Naran Mallik vs State Of Orissa
2026 Latest Caselaw 1302 Ori

Orissa High Court

Naran Mallik vs State Of Orissa on 12 February, 2026

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       CRA No. 29 of 1999

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)


1. Naran Mallik
2. Natabar Mallik (Dead)
3. Jati Mallik                 .......                    Appellants
                                -Versus-

State of Orissa                .......                   Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, Amicus Curiae along with Ms. Swagata Laxmi Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 05.02.2026 : Date of Judgment: 12.02.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. Three convicts have jointly filed the present

appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.01.1999 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No. 524/39 of 1997

(arising out of G.R. Case No. 854/96), whereby while acquitting the

accused persons of offence under Section 306 IPC, convicted them under Sections 498-A IPC and on the said count, each of the

appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

2. While the appeal was pending, this Court was apprised of the

fact that appellant no.2-Natabar Mallik has expired. Therefore, vide

order dated 04.09.2025, the appeal against the said deceased appellant

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.1 and 3.

3. None appeared for the appellants despite repeated calls.

Therefore, this Court requested Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned Counsel,

along with Ms. Swagata Laxmi Sinha, learned Counsel, who were

present in Court, to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae

and they have 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 and Ms.

Swagata Laxmi Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and

Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

5. The appellants were put on trial on charges under Sections 498-

A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that Premalata

Mallik, wife of appellant No.1, Naran Malik, committed suicide on

23.04.1996 after prolonged harassment meted out to her.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the

deceased Premalata and appellant No.1 was solemnised in the year

1993. After the marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to

cruelty and harassment by the appellants in connection with demands

of dowry. Because of such ill-treatment, she used to frequently return

to her parental home, from where her parents would send her back to

her matrimonial house. On 23.04.1996, the deceased committed

suicide. The First Information Report, however, came to be lodged

after about five months of the occurrence, and upon completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under

Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

6. It is pertinent to note that on the date of the alleged suicide,

accused Natabar Malik had reported the matter at the police station,

pursuant to which Balichandrapur P.S. U.D. Case No. 3 of 1996 was

registered. During the course of investigation of the said U.D. case,

inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted, followed

by post-mortem examination. The relevant records and documents

pertaining to the U.D. case were subsequently collected and taken into

consideration at the time of submission of the charge-sheet.

The defence plea, as projected before the learned Trial Court,

was one of total denial. The appellants categorically contended that

they had been falsely implicated in the case and that the allegations

levelled against them were wholly unfounded and untrue. Based on

such rival pleadings, the trial proceeded in accordance with law.

7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined ten

witnesses. P.W.1, Dangi Dei, is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2,

Sridhar Malik, and P.W.6, Natabar Malik, were co-villagers. P.W.3,

Dr. Manorama Dei, and P.W.4, Dr. D.P. Sutar, were the doctors, who

conducted the post-mortem examination. P.W.5 was the officer who

investigated the U.D. case. P.W.7 was the journalist who scribed the

First Information Report. P.W.8, Ranjan Malik, is the brother of the

deceased, and P.W.9, Purusottam Malik, is her father. P.W.10, P.C.

Jena, was the Investigating Officer of the present case.

The defence, in support of its plea examined one witness

namely Arakhita Malik(D.W.1).

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. The learned trial

court has also recorded its finding in the same paragraph of its

judgment regarding the charges under Section 306 IPC, of which the

appellants are acquitted. Relevant is reproduced here for the

convenience of ready reference:-

"13. P.Ws.1, 8 and 9 are related to the deceased Premalata as they are mother, brother and father of the deceased. But P.Ws.2 and 7 are independent witnesses. According to P.Ws.2 and 7, each time Premalata returned home and Purusottam had told them that his daughter was frequently coming back because of non- fulfilment of dowry demand. These facts go in proof of the fact that Premalata was persistently ill-treated at her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of dowry demand and therefore she was frequently coming back. But the financial condition of her parents, was so bad that they did not like to keep her at home and on some pretext or other they used to take her back to her matrimonial home and leave her there making a bit of request to the

accused persons seeking time to fulfill the dowry demand. This being repeated time and again perhaps Premalata, a sentimental woman found no happy place anywhere to live. Her parents were not willing to accept her and take the burden of maintenance whereas, her husband and in-laws insisted on her to bring the gold chain and gold ring which her father was unable to give. It is due to this reason she became impatient and untolerant to the odds and unpleasantness and decided to put an end to her life and decided to commit suicide. However the evidence that she was tortured on dowry demand has not been successfully discredited the cross- examination of the witnesses. There are some omissions in their statements on various aspects of the matter. But those omissions are so meagre that they cannot be safely brushed aside in as much as those omissions do not amount to contradiction so as to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. I am therefore, of the view, that the relationship of the accused persons with the deceased was strained and the events that had taken place from the date of marriage till the date of death speak volumes about the torture perpetrated on Premelata due to non- compliance of dowry demand. The conducts of the parties in the case are also not very congenial and healthy. Thus, I have no other alternative but to record a finding that Premalata had been subjected to cruelty on dowry demand.

