Orissa High Court
) Rama Chandra Pani vs State Of Odisha on 28 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1165 of 2024
1) Rama Chandra Pani ..... Appellants
2) Sisula Pani Represented By Adv. -
3) Indramani Pani Puspamitra Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
28.10.2025
I.A. No.2920 of 2024
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned
counsel for the Respondent-State.
3. Perused the I.A. application which has been filed with a
prayer for suspension of sentence/grant of bail to the convict-
Appellants.
4. The abovenoted application has been filed at the instance of
the convict-Appellants challenging the judgment of conviction dated
08.11.2024 passed in S.T. Case No.12 of 2016 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh thereby convicting the
Appellants for commission of an offence punishable under Sections
498-A/304(B)/306/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
The convict-Appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for a
period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section
304(B)/34 I.P.C., to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of
rs.5,000/- under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C., to undergo RI for a period
of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of D.P.
Act. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Being
aggrieved by such judgment the Appellants have preferred the
present appeal along with present I.A. with a prayer for suspension
of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellants at the outset contended
that the Appellant No.1, who happens to the husband of the
deceased, is in custody for about one year and four months,
Appellant No.2, who happens to be mother-in-law of the deceased is
also in custody for about one year and four months. Similarly, the
Appellant No.3, who happens to be the father-in-law and aged about
75 years, is languishing in custody for one year and one month. He
further contended that during trial the Appellants were on bail and
they have been taken into custody on the date of delivery of the
judgment on 08.11.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants further contended that as
per the medical evidence it has been conclusively found that the
death of the deceased is suicidal. With regard to the allegation for
demand of dowry and related harassment and torture, he further
submitted that the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 have not been specifically
named beg any of the witnesses examined during trial. He further
contended that the Appellant No.2 and Appellant No.3 are mother-
in-law and father-in-law respectively of the deceased aged about
sixty and seventy years respectively. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that he is not willing to
press for release of the Appellant No.1 on bail, but this Court may
consider the prayer of Appellant Nos.2 and 3 for suspension of
sentence/grant of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
release the Appellants on bail. She further contended that no doubt
the victim committed suicide, however the same has due to constant
mental torture and harassment by the in-laws family members. He
further submitted that the victim was pregnant at the time she has
committed suicide. While clarifying the medical report, learned
counsel for the State contended that although no external injury was
found, however the medical report conclusively indicates that the
death due to suicide committed by the deceased. Learned counsel for
the State further referring to the evidence and materials on record
stated before this Court there are sufficient materials to establish the
allegation that the victim was subjected to mental harassment and
torture prior committing suicide. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the State submitted that the Appellants have failed to
make out a case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the I.A.
filed by the Appellants for suspension of sentence/release on bail be
rejected at this juncture.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful
examination of the background facts of the present case as well as
the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the deposition
of the witnesses and the medical evidence, this Court found that the
Appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A/304(B)/34
I.P.C. read with Section 4 of D.P. Act as it was conclusively proved
that the deceased committed suicide. In view of the materials
available on record, there is no doubt that the death was suicidal. It
has also been found by the learned trial court that no foul play was
suspected in the case of the deceased. However, the learned trial
court on examination of the evidence has come to a conclusion that
there are materials which indicate that the victim was subjected to
mental harassment and torture on demand of dowry which
compelled her to take such an extreme step.
9. This Court, on a careful analysis of the evidence on record,
found no specific materials or specific allegation with regard to the
involvement of Appellant Nos.2 and 3. Moreover, taking into
consideration the advanced age of the aforesaid appellants, further
keeping in view the fact that there is no specific allegation against
the Appellant Nos.2 and 3, this Court is inclined to release the
Appellant Nos.2 and 3 on bail subject to each of the Appellant
furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with two local solvent sureties
each of the like amount to be satisfaction of the court in seisin over
the matter. Release of the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall also be
subject to such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by
the learned trial court. So far Appellant No.1 is concerned, his bail
application is rejected.
10. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
