Orissa High Court
Lambodar Pradhan @ vs State Of Odisha on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1149 of 2022
Lambodar Pradhan @ .... Appellant/
Lambodhar Pradhan Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Rajesh Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
11.04.2023
I.A. No.2211 of 2022
03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under sections 498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code
and section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of ten years for the offence
under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for
a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand), in default, to further undergo
// 2 //
R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under
section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand), in default, to further undergo
R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under
section 4 of the D.P. Act and all the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T.
Case No.20/55 of 2013-10.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has
never misutilised his liberty and after the
pronouncement of the judgment, he has been taken
into judicial custody. He further submitted that there
is no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near
future and balance of convenience is in favour of the
petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and
the deceased Ranjeeta Pradhan was solemnized on
21.05.2005 and they were having a male child, who
was born in the year 2006 and the deceased died on
11.09.2009 and the cause of death was on account of
burn injury. The appellant also sustained burn injury
which would be evident from the evidence of the
doctor (P.W.21). Learned counsel for the petitioner
placed the evidence of the informant (P.W.2), who is
the mother of the deceased and she has stated that
there was a demand of dowry by the accused persons
// 3 //
and torturing on the deceased but the matter was
compromised in the year 2007 and after compromise,
the deceased and her husband lived happily for some
days and a son was born out of the wedlock of the
deceased and the petitioner and on 11.09.2019, she
got information that the deceased had sustained burn
injury and was hospitalized at Balasore. Learned
counsel argued that from this evidence, it appears
that there is no material that soon before the death of
the deceased, she was subjected to torture or cruelty
in connection with demand of dowry by the petitioner
and as such, the conviction of the petitioner under
section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is not
sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the bail
application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
P.W.5, the uncle (Piusa) of the deceased who has
stated that on 10.09.2009, the deceased disclosed
before him over phone that the petitioner was
torturing her demanding dowry and that he went to
the house of the petitioner and there also the
deceased told him about the demand and torture
given by the accused persons. Learned counsel for the
State submitted that in view of such evidence of
P.W.5, one of the ingredients required to be soon
before is satisfied.
// 4 //
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other
hand, submitted that P.W.5 has stated that he has not
disclosed about the torture on the deceased before
any of the villagers, sarapanch or ward member of
village Pingu after he came to know the same from
the deceased and he has also not reported in the
police outpost at Nududiha. Learned counsel
submitted that even the parents of the deceased
being examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not stated
that on 10.09.2009 any telephone call was received
by P.W.5 from the deceased and therefore, this
evidence of P.W.5 is not acceptable.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced during the trial, the fact that the petitioner
was on bail during trial and there is no allegation of
misutilization of his liberty while on bail and absence
of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the
near future, the prayer for bail is allowed.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 5 //
I.A. No.2212 of 2022
04. Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-
petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
