[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Padmabati Muduli And Others vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 184 of 1994
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Padmabati Muduli and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 : Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. Four convicts jointly filed the present appeal
against the judgment and order dated 24.05.1994 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 320 of 1993 (arising out
of G.R. Case No. 105/93), whereby while acquitting the accused
persons of offence under Section 304-B IPC, convicted them under
Sections 498-A/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and on the
said count, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for
further period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A,
IPC and one year of R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo
R.I. for further period of three months for the offence under Section 4
of the D.P. Act.
2. While the appeal was pending, this Court was apprised of the
fact that appellant no.1-Padmabati Muduli and appellant no.2-
Balakrushna Muduli have expired. Therefore, vide order dated
19.08.2025, the appeal against those deceased appellants stood
abated, in the absence of any motion on behalf of the legal heirs or
next friend of the deceased appellants U/s.394 of Cr.P.C. Therefore,
the present appeal is confined to appellant nos.3 and 4.
3. None appeared for the appellants despite repeated calls.
Therefore, this Court requested Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned counsel,
who was present in Court, to assist the Court in the capacity of
Amicus Curiae and he has readily accepted the same and after
obtaining the entire record, assisted the Court very effectively.
4. Heard Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Bharati (deceased) was
the natural born daughter of Ratha Swain. Since Satrughna (P.W.4),
brother of Ratha was issueless, he adopted the deceased and after she
came up her age, had been given marriage to accused Kedar. Prior to
the marriage, there was demand of cash of Rs.13,000/-, a T.V. Set,
gold ornaments weighing 5 Bharis, utensils and wooden furniture as
dowry and only when P.W.4 agreed to satisfy the said demand, the
marriage was settled after the advance payment of Rs.8,500/-.
Ultimately, the marriage between Kedar and deceased was
solemnised on 17.02.1989 and as agreed upon by P.W.4 gold
ornaments, cash of Rs.8,500/-, utensils etc. were given except T.V. set
and remaining amount of Rs.4,500/-. However, P.W.4 had promised
that when funds were available he would give the same. But due to
financial stringency, he could not keep his words for which the
deceased was humiliated and tortured by her husband, in-laws and
other family members. On coming to know this fact, P.W.4
accompanied by P.W.1, his nephew, had been to the accused's house
to bring the deceased, but the accused persons refused to send her
saying that unless the remaining cash and the T.V. set were given, the
deceased would not be allowed to go. They had again gone to the
accused's house to bring back the deceased but it did not yield any
result. Ultimately, being tortured in in-laws' house, the deceased
breathed her last on 20.03.1993. About this sad incident no
information was given to her parents. However, about 4 to 5 days
thereafter, P.W.1 coming to know of the death of the deceased, made
a written report to the local Police, where-upon the present case U/s
498-A, 304-B read with section 34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act was registered.
6. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, police
registered the case and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was
filed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial and
claim for trial; they were put to trial after the charges were framed.
7. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 6 (six)
witnesses. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased; P.Ws.2 and 3 were
the relatives of P.W.1. P.W.4 was the adoptive father of the deceased;
P.W.5 is the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of
the case.
8. The learned trial court on analyzing the evidence on record, has
recorded its finding in so far as the offence for which the accused
persons have been convicted to the following effect:-
"7. The present case depicts a sad story of harassment
and torture which, according to the prosecution was
meted out to the deceased since the time of her marriage
till she breathed her last and in order to prove the same
the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5.
P.W.1 the real brother of the deceased speaks of the
demand made by the accused persons prior to the
marriage. According to him, over and above the demand
of cash of Rs.13,000/- they had demanded a T.V. set,
gold ornaments weighing 5 bharis, utensils and
furnitures. Out of the aforesaid demand, cash of Rs.
