the side of the in-laws of the deceased were fulfilled but one month after marriage, further demand of cash of Rs.50,000/-was made in connection with the business of the husband of the deceased and due to non-fulfilment of such demand, the father-in-law, mother-in-law (petitioner), husband and brother-in-laws of the deceased subjected her to physical and mental torture. On receipt of information about her torture from the deceased, the informant sent his nephew Gagan Behera to the house of the petitioner with certain presentation gifts on the eve of Janmashtami on 5.9.2015 at about 4.00 p.m. Gagan requested the petitioner to leave the deceased for some days to take her back with him but the petitioner did not allow the deceased to go to her paternal place and on the very next day the informant got the message that the condition of the deceased was alarming. The mother of the deceased namely, Sabitri Behera rushed to the house of the petitioner and found the deceased lying dead with burn injuries. It is stated in the First Information Report that the father-in-law, mother-in-law (petitioner), husband and brother-in-laws of the deceased conjointly killed her by setting fire on her body. On the basis of such First Information Report, Kujanga P.S. Case No.209 dated 06.09.2015 was registered under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During course of investigation, the Inspctor in Charge of Kujanga Police Station visited the spot, examined the witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of Additional Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kujanga, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The doctors though did not detect any other internal and external injury on the body of the deceased but opined the cause of death was due to suffocation on account of 90% burn injuries on her body which led to neurogenic shock. Smell of kerosene was also emanating from her body. The Investigating Officer seized one half burnt jerkin containing kerosene and burnt clothes of the deceased from the spot which were sent for chemical examination. The dowry articles which were identified by the informant and his family members were also seized and left in the zima of the informant. The petitioner was taken into custody on 07.09.2015 and forwarded to Court on the next day and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The petitioner moved an application for bail in BLAPL No.707 of 2015 before learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur which was rejected on 25.01.2016. 4. Mr. 3. The petitioner moved an application for bail in BLAPL No.707 of 2015 before learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur which was rejected on 25.01.2016. 4. Mr. Bijan Ray, leaned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no specific material relating to demand of dowry or torture against the petitioner and she has been falsely implicated in the case basing on surmises and conjectures. It is further contended that when the investigation is already complete and there is no chance of absconding of the petitioner, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody as well as the proviso to section 437(1) Cr.P.C., her bail application may be favourably considered. The learned counsels for the State as well as the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that not only there are specific materials against the petitioner relating to her involvement in the demand of dowry as well as torture on the deceased but also there are materials to show that the petitioner was very much present in the spot house when the occurrence took place and her conduct at the time of occurrence as stated by the witnesses is highly suspicious and the manner in which within two months of marriage, the deceased was brutally killed, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and her bail application should be rejected. 5. Adverting to the contentions raised at the Bar and on perusal of the statements of the informant and other family members of the deceased, it prima facie appears that there was demand of dowry prior to the marriage by the in-laws of the deceased including the petitioner which were fulfilled and after marriage, cash of Rs.50,000/-was further demanded in connection with the business of the husband of the deceased and in that connection, all the in-laws’ family members of the deceased including the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental torture. The mother of the deceased namely, Sabitri Behera has stated that on some occasions, the deceased had sent message about her ill-treatment by her in-laws’ family members in connection with demand of dowry and they used to go to the in-laws’ house of the deceased for settlement and request the family members not to torture the deceased. The mother of the deceased namely, Sabitri Behera has stated that on some occasions, the deceased had sent message about her ill-treatment by her in-laws’ family members in connection with demand of dowry and they used to go to the in-laws’ house of the deceased for settlement and request the family members not to torture the deceased. The neighbours of the petitioner have also stated about the demand of dowry and torture and one of the witnesses namely, Chaturi Rout who is the biological mother of the husband of the deceased who was adopted by the petitioner and her husband has specifically stated that the petitioner was very rowdy in nature and on the date of occurrence, seeing smoke coming out of the house of the petitioner, she rushed there and found the husband of the deceased went away from the house and the petitioner was moving here and there near the door steps of the house. Another witness Babuli Behera who is the immediate neighbour of the petitioner has stated that when he rushed to the spot on the date of occurrence seeing smoke coming out of the house of the petitioner, he noticed the petitioner dragging the deceased from inside the house but seeing him, she ran away and at that time he called others and found the deceased lying dead. Similar statement has been made by witness Pabitra Parida who is another neighbour regarding the conduct of the petitioner in dragging the body of the deceased from inside a room of the house and throwing it near the door step. The Investigating Officer during spot visit found the dead body of the deceased lying on the verandah in front of the door. He also found burnt clothes of the deceased lying on the floor and one match box, one half burnt jerkin containing kerosene lying by the side of the bed of the deceased, half burnt wooden alna with burnt clothes were also found at the spot whereas the dead body of the deceased was found to have been dragged from her bedroom and left at the entrance door of the house. 6. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsels and the materials available on record, it prima facie appears that not only the petitioner was rowdy in character but also she was a party to the demand of dowry and torture on the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. It further appears that she did not allow the deceased to visit her father’s place on the previous day of occurrence when the brother of the deceased had come to take her with certain gifts on the eve of Janmashtami. It also prima facie appears that the occurrence in question took place inside the bedroom of the deceased where kerosene was used to set her body on fire and witnesses have noticed the presence of the petitioner as well as the husband of the deceased at that time. The conduct of the petitioner in dragging the dead body of the deceased from inside the spot room and leaving it at the door steps as stated by the witnesses prima facie reflects about the guilty mind of the petitioner and also an attempt made by the petitioner to cause disappearance of the evidence. In view of the post mortem report findings, there are prima facie material to show that the deceased met with an unnatural death which took place just within two months of her marriage. The manner in which the crime was committed and a young bride lost her life within few months of her marriage in the hands of her in-laws being unable to satisfy the greed of the accused persons and also taking note of the available materials on record relating to involvement of the petitioner in the horrendous crime, the nature and gravity of accusation and chance of tampering with the evidence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.