Kailash Sahu & Ors vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 8057 Ori

                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                            CRLA No.214 of 2022

                                        (From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
                                        14.02.2022/21.02.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
                                        Dhenkanal in C.T. (Sessions) Case No.142 of 2017.)

                                       Kailash Sahu & Ors.                      ....          Appellants

                                                                     -versus-



                                       State of Orissa                          ....         Respondent




                                       Advocates appeared in the case:
                                       For Appellants            :              Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Adv.
                                                                  -versus-

                                       For Respondent                :            Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA




                                                        CORAM:
                                                        MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
                                                        DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                                         DATE OF HEARING:-04.07.2023
                                                        DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.07.2023

                                            Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this CRLA, the Convicts/ Appellants (Kailash Sahu,

Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and Mataji Sahu) have

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 1 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 assailed the correctness of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 14.02.2022/21.02.2022 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in CT (Sessions) Case

No.142 of 2017, whereby they have been convicted and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine

of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further

imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302 of

the I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the

offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C., to undergo

imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in

default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment of

three months for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.,

and to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine

of Rs.1000/- , in default of payment of fine, to suffer further

imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was further directed that the

substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant gave

his daughter Sumitra Sahoo (the deceased) in marriage with

accused Kailash Sahu in the month of June, 2015 in a temple as

per custom by giving cash of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.45,000/- for

purchase of a motor cycle, gold and other household articles.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR                                                                        pg. 2

Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 After the marriage, the deceased led her marital life in the

house of the accused persons. It is alleged that all the accused

persons started ill-treatment on the deceased demanding more

money during her stay in their house. After being got the said

information, the informant came to the house of the accused

persons, took the deceased to his house and after delivery the

informant left the deceased in the house of the accused

persons. Again on 18.08.2016, the informant and his son visited

the deceased in her matrimonial house on the day of Rakhi

Pumima to ascertain her wellbeing. But, they got to know from

the deceased that the accused persons to have assaulted her

two days back demanding Rs.50,000/- and threatened her to

kill. The informant begged one year time to fulfill the said

demand and returned home. But on 31.08.2016 at 6.00 A.M the

informant received a telephone call from a co-villager of the

accused persons that the accused persons to have burnt the

deceased to death with kerosene. The informant rushed to the

house of the accused persons along with others and found his

deceased daughter lying dead with burn injuries on her

person. Suspected foul play, he reported the matter to the

I.I.C., Nihalprasad Police Station. The concerned I.I.C., on

receipt of such report, registered Nihalprasad P.S Case No.106

of 2016, took up investigation and on completion of

investigation, charge-sheeted the accused persons under Signature Not Verified pg. 3 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 Sections 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/ 406/ 34 of the I.P.C. read with

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

II. TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT:

3. Upon consideration of materials on record, the trial court

framed charge under Sections 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/ 406/ 34 of the

I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against

all the aforesaid Appellants.

4. The defence took the plea of denial and false implication. It

was also their plea that the deceased had committed suicide on

account of her mental illness on the fateful day of occurrence.

5. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined as

many as 18 witnesses. Prosecution also placed reliance on

certain documents marked as Exts.1 to 7 and material objects

marked as M.Os.1 to 3.

6. No defence evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced.

7. Out of the 18 prosecution witnesses, P.W.11 is the informant

and father of the deceased. P.W.12 is the wife, P.W.14 is the

brother-in-law, P.W.15 is the brother and P.W.16 is the son of

the informant. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 17 are the

independent witnesses to the alleged occurrence. P.W.5 is the

Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination over

the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is a Constable in whose

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 4 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 presence the Investigating Officer seized some of the material

objects. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer in this case.

8. Placing reliance on the evidence of the family members of the

deceased i.e. P.Ws.11, 12 and 16 and the medical evidence that

the deceased sustained 90% deep burn injuries as per the post-

mortem examination report marked as Ext.2 and other

incriminating circumstances, the trial court held the

Appellants guilty under Section 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/ 34 of the

I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and

sentenced them as stated supra. However, the Appellants

have been acquitted of the charge under Section 406/ 34 of the

I.P.C. by the learned trial court as there was absence of

entrustment of the alleged dowry articles and cash to the

accused persons and misappropriation and conversion of the

same to their own use by the accused persons.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

9. In assailing the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the

Appellants submitted that all the above witnesses i.e. P.Ws.11,

12 and 16 being the parents and brother of the deceased are

close relations of the deceased, their evidence should not be

accepted.