4500/- and the T.V. set could not be given because of
financial stringency. To the same effect is the evidence of
P.Ws 4 and 5. The learned defence Counsel submitted
with vehemence that since the aforesaid witnesses are the
relations of the deceased and their evidence is not
corroborated by any independent witness, implicit
reliance should not be placed on their testimony. He
further urges that the prosecution in all fairness should
have examined Laxmidhar Naik who, according to P.W.4
was the mediator in the marriage and was in know of the
alleged demand of dowry. I am not inclined to accept
such contention, the reason being that Laxmidhar Naik
happens to be the co-villager of the accused persons and
had he been examined by the prosecution it was quite but
natural that he would have unhesitatingly supported the
defence. In the case like the present one relations are
most natural witnesses. Neighbours and co-villagers of
the bride-groom seldom come forward to give a true
account of ill-treatment shown to a newly weded woman.
In view of this, I would hold that for non-examination of
Laxmidhar Naik no adverse inference can be drawn
against the prosecution. It is further submitted by the
defence counsel that the prosecution evidence is at
variance as to when 8500/- out of total demand of
Rs.13,000/- had been given to the accused persons. In
this context, he draws my attention to the averments
made in the F.I.R. and urges that it is not mentioned
there-in as to whether payment of any cash was made
either prior to or at the time of marriage. So, this being a
material omission, evidence of P.W.1 the informant as
well as that of P.Ws 4 and 5 regarding payment of
Rs.8500/- towards, dowry should not be believed and
relied upon. Law is quite clear that F.I.R. need not
contain the details of the prosecution case. Only a gist of
the incident is
required to be mentioned so as to put the law into
motion. However, if there is an omission of material fact,
it may have some effect on the prosecution case but that
itself alone will not be sufficient to discard the whole
prosecution case as untrue. In the case at hand, F.I.R.
allegations would indicate that there was demand of cash
of Rs. 13,000/-, a T.V. set etc. but the fact of making
payment of Rs.8500/- as deposed to by the witnesses did
not find mention. However, it is clearly mentioned there-
in that since the remaining dowry as demanded could not
be given the accused persons were torturing the
deceased. This pre-supposes that deceased's father had
made some payment out of total demand of Rs.13,000/-to
the accused persons. The above being the averment in
the F.I.R, the consistent evidence of the P.Ws 1, 4 and 5
that only the remaining amount of Rs. 4500/- and a T.V.
set were to be given later on cannot be dis-believed.
It is no doubt true that defence in order to prove
that there was not at all any demand of dowry has
examined lone witness D.W.1, but it is difficult to accept
his testimony on its face value because of the fact that it
was not at all suggested to P.W.4, the adoptive father of
the deceased that D.W.1 as a co-villager was present at
the time of marriage negotiation. D.W.1 also further
speaks that he attended the marriage where nothing had
been given by P.W.4 as dowry. It is common knowledge
that dowry is given not to the knowledge of the invitees
who attend the marriage. It is a matter in between the
parents of the bride and bride-groom. I, therefore,
discard the evidence of D.M.1 in toto since it is not trust-
worthy."
The learned trial court has also recorded its finding in the
following paragraph-9 of its judgment regarding the charges under
Section 304-B IPC, of which the appellants are acquitted:
"9. Coming to the offence U/s 304-B, I.P.C the
prosecution has absolutely led no evidence that the death
of the deceased occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances although admittedly she died within 7
years of her marriage. It is no doubt true that the
deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment
but evidence is lacking that the death was otherwise than
under normal circumstances. It need be mentioned that
the autopsy doctor under post-mortem report Ext. 6
could not give a definite opinion regarding the cause of
death of the deceased. Further, the prosecution also
could not be able to lead any other evidence to prove
that the death of the deceased was otherwise than under
normal circumstance. In this view of the matter, I hold
that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home
the aforesaid charge to the accused persons."
In so far as the acquittal of the appellants for offence under
Section 304-B IPC is concerned, there is no appeal preferred by the
State. Hence, this Court need not delve upon the said issue anymore.
9. Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants
submitted that the conviction is only based on the testimony of
P.Ws.1 to 5 and all the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased.
Therefore, the learned trial court ought to have carefully scrutinized
their evidence.
