Orissa High Court
Simanchal Naik vs State Of Orissa on 31 July, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.158 of 2005
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Simanchal Naik ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. G.N. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellant
under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order
dated 29.03.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.11 of 2003, whereby the learned
trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant U/s.498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and
imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R.I. six months
2. The case of the prosecution, tersely put, is that on 03.06.2002, the
father of the deceased lodged an FIR alleging that his daughter had been
subjected to persistent mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her
husband the accused-appellant due to his repeated and unfulfilled
demands for money and other valuable items. Acting on the said FIR, the
police set the criminal law in motion and initiated investigation against
the accused appellant. Prior to this, on 01.06.2002, upon receiving the
news of his daughter's untimely death, the informant had rushed to the
matrimonial residence of the deceased, where an Unnatural Death (U.D.)
case had already been registered by the local police, and an enquiry was
underway. However, in light of the specific allegations made in the
subsequent FIR, a prima facie case of cruelty and harassment came to be
established against the accused, which was investigated and the accused-
appellant was put to trial.
3. To substantiate the case put against the accused-appellant, as
many as eight witnesses were examined out of which P.W. 1 was the
Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased, P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer and P.W.2 was a witness
to the inquest, P.W.3 was a neighbor of the accused, P.Ws.4 and 5 are
the parents of the deceased, P.W.6 was a distance relative of the
deceased and P.W.7 is her uncle. Apart from the oral evidences, other
documentary evidences have also been exhibited by the prosecution to
support the case against the accused-appellant. However, defence has not
examined any witnesses.
4. The learned trial Court analysed the oral evidence and documents
on record mainly on the points that, whether the death of the deceased
was suicidal and whether soon before her death she was subjected to any
kind of cruelty of harassment by the accused in connection with the
demand for dowry. The learned Court below also examined that whether
the willful conduct of the accused have driven the victim to commit
suicide and whether there was any actual demand for dowry to the
deceased and her family.
5. The learned trial court also examined the case through the lens of
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 113 and 106of
the Indian Evidence Act. However, the prosecution failed to establish the
date of marriage between the appellant and the deceased, which is a
crucial requirement under the law, as both provisions apply only when
the death occurs within seven years of marriage. In the absence of such
foundational evidence, no presumption regarding dowry death or
abetment of suicide arising out of cruelty could be drawn or inferred.
Accordingly, the learned Court below rightly discarded this line of
argument.
6. The learned Trial Court while examining the case in light of
required ingredient of abatement as defined in Section 107 read with
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code found nothing on record to
establish the same. However, the learned trial Court appreciating the
evidence on record conclusively found that the woman was subjected to
harassment by the accused-appellant. So, resultantly the court below
convicted the appellant for offence U/s.498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The relevant part of the judgement is stated herein for ready reference:
"19. Thus from the discussion as made above, the prosecution
has failed to prove demand of any dowry by the accused at any
point of time nor the prosecution establish the charges under
section 304-B and 306 I.P.C. against the accused. But the
prosecution succeeded in establishing the charge u/s 498-A
I.P.C against the accused.
20. In the result while the accused is found not guilty of the
offence u/s 304-B and 306 I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P. Act
and acquitted there under, he is found guilty for the offence u/s
498-A I.P.C. only, and I convict him thereunder."
7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Jeypore, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
8. Heard Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants and Ms. Sarita Moharana, the learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
9. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously
argued the case on merit and taken me to the evidence on record. After
arguing for some time, he submitted that keeping in view the
procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellant in this case
and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellant, he would rather confine his
argument to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the incident
relates back to the year 2002. The appellant has undergone the rigors of
trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year
2005 (07.04.2005). The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about
20 years. The appellant who was in his early-thirties then is now in his
mid-fifties and therefore, sending him to custody for fulfilling his
remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The
learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant has no criminal
antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to
be pending against him. Over the years, he has led a dignified life,
integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life.
Incarcerating him 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 him but also upon his family members,
especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing
non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of
situation, the appellant may be extended to the benefit of the Probation
of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that
the accused has already undergone about 9 months of the sentence.
10. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned
Counsel at the Bar, although I affirm the conviction recorded by the
learned trial Court against the appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C.,
but thinks it appropriate to modify the sentence. Considering the entire
features of the case, I could have dealt with the appellant under Section 4
of the P.O. Act. However, it has been brought to my notice by Mr.
Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, which has not been disputed
by Mrs. Moharana, learned ASC that the appellant has already
undergone a custody of about nine months. When the appellant has
already suffered imprisonment for nine months, injustice would be
compounded if I now grant him the treatment under the Probation of
Offender's Act. I would, therefore, while affirming conviction, reduce
the sentence to the period already undergone. However, in the fitness of
the case, I feel it appropriate, to increase the fine amount to that of
Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand), in default of which, the appellant
shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one month. The fine amount
shall be disbursed to the parents of the victim as per the procedure
established under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
11. Accordingly, the CRLA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