10. He further submitted that the Appellants' presence inside the

room at the time of accident has not been proved by any of the

Signature Not Verified pg. 5 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 prosecution witnesses which is a missing link. No doubt,

Appellants have not explained circumstances under which the

deceased died. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted

that the accused/ Appellants would not suppose to explain the

circumstance and the prosecution was to stand on its own leg

and conviction made on such presumption is bad in law

imposing life imprisonment.

11. It is also submitted that the post mortem report vide Ext.2 is

an ambiguous report. The cause of death has been described

due to burn injury but silent about the nature of injury i.e.

suicidal or homicidal. In the inquest report vide Ext.(P-4) it has

particularly been mentioned that the front portion hair of the

head of the deceased is completely burnt leaving the back

portion of hair intact. It is contended that in a case of suicide

by pouring kerosene a person can make suicide, whereas in a

case of homicidal death the entire portion of hair of the head

will be burnt. In such circumstance, the finding of the trial

court about commission of murder of the deceased by the

Appellants is erroneous. Moreover, by sprinkling the Kerosene

or throwing the kerosene from a little distance will also burn

the domestic assets like furniture, clothes and other assets, and

also there will be sign of violence in other places of the

particular house. But, in this case, the prosecution has not

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 6 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 uttered a single word which goes to show that it is case of

homicide.

12. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that the

trial court has come to a wrong conclusion that the police have

seized two broken bangles and a broken cup which indicates

that the deceased was subjected to violence before her death

and the broken pieces are sign of the same. This assumption is

wrong, erroneous and without any supporting evidence of

violence/ forcible assault. A lady committing suicide by

pouring kerosene on her is likely to struggle for her life, stretch

her hands and legs and rolled on earth, growling in pain, and

while doing so, such stretching her bangles and cups might

have been broken/ damaged. It was contended that based

upon such presumption, conviction cannot be sustained.

13. It was further submitted that prosecution witnesses have

brought out two stories which can be believed to be the cause

of death. P.Ws.11 and P.W 12 who are parents of the deceased

admit that their deceased daughter gave birth to a still born

child. Thereafter, she suffered from mental ill-ness, depression

and loss of mental equilibrium. In such circumstance, a person

suffering from deep depression likely to commit suicide. On

the other hand, the prosecution has alleged murder of the

deceased without support of any expert opinion and eye

Signature Not Verified pg. 7 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 witness. Moreover, the burning sign of the front portion of the

body of the deceased clearly indicates that it is a case of

suicide.

14. It was further submitted that in absence of evidence of any

direct, positive and eye-witness, the opinion of the doctor who

conducted post-mortem is vital. But, in the present case, the

doctor who conducted post mortem examination described

that burn injury of 90% may cause death. But, unfortunately,

the conducting doctor has forgotten to opine as to whether the

death was suicidal or homicidal in nature. In his cross-

examination, the doctor admitted his fault of not describing

such cause. Moreover, no external injury is found to lead to a

conclusion that violence has been committed just before her

death. In such circumstance, doctor's opinion is of no value

excepting dragging the prosecution allegation to be a case of

homicide instead of suicide. He further submitted that it is not

the case of the prosecution that the accused persons fled away

from the place of occurrence or absconded from the place of

occurrence but waiting silently for action of Law. This conduct

of the accused persons shows their innocence and ignorance.

So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, it was submitted

that P.W.12, the mother of the deceased, deposed the

traditional items to have given at the time of marriage. P.W.11,

who is the father of the deceased, exaggerated his version of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 8 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 demand of dowry and has stated different items in different

times. In the F.I.R. (Ext.P-3), P.W.11 has mentioned the number

of items such as Godrej Almirah, Freeze, Motor Cycle etc.

which are not perishable items. But, surprisingly, neither

P.W.12 the mother of the deceased has stated so nor P.W.18,

the I.O has seized the items. Moreover, in comparison to the

daily income of the informant a daily labour, the items given

as dowry are impossible. In such circumstance, allegation of

demand of dowry is a falsity and not believable.

15. It was further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has

committed error by concluding that the seized materials are

evidence of violence inflicted on the deceased just before her

death. It was contended that a person affected by a burn injury

and sustain pain shall stretch her hands and legs before her

death in critical pain which must have caused damages to the

seized items.

16. It was also submitted that the post-mortem report of the

doctor (Ext.2) indicates that the front internal and external

limbs of the body sustain heavy burn injury. A person

committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her/his body shall

do it from the front side and the back side of the body shall

sustain less burn injury. In the present case also, the deceased

Signature Not Verified pg. 9 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 has sustained born injury on her front side which clearly

indicates that this is a case of suicide.

17. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has

committed error in observing that the deceased lived in the

company of the accused persons in their house at the time of

occurrence which is nothing but a wrong presumption of the

trial court more so when none of the prosecution witnesses has

deposed so. The time of death as described by the doctor in the

post-mortem report reveals that 30 hours before conducting of

post-mortem examination the death might have been caused.

