Orissa High Court
Chitrananda Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2025 15:08:41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION No.4 of 2024
(From the judgment dated 30th November 2023 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in C.T. No.49 of 2008)
Chitrananda Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Satapathy, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Tripathy,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
th
7 February 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. G. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State-Opposite Parties.
2. Present leave application has been filed by the informant against
the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jagatsinghpur in C.T. No.49 of 2008 in respect of present private
Opposite Parties (accused persons) for charges under Sections 498-
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2025 15:08:41
A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C.") read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, "D.P. Act").
3. Opposite Parties 2 to 5 are the mother-in-law, elder brother of
the husband, wife of elder brother of the husband and sister of the
husband of the deceased-woman. The husband and father-in-law of the
deceased were tried separately in S.T. No.286 of 2007 and have been
convicted for such offences charged against them including Sections
304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C.
4. The private Opposite Parties, who are the accused persons in the
present trial, are acquitted finding no material against them as per
opinion of the learned trial judge. According to the trial court's order,
the prosecution is unable to establish any charge against present
accused persons.
5. There are 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution
and 15 exhibits were marked for the prosecution. Defence has though
not examined any witness, but relied on two exhibits marked as Ext.A
and B.
6. Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner (informant)
submits that, learned trial judge has committed error in acquitting these
accused persons with opinion that prosecution has failed to bring
materials against them, though as per the statements of witnesses there
are sufficient material to rope them for the offences under Section 498-
A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. He fairly concedes that,
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2025 15:08:41
there is no material for attracting offence under Section 304-B of the
I.P.C. against present accused persons.
7. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Satapathy and
gone through the record. Mr. Satapathy also produced certified copies
of the depositions of the witnesses along with other documents. The
same are kept on record.
8. Having gone through the entire judgment and materials produced
by Mr. Satapathy, it is found that none of the witnesses have said
regarding any demand of dowry made by these present accused
persons. As it is seen from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 to 9, the
allegations of demand are only against the father-in-law. Materials are
found absent against present accused persons to entangle them
regarding demand of dowry or consequent torture committed upon the
deceased either before or after the marriage. It is found that, the
evidence of the witnesses are not helpful anyway to the prosecution
case to implicate present accused persons for any demand of dowry
and consequent torture thereupon on the deceased.
9. The marriage took place on 8.6.2006 and the deceased died on
15.8.2006 due to fall in a pond. Her dead-body was recovered floating
in the pond one day after the death. The cause of death according to the
opinion of the post-mortem doctor is stated to be due to drowning.
Thus it is clear that, the first part of the ingredients to attract the
offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. has been fulfilled since the
death is found unnatural within seven years of marriage. With regard to
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2025 15:08:41
subsequent part to complete said offence, i.e. to see whether she was
tortured with regard to demand of dowry soon before her death,
statements of the witnesses, including the informant and father of the
deceased, could not surface any material to substantiate the offence
against present accused persons. No instance of torture, directly or
indirectly, committed by the present accused persons could be
successfully brought on record in the prosecution evidence. Though the
witnesses have narrated the prosecution case to their best version yet
they are unable to establish the charges against these accused persons
complicitly.
10. It is found coming out from the mouth of P.W.8 that, the demand
of dowry and torture was made by the father-in-law and husband. But
he has not stated a single word against these accused persons.
11. The Supreme Court has explained with regard to presumption
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in Shindo Alias Sawinder
Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517, that the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is relatable to
the fact that, the prosecution must spell out the ingredients of the
offences at the first instance in order to attract the presumption.
12. In the instant case when torture in furtherance to the demand of
dowry by the present accused persons is found absent soon before the
death of the deceased, the charges leveled against them are seen
unfounded and thus, learned trial court has rightly concluded that the
prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against present
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Feb-2025 15:08:41
accused persons. Without finding any material contrary to such finding
of the learned trial judge, we are not inclined to entertain present leave
petition preferred on behalf of the informant.
13. In the result, we refused to grant the leave and the CRLLP is
dismissed.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