10. The reasoning recorded by the learned trial court makes it clear
that the learned trial court has carefully appreciated the evidence and
implicitly reliance has been placed on the said evidence. However,
merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, their
evidence cannot be discarded particularly in the case of present
nature. The evidence of demand of dowry and harassment is always
exposing to the relatives of the victim. Therefore, the direct relatives
of the victim are the natural witnesses. Hence, their testimony cannot
be discarded merely they are related to the victim. I am not in
agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Mishra to disbelieve the
evidence of all the witnesses, those who are related to the victim.
11. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants has also
taken me to the evidence of all the witnesses to point out the
contradictions. Per contra, Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State has read out that part of the evidences,
which are consistent in so far as demand of dowry and harassment
meted out to the deceased-victim by the appellants are concerned.
There are specific allegations made against the appellants in the
testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for
the State submitted that there is no escape on the part of the appellants
from their recorded guilt under Section 498-A of IPC read with
Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
12. As a last straw on the back of the camel, Mr. Mishra, learned
Amicus Curiae submitted that in the event this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned trial court, the
Court may take a lenient view in so far as the sentence is concerned.
He has pointed out that the incident relates back to the year 1989. The
appellants were convicted in the year 1994 and since then the appeal
is pending. More than three decades have already been lapsed in
between and, therefore, much has changed by now. He submitted that
at the time of incident appellant no.3 was aged about 25 years,
whereas appellant no.4 was 23 years of age. Hence, at present
appellant no.3 is aged about 61 years and appellant no.4 is 59 years of
age. He further submitted that, over the years, they have led a
dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a
settled family life. Incarcerating them after such a long delay, it is
argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be
counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon them but
also upon their family members, especially when there is no
suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with
regulatory norms. In view of the changing situation and passing of
more than three decades, Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae
submitted that the sentence may be modified taking into consideration
the entirety of the fact and circumstances of the case.
13. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.07.2025, the IIC,
Erasama Police Station has placed on record a report dated
08.08.2025. As per the report, the appellant no.4 is at present
terminally ill. The report also supported with medical documents. As
per the medical documents, appellant no.4 is suffering from High
Grade Dysplasia. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Mishra, in so far
as appellant no.4 deserves attention.
14. Taking into consideration the aforementioned report and the
fact that more than three decades have been passed in between, while
affirming the judgment of the learned trial court regarding the
conviction recorded by it for offence under Section 498-A IPC read
with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, I modify the sentence in so far as
appellant no.4 is concerned by granting him the benefit of Probation
of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr. P.C. on the facts scenario
of the case.
15. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant no.4,
clean antecedents, his health conditions, and the fact that the incident
had taken place in the year 1989, I am of the considered view that the
appellant no.4 is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant
no.4 is also covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case
of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1.
16. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so
far as the conviction recorded by the learned trial court in respect of
appellant no.4-Bidur Muduli is concerned is turned down. But instead
of sentencing the appellant no.4 to suffer imprisonment, this Court
directs the appellant no.4 to be released under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months on his
executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one
month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the
sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime,
the appellant no.4 shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall
remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer
during the aforementioned period of six months.
17. In so far as the appellant no.3 is concerned, in his case is as
well the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is upheld and
the sentence is modified to that of the sentence he has already
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
undergone. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- on each count of
the offence imposed by the learned trial court is increased to
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) on the count of each offence.
Accordingly, the appellant no.3-Kedarnath Muduli is directed to
deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as a fine amount on the
count of his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC as well as Section
4 of the D.P. Act, in default of making such payment, he shall
undergo R.I. for a period of three months. Accordingly, the sentence
is modified to that of the period the appellant no.3 has already
undergone. In the event, appellant no.3 fails to deposit the fine
amount within a period of two months, he shall be taken into custody
forthwith. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the
appellant no.3 shall be disbursed to the family of the victim in
accordance with Section 357 Cr.P.C.
18. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and
meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4,
learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/-
(Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as token of
appreciation.
19. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 9th of December, 2025/ Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
