Orissa High Court
Smt. Gouri Ram vs State Of Orissa on 21 January, 2021
CRLA No. 591 of 2019
Smt. Gouri Ram ....... Appellant
-Vrs.-
1. State of Orissa
2. Rajesh Kumar Ram
3. Smt. Jhuli @ Nilam Devi
4. Muna @ Rabindra Ram ....... Respondents
04. 21.01.2021 This matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the State.
None appears on behalf of the appellant.
In this appeal, the appellant Smt. Gouri Ram has
challenged the impugned judgment and order of
acquitted dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions
Judge, Karanjia in Sessions Trial Case No.19/52 of 2012
in acquitting the respondents nos. 2 to 4 namely, Rajesh
Kumar Ram, Smt. Jhuli @ Nilam Devi and Muna @
Rabindra Ram of the charges under sections 307/498-A/
326/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the
informant Smt. Gouri Ram had married respondent no.2
Rajesh Kumar Ram on 12.05.2006 at Rairangpur as per
Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, both led a
happy conjugal life and out of their wed-lock, they were
blessed with a son. Some days after, the informant was
subjected to torture mentally and physically for dowry.
Due to such demand of dowry, the informant was
2
tortured by respondent nos. 2 to 4. On 16.03.2008 a
quarrel ensued between the appellant and her in-laws at
about 8.30 p.m. While the appellant was busy in cooking
by means of kerosene stove, the respondent no.2
forcibly pressed the face of the appellant and pushed her
towards the burning stove for which the belly, chest and
other parts of the appellant got burnt, but both the eyes
of the appellant were saved, as the appellant gave
protection to it by means of her hands. During the time
of such act of the husband, even if other respondents
were present but none of them came forward to rescue
the appellant. After such incident, the appellant became
senseless and fell on the ground. On hearing cry, Ratan
Ram, the paternal under uncle-in-law and his two
daughters namely, Nani and Meeni arrived at the spot
and poured water on the appellant and thereafter the
appellant was admitted in SDH, Rairangpur as burn case
as per the advice of the doctor. The mother, brother and
father of the appellant shifted her to S.C.B. Medical
College and Hospital, Cuttack but due to non-availability
of air conditioned room in S.C.B. Medical College and
Hospital, the appellant was shifted to Aswini Hospital,
Cuttack where she underwent treatment and got healed.
The appellant got medically treated with the help of her
father's family at Rairangpur and Cuttack as because the
respondent no.2 did not treat her. The appellant then
lodged an F.I.R. at Thakurmunda police station against
3
the respondents for attempting to take her life and
accordingly, the Thakurmunda P.S. Case No.4 of 2009
was registered.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined as many as eleven witnesses. P.W.1 Arun Devi
(mother of the victim), P.W. 2 Jagdish Ram (Father of
the victim), P.W.3 Gouri Ram (victim/informant of the
case), P.W.4 Niraja Kumar Ram (witness to seizure
brother), P.W.5 Dr. Laxmikanta Mohanta (doctor
prepared injury report of the victim Gouri Ram), P.W.6
Bijaya Kumar Barik (Barbar acted in marriage), P.W.7
Dhiraj Kumar Ram (brother of the victim supporting the
prosecution), P.W.8 Binod Pandit (Priest by profession
solemnized the marriage of appellant), P.W.9 Sunil Ram
(eye witness to the incident), P.W.10 Indrajit Behera
(investigating officer) and P.W.11 Bhagban Jena
(investigating officer).
The prosecution exhibited four documents. Ext.1
is the written F.I.R., Exts.2, 8, 9 and 11 are the seizure
lists, Exts.3 and 4 are the zimanama, Ext.5 is the
medical examination report, Ext.6 is the formal F.I.R.,
Exts.7 and 12 is the spot map, Ext.10 is the bed head
ticket and Ext.13 is the injury requisition.
The learned trial Court after analyzing the
evidence on record has been pleased to hold that P.W.3
had sustained burn injuries on her person. Learned trial
Court further held that the alleged incident took place on
4
16.03.2008 but the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant
on 11.03.2009 at Thakurmunda police station and there
is delay of one year in lodging of the F.I.R. It was further
held that no satisfactory explanation has been offered
relating to delay in lodging the F.I.R. Learned trial Court
has further held that there is non-seizure of kerosene
stove and half burnt wearing apparels of the victim which
is fatal. It is further held by the learned trial Court that
though the informant stated that hearing her cry, one
Ratan Ram, the paternal uncle in law and his two
daughters namely Nani and Mini rushed to the spot and
poured water on the informant but those witnesses have
not been examined and therefore, the non-examination
of the material witnesses are fatal to the prosecution
case.
After going through the impugned judgment and
the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be
said that there is any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment. It cannot be said that the view
taken by the learned trial Court is perverse one. The
learned trial Court assessed the evidence on record
minutely and came to a finding that the ingredients of
the offences under sections 307/498-A/326/406/34 of
the Indian Penal Code are not attracted.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I am not
inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the
5
respondents nos. 2 to 4 of the charges under sections
307/498-A/326/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
p