14. For the reasons of aforesaid , therefore, I am inclined to hold that though the prosecution has failed to establish the charge U/s-304 I.P.C. against the accused persons, it has squarely proved the charge U/s.498(A) I.P.C. against them, Accordingly, therefore, the accused persons are held guilty of the charge U/s.498(A) I.P.C. and are convicted thereunder"

In so far as the acquittal of the appellants for offence under

Section 306 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 and Ms. Swagata

Laxmi Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants submitted that

the conviction is mainly based on the testimony of the witnesses, who

are relatives of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial court ought

to have scrutinized their evidence with much care. Additionally, it is

also submitted that there was a huge delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

10. Per contra, Mr. A. Mohanty, 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. And on the question of delay of F.I.R, the learned

A.S.C has pointed out that the delay has been well dealt by the

learned Court below in the Para 9 of the impugned Judgement.

Therefore, Mr. Mohanty, 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.

11. A careful reading of the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial

Court unmistakably reveals that the evidence on record has been

meticulously scrutinized and duly appreciated in its proper

perspective, and the findings returned are founded upon a reasoned

and implicit reliance on such evidence. The Trial Court has not

adopted a cursory or mechanical approach; rather, it has undertaken a

holistic evaluation of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in the

backdrop of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case as

well as material brought on record by the prosecution.

It is well settled that merely because certain witnesses happen

to be related to the deceased, their testimony cannot be brushed aside

or viewed with suspicion as a matter of rule, particularly in cases of

the present nature where the occurrence took place within a close-knit

social setting. Relationship per se is not a ground to discard otherwise

cogent, credible, and consistent evidence. What is required is cautious

scrutiny, which the learned Trial Court has demonstrably undertaken.

Significantly, the learned Trial Court has not confined its

analysis only to the evidence of related witnesses. It has also taken

into consideration and carefully examined the testimonies of P.Ws. 2

and 7, who are admittedly independent witnesses, and has

incorporated their evidence into its overall assessment. The

corroborative value of their testimony has been noted, thereby lending

further assurance to the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court.

Viewed thus, the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court

cannot be faulted and calls for no interference.

12. As a last straw on the back of the camel, Mr. S.N. Mishra-4 and

Ms. Sinha, 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. They have pointed out that the incident relates

back to the year 1996. The appellants were convicted in the year 1999

and since then the appeal is pending. About 27 years have already

been lapsed in between and, therefore, much has changed by now.

They submitted that at the time of incident appellant no.1 was aged

about 30 years, whereas appellant no.3 was 50 years of age. Hence, at

present appellant no.1 is aged about 57 years and appellant no.3 is 77

years of age. They further submitted that, over the years, they have

led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and are 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 and Ms. Sinha, learned Amicus

Curiae submitted that the sentence may be modified taking into

consideration the entirety of the fact and circumstances of the case.

13. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellants, their

clean antecedents, and the fact that the incident had taken place in the

year 1996, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled

to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of

Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellants is also covered by

ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Arjun Malik Vs.

State of Odisha1 and Padmabati Muduli and others Vs. State of

Orissa2 wherein this court in cases of similar nature of matrimonial

violence has extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act

owing to large passage of time.

14. However, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code prescribes

punishment which may extend to three years and entails liability to

fine. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has awarded sentence

of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to the appellants;

however, no fine has been imposed. Having regard to the nature of the

offence, the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view

the object and spirit underlying the provisions of the Probation of

Offenders Act, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of

justice would be adequately met by extending the benefit of probation

to the appellants insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is

concerned. Accordingly, while modifying the sentence, the appellants

are granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. At the same

time, the appellants are directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees

AIROnline 2025 ORI 489

five thousand) each, and in default of payment of such fine, they shall

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

15. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so

far as the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is concerned,

is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellants to suffer

imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to be released under

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months

on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each

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 appellants shall keep peace and good behavior and they

shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer

during the aforementioned period of six months. Although the

appellants have been extended the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O. Act

and they are released on good conduct bond, but additionally the

appellants are liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand)

each under Section 5 of the P.O. Act. The fine amount shall be

deposited by the appellants within a period of one month. The fine

amount to be deposited by the appellants shall be disbursed to

parents/L.Rs. of parents of the deceased in accordance with Section

357 of Cr.P.C.

16. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and

meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. S.N. Mishra-4, learned Amicus

Curiae and Ms. Swagata Laxmi Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae. They

are entitled to an honorarium of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)

each to be paid as token of appreciation.

17. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 12th of February, 2025/Ashok

Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA

Location: High Court of Orissa