Orissa High Court

Anam Charan Sahu vs State Of Orissa on 19 August, 2025

         THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         CRLA No. 57 of 2005
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 382 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

Anam Charan Sahu         .......                          Appellant

                         -Versus-

State of Orissa                  ......                 Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing:05.08.2025 :Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal under Section

374 (2) read with Section 382 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment and

order dated 24.01.2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No. 1/171

of 2004. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the

appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for three months.

The appellant was, however, acquitted of the charges under Section 304-

B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, learned counsel for the

appellant and Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing

Counsel, for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was married to

one Tilottama Sahu, daughter of Smt. Sulochana Sahu (informant),

about five years prior to the occurrence. The marriage was solemnized

as per prevailing customs and rituals. At the time of marriage, dowry in

the form of a Rajdoot motorcycle and household articles were allegedly

given. After about two years of happy conjugal life, the relationship

between the spouses soured allegedly due to fresh demands for dowry.

It was further alleged that the deceased was subjected to physical and

mental cruelty, leading her to commit suicide within seven years of

marriage.

4. The informant (P.W.1), mother of the deceased, lodged the FIR

alleging that her daughter had been subjected to cruelty by the appellant

Page2 of 8 in connection with further demands of dowry and that such harassment

had ultimately driven her daughter to commit suicide. Based on the said

FIR, investigation was undertaken and Charge-Sheet was submitted

under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

5. During the trial, nine witnesses were examined by the

prosecution, including the informant, her brother and son. The defence

examined one witness, who was the mediator of the marriage. After

conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant of

the charges under Sections 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove

the essential ingredients of those offences. However, the learned trial

court found the appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced

him accordingly.

6. During the pendency of the present appeal, an affidavit has been

filed by the informant, Smt. Sulochana Sahu, mother of the deceased. In

the said affidavit, she has categorically stated that the appellant is now

taking care of the two minor daughters born out of wedlock with the

Page3 of 8 deceased, and that she (the informant) herself is a lonely widow

incapable of managing their upbringing. She further states that there is

now a cordial and affectionate relationship between her and the

appellant, and for the welfare of her granddaughters and keeping in

view the larger interest of the family, she does not wish to proceed with

the case against the appellant and has no objection if the conviction is

set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid Affidavit is extracted herein below:-

"Except my son-in-law (appellant) there is none to look after the welfare of these two children. My son-in-law is also working as a Swacha Sevi Sikshya Sahayak at Khasapada U.G.U.P. School, He is managing his family out of the salary gets from the said job.

4. That I being an old lonely widow Lady not in a position to look after the welfare of the children.

5. That keeping in view the future prospect and welfare of my two grand daughters and also the present cordial affectionate behaviour of my son-in-law I do not want to proceed with the case I sincerely desire that the appellant may be acquitted from the charges.

6. That it may be mentioned here that after the dea-th of my daughter, son-in-law is also looking after my welfare."

7. This Court has also been referred to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Narendirakumar v. State, reported in 2024 SCC

Page4 of 8 OnLine SC 4048, where the Supreme Court, invoking its powers under

Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the conviction and consequent

proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act on the basis of a post-conviction settlement and affidavit by the

complainant, in view of the fact that the parties had arrived at a mutual

understanding and compromise. The Court emphasized the need to do

complete justice between the parties in light of changed circumstances.

The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein

below:-

"Following the aforesaid judgments and in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we quash the complaints and the consequent proceedings initiated against the appellants herein on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties and on the basis of the affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 before this Court.

23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and orders are set-aside. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."

8. Similarly, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Bombay

High Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale v. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad,

Page5 of 8 reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1391, wherein the appellate court,

despite upholding the conviction under Section 498-A IPC, granted the

benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant in view of a

compromise entered into between the parties post-conviction, observing

that the object of such compromise was to maintain peace and promote

the welfare of the parties and their families. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

"16. Therefore, it is clear that firstly in this case the parties have compromised even after conviction and, the object of compromise to live happily, peacefully though separately after divorce. The Sessions Court has taken cognizance of this compromise and has reduced the conviction and altered it to a bond under the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly, conviction by the first Court is not end of the matter and appeal therefrom is continuation of proceeding and if a revision is filed, in case conviction is maintained, altered, reduced, then the High Court in revision does get power to pass effective orders in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Conviction does not attain finality if the appeal is filed and, if the revision is filed against conviction by appellate Court, there also all issues become opened before the High Court."

9. The present case stands on a similar footing. The mother of the

deceased, who is also the informant and prime witness, has

Page6 of 8 unequivocally stated in her affidavit that she does not support the

conviction and wishes that the appellant be acquitted, considering that

he is now raising her granddaughters and looking after her well-being.

This is not a case where the settlement is being misused to shield an

accused from a heinous crime, but rather one where the object of the

prosecution is the protection of the deceased's children has been

overtaken by compassionate circumstances, namely the continued care

being provided by the appellant to the minors.

10. This Court is cognizant of the fact that ordinarily offences under

Section 498-A IPC are non-compoundable. However, in the peculiar