Orissa High Court
Udasini Mohanty And Another vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 20 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.5528 of 2023
Udasini Mohanty and another .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. A. K. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC
Mr. A. Panda, Advocate for O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.01.2025
08. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking
quashing of the entire proceeding in connection with C.T. Case
No.384 of 2020 arising out of Jajpur Sadar P.S. Case No.40 of 2020
pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur registered for
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-
A/302/304-B/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet in the present case was
filed on 29.11.2020 for the alleged commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34/306/406 of I.P.C. read
with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
4. The petitioners being the mother-in-law and father-in-law
of the deceased were shown as an absconder. Therefore, the trial
vis-à-vis these accused persons have been splited. The principal
accused being the husband of the deceased had faced the trial. The
learned District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur in C.T. (Sess.) Case
No.46 of 2020 vide its judgment dated 26.11.2022 has recorded an
acquittal in favour of the co-accused namely Ranjit Mohanty, who
faced the trial. The learned trial Court inter alia has returned the
following finding while acquitting the accused:-
"7. As regards to the allegation of charge U/s.302
I.P.C. the prosecution can prove such charge either
by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In
this case there is no direct evidence against the
accused to hold him liable for the death of Sujata.
No circumstance has been brought on to the record
to complete a chain so as to reach to an irresistible
conclusion that it is the accused who has killed
Sujata and none else. First of all there is no
material on record to hold that the death of Sujata
is a homicidal one. No doubt Sujata died due to
burn injury. The witnesses examined by the
prosecution have not stated that just before the fire,
the accused was found near Sujata or proximate to
the burning of Sujata. Sujata was in the house of
the accused and only because Sujata died
sustaining burn injuries in her matrimonial house
no liability can be fixed on the accused unless some
incriminating circumstances are shown to connect
the accused in the crime. In such circumstances
certainly the accused is not to explain the
circumstance. In such circumstances certainly the
accused is not to explain the circumstance. There is
no material to suggest that the death was a
homicidal one, no liability can be fixed on the
accused. So the charge U/s. 302, I.P.C. fails."
On the strength of the aforementioned findings, the present
petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the
entire criminal prosecution initiated against them.
5. The informant/opposite party No.2 is the father of the
deceased. He had also filed an affidavit before this Court on
17.01.2024 inter alia stating as under:-
"2. That in the meantime, the husband-co-accused
who was facing trial, has been acquitted vide
judgment dated.26.11.2022 in C.T (Sess) No. 46
of 2020 on the ground that the entire evidence of
the prosecution witnesses did not utter any
demand of dowry or any torture towards the
deceased Sujata Swain, rather the deceased was
staying happily in her matrimonial house, after
about nine months. While the deceased was
cooking food in the kitchen, her body caught fire.
3. That I had lodged the FIR under a
misconception and on the instigation of others.
But in fact, my deceased daughter, while cooking
food in the kitchen, expired due to burning. There
was no demand of dowry or torture from the side
of the accused persons. Accordingly, in trial I had
adduced evidence. After all evidence, learned trial
court acquitted the husband namely Ranjit
Mohanty."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
principal accused i.e. the husband of the deceased who faced the
trial has already been acquitted and the informant himself has filed
an affidavit before this Court stating that he has no grievance left
against the present petitioners. On the basis of the same, he submits
that subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the trial is destined to be
futile exercise. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State submits that the allegation against the petitioners are serious
in nature. The charge-sheet has been filed for an offence punishable
under Section 304-B of I.P.C. apart from other allied offences,
hence, quashing of the entire criminal proceeding vis-à-vis the
present petitioners, who have been absconding is not permissible
under law. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have given a careful consideration to the entire sequence
of events and the documents placed before this Court. I am of the
considered view that the petition does not deserve merit. The
petitioners have to face the trial as they have been absconding.
However, taking into consideration the facts scenario of the present
case and the nature of evidence which has borne on record vis-à-vis
the co-accused, who has faced the trial and the fact that the
informant has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he has
no grievance left against the petitioners, I am of the considered
view that once the petitioners surrender before the Court below on
or before 15.02.2025, they shall be released on bail and the
petitioners shall face the trial. It is expected that the trial court shall
do well to see that the trial of the case is concluded as early as
possible.
9. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 21-Jan-2025 12:35:41
