Orissa High Court
Lalata Kumar Nayak vs State Of Orissa on 20 May, 2024
Author: D. Dash
Bench: D. Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.184 of 2001
In the matter of an Appeal under Section-374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 8th August 2001 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial
Case No.27/51 of 1999.
----
Lalata Kumar Nayak .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
=========================================================
For Appellant - Mr. Simon Jena,
Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. G.N. Rout,
Additional Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
DATE OF HEARING :03.05.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.05.2024
D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th August
2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak,
in Sessions Trial Case No.27/51 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case
No.1528 of 1998 corresponding to Bansada P.S. Case No.145 of
1998 of the file of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(S.D.J.M.), Bhadrak.
CRA No.184 OF 2001
The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for offence
under section-498-A of the Indian penal Code (for short, 'the
IPC') and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.3000/-
in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period
of six months.
2. Prosecution case is that the accused had married Laxmi @
Chandrika Nayak, daughter of the Informant (P.W.5) sometime
in June 1998. It is stated that at the time of marriage, besides
demand of cash of Rs.7,000/- which had been given to the
accused and his father namely, Lalit, who having faced the trial,
since been acquitted, as per their demand, subsequently this
accused, and his father (since acquitted) demanded more dowry.
On 30.11.1998, this accused having visited the house of his
father-in-law (P.W.5) had demanded cash of Rs.30,000/- as the
requirement for arranging a job for him in Talcher. When the
Informant (P.W.5) expressed his inability to pay the same, the
accused while returning had gone to the shop of his brother-in-
law and threatened him with dire consequences that unless he
would be given the amount within three days, he would see
something serious with his sister (wife of the accused). On
13.12.1998, the wife of the accused was found dead in the house.
The Informant (P.W.5) came to know about the said fact of death
of his daughter and he raised suspicion as to the involvement of
CRA No.184 OF 2001
this accused and others in killing his daughter (deceased). The
Gramarakhi of the Bansada Police Station had lodged a written
report with the Officer-In-Charge (OIC), Bansada Police Station
for which U.D. case being initially registered, inquiry had been
taken up and in course of that, inquest was held over the dead
body and report to that effect has been prepared as also the dead
body has been sent for postmortem examination. At this
juncture, a written report being lodged by the Informant (P.W.5),
who happens to be the father of the deceased, regular case being
registered, investigation was taken up.
On completion of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.9) submitted
the Final Form placing this accused and his father (since
acquitted), to face the trial for commission of offence under
section-498-A/304-B/302/201/34 of the IPC.
3. Learned Trial Court upon examination of evidence both
oral and documentary and scrutinizing the same has held the
prosecution to have failed to establish all the charges against the
father of this accused namely, Lalit Mohan Nayak. Accordingly,
he has been acquitted of the charges.
This accused who is the husband of the deceased has been
convicted only for the offence under section-498-A of the IPC.
When the Trial Court has found the prosecution to have failed
to establish the charges for commission of offence under section-
CRA No.184 OF 2001
304-B/302/201/34 of the IPC and section-4 of the D.P. Act, he has
been found guilty of commission of offence under section-498-A
of the IPC only. Accordingly, he had been sentenced as
aforestated.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant from the beginning
instead of questioning the finding of guilt against accused as has
been returned by the Trial Court for commission of offence
under section-498-A of the IPC, submitted that; looking at the
present age of the Appellant which is around 55 years as against
30 years at the time of occurrence, as he hails from rural
background and earns his living on daily wages, since he has
undergone mental agony of criminal trial for more than 25
years, at this distance of time, sentence of imprisonment for the
period already undergone keeping the sentence of fine intact
would be in the interest of justice and meet its end.
5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the sentence
imposed on the Appellant commensurate the offence.
6. Taking into account the submissions made, the record
being perused, it is seen that the Appellant when faced trial was
aged about 30 years and by now, he has reached 55 years of age.
The Appellant hails from rural background and it reveals from
the evidence that at the relevant time, he was not doing any
work and was in search of job. The Appellant has also remained
CRA No.184 OF 2001
in custody for two days short of two weeks. The Appellant
having been charged for serious offence like section-304-
B/302/201 of the IPC and section-4 of the D.P. Act, has simply
been convicted for offence under section-498-A of the IPC.
7. Taking all these factors into consideration, in their proper
perspective, this Court is of the view that for the commission of
said offence under section-498-A of the IPC, at this distance
time, after lapse of more than 24 years, the sentence of
imprisonment for the period undergone with payment of fine of
Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three months would be serve the interest of justice and
meet its end.
8. The Appeal is allowed in part only as to the modification of
the sentence to the extent as indicate above. For the conviction of
the Appellant for the offence under section-498-A of the IPC, he
is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for the period undergone
and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Narayan
CRA No.184 OF 2001