In absence of evidence or deposition of any of the prosecution

witnesses, it cannot be concluded that the Appellants were

present in the same room at the time of occurrence.

18. It was also submitted that though the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly acquitted the Appellants for the offence punishable

under Section 406/34 I.P.C. but believed that there was

demand of Rs.50,000/- for which the deceased was subjected to

violence. There is lot of inconsistency, exaggeration and

embellishment in the deposition of P.W.11 (father of deceased)

who deposed that in the beginning of 4 months of marriage

the deceased was leaving happily with her husband. The

evidence with regard to demand is hearsay evidence and not

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 10 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 corroborated by the depositions of any other prosecution

witnesses even not by his son (P.W.16).

19. He further submitted that a cumulative evidence of P.Ws.11

and 12 will go to show that neither there was any pre-marriage

demand or post marriage demand of dowry. The basis of

conviction and sentence is made on a poor foundation which is

liable to be collapsed and benefit of doubt must go in favour of

the Appellants.

20. It was further submitted that the trial court without going to

the evidence available on record only based on circumstantial

evidence has recorded the conviction against the Appellants.

Hence, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in the

aforesaid case may be set aside.

IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

21. In defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence learned Counsel for the State submitted that there

is trustworthy evidence in respect of demand of cash made by

the accused persons following the marriage and for non-

fulfillment of the said demand, the accused persons were

subjecting the deceased to cruelty in their house. He

contended that there is no rule of law that evidence of relation

witnesses cannot be accepted in absence of independent

Signature Not Verified pg. 11 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 corroboration. The motive of the accused persons to kill the

deceased has been well proved as the deceased died within 14

months of her marriage in her bed room in the early hours of

the fateful day. He further submitted that recovery and seizure

of two broken pieces of glass bangles and presence of the

kerosene jerrycan and broken pieces of cup found in the bed

room of the deceased are additional links in support of the

case of the prosecution indicating commission of violence in

the bed room of the deceased. She was also subjected to some

sort of forcible assault. He also submitted that presence of all

the accused persons in their house during the occurrence is

well established, as the Appellants had not taken any plea of

alibi that at the time of occurrence they were not present in

their house or they were present elsewhere. Moreover, they

had not taken any step to rescue the deceased while she was

burning in her bed room and they had not raised any hullah

soliciting the help of their neighbours to put out the fire is

another important link as to the role played by the accused

persons when the occurrence took place leading to

commission of offence of murder of the deceased. Therefore,

their plea that the deceased committed suicide on account of

loss of mental equilibrium is out and out a false one which is

only to extricate themselves from this case.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR                                                                         pg. 12

Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40

22. In such view of the matter, he submitted that there is no scope

to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial court.

V. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

23. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against

them and claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this

case. The prosecution story is that the death is homididal in

nature. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

P.Ws.11, 12 and 16 support the prosecution case. There is no

direct evidence with regard to torture. Another striking feature

in this case is that the persons like P.Ws.13, 14, 15, 16 and 17

have turned hostile in this case. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13

and 17 are independent witnesses to the alleged occurrence.

P.W.5 is the medical officer who conducted post-mortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is a

constable in whose presence the I.O. seized some of the

material objects. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer in this case.

Apart from the aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the

prosecution, it has also relied on certain documents marked

Exts. 1 to 7. It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that

there is no independent evidence on record that the deceased

was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.

Even there is no direct evidence against the accused persons

Signature Not Verified pg. 13 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 that they did pour kerosene on the deceased and set her

ablazed. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the

deceased committed suicide on account of her depression after

giving birth to a still baby. The deceased died within 14

months of her marriage in her bed room in the early hours the

fate day. The recovery and seizure of two broken pieces of

glass bangles and presence of the kerosene jerry cane found

under the cot in the bed room of the deceased and broken

pieces of cup found in the bed rood of the deceased are the

additional links in support of the case of the prosecution. Thus

finding of broken pieces cup etc. in the bed room of the

deceased is also pointed the fact that there was commission of

some violence in the bed room of the deceased. Further, the

factum of not rescuing the deceased while she was burning in

her bed room. They were also not raising any hullah seeking

help of their neighbours to extinguish the fire. This is also

strongly indicates the link of the Appellant with the crime and

theory of suicide on account of mental illness cannot be linked.

The accused persons in this case have stood indicted allegedly

for having committed the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.

Act, Section 498a/ 304-B/ 34 of the I.P.C. The post marriage

demand of dowry at the instance of the accused persons has

been slightly on a shaky ground.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR                                                                      pg. 14

Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40

24. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that co-accused

Prakash is t he brother of the accused Kailash and the other co-

accused Mataji is the mother of accused kailash. There is also

no dispute that the accused Kailash got married to the

deceased in the month of June, 2015 and while the deceased

was staying in the house of the accused persons, , she died on

31.08.2016 in the early morning in her bed room sustaining

burn injuries. The accused persons had clearly accepted the

aforesaid facts. The evidence of parents of the deceased

P.Ws.11 and 12 fully corroborates the F.I.R. version. P.W.11

has categorically has categorically reiterated the factum of

demand of Rs.50,000/- and torture meted out to his deceased-

daughter with an appeal to them not to subject to the deceased

to cruelty and continuance of torture of the deceased at the

hands of the accused persons for not meeting the demand of

Rs.50,000/-. Despite cross-examination of this witness by the

defence counsel, nothing substantial has surfaced during such

cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. There was

completely absence of inconsistency, exaggeration or

embellishment in the evidence of father of the deceased. His

evidence appears to be clear, cogent and consistent as to

making of the post-marriage demand by the accused persons

and the torture meted out to the deceased at the hands of the

accused persons. The evidence of P.W.11 stands corroborated Signature Not Verified pg. 15 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 with that of P.W.12. P.W.16 is the brother of the deceased

whose evidence also supported the prosecution case in respect

of the demand of money made by the accused persons from

the deceased and subjecting the deceased to cruelty on her

failure to meet the same. This witness has also been cross-

examined at length and nothing substantial has been elicited

from the mouth of this witness to discredit such testimony.

25. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.s, 11, 12

and 16 goes a long way to prove that these accused persons

not only made post-marriage demand of Rs.50,000/- from the

deceased but also subjected the deceased to cruelty for non-

fulfillment of such demand. However, the learned defence

counsel has submitted that all the above witnesses being close

relations of the deceased, their evidence should not be

accepted. True, all the aforesaid witnesses being the parents

and brother of the deceased are certainly close relations of the

deceased. It is the settled position of law that close relations

would be the most reluctant to spare the real culprits and

falsely mention the name of other persons. But, merely

because they are related to the deceased, the same cannot be a

ground to discard their statements if otherwise the same is

found to be credible.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR                                                                      pg. 16

Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40

26. In such view of the matter, we do not find anything to distrust

the evidence of P.W.11, 12 and 16 and the same can be safely

accepted. However, none of the witnesses has stated that all

the accused persons were residing together at the time of

occurrence.

27. Coupled with the above, absence of clear finding of the

learned trial judge that all the accused persons were residing

together at the time of occurrence, this Court is of the

considered opinion that reasonable doubt arises in this case

regarding complicity of the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 in

commission of the crime pertaining to the offences under

Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C. . Since genuine and reasonable

doubt arises regarding complicity of the Appellant Nos.2 and

3 in commission of the crime pertaining to the offences under

Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C, the Appellant Nos.2and 3

should be extended the benefit of doubt. So, this Court comes

to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that

all the accused persons were residing together at the time of

occurrence. But, this Court is of the opinion that the learned

trial judge did not commit any error in coming to the

conclusion that offence under Section 498A / 34 of the I.P.C.

and Section 4 of the D.P. Act is made out against all the

accused persons and offence under Sections 304B/ 302 of the

I.P.C. is made out against the Appellant No.1-Kailash Sahu in Signature Not Verified pg. 17 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 this case. However, the conviction of the Appellant Nos.2-

Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and 3- Mataji Sahu under

Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C. Penal Code recorded by the

learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal is erroneous and is liable to

be set aside.

28.In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of

the Appellant Nos.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and 3-

Mataji Sahu under Sections 304B/302 of the I.P.C. recorded

vide the judgment and order dated 14.02.2022 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T.(Sessions) Case No.142 of

2017 are hereby set aside. The conviction under Section

498A/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. against the

Appellant Nos.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and 3-

Mataji Sahu being upheld, they stand acquitted of the charges

under Sections 304B/302 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, they too are

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of

one year for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.

However, the conviction under Section 498A/ 304B/ 302/ 34 of

the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. against the Appellant No.1-

Kailash Sahu being upheld, the order of sentenced as has been

passed against him by the trial court, is confirmed.

29. Accordingly, this CRLA is allowed in part in respect of

Appellant No.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 18 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 Appellant No.3- Mataji Sahu are concerned as indicated above

and the CRLA in respect of Appellant No.1-Kailash Sahu

stands dismissed.

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge

D. Dash, J. I agree.

                                                                                ( D. Dash )
                                                                                   Judge


                                   Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
                                   Dated the 24th July,2023/B. Jhankar




Signature Not Verified                                                                          pg. 19
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR

Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40