Orissa High Court
Arta Meher vs State Of Orissa on 16 December, 2025
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S
JCRLA No. 105 of 2006
An appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. from the judgment and
order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge,
Boudh in S. T. Case No.28 of 2004.
---------------------
Arta Meher ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For Appellants: - Mr. Biswajit Nayak
Advocate
For Respondent: - Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan
Addl. Standing Counsel
---------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 16.12.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Bench: The appellant Arta Meher faced trial before the Court
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh, in S.T. Case
No.28 of 2004 for commission of offences punishable under
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 1 of 25
sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter "IPC") on the accusation that, being the husband of
Lalita Meher (hereinafter "the deceased"), he subjected her to
cruelty and within seven years of the marriage, committed her
murder by throttling in connection with a demand for dowry.
The learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment
and order dated 12.05.2006, though acquitted the appellant of
the charge under section 304-B of the IPC, but found him guilty
of the offences under sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the
offence under section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(rupees ten thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the First
Information Report (hereinafter "F.I.R.") lodged by P.W.4 Khirod
Meher, the brother of the deceased, on 31.05.2004 before the
Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, in brief, is that the
marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized
about forty days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. in accordance
with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on the
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 2 of 25
demand of the appellant, a sum of Rs.6,000/- (rupees six
thousand) in cash and gold ornaments were given. After the
deceased stayed in the house of the appellant for about ten
days, both of them came to the parental house of the deceased
and stayed there for two days, after which they returned to the
appellant's house.
It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R.
that the appellant used to torture the deceased after consuming
liquor and assaulted her with an iron rod, tube light and wooden
stick. On the eve of the Sital Sasthi festival at Sambalpur, the
appellant and the deceased again came to the parental house of
the deceased. The appellant alone went to Sambalpur to witness
the festival, while the deceased refused to accompany him. The
deceased was also unwilling to return to her matrimonial home
as she was being physically and mentally tortured by the
appellant.
It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R.
that a village Panchayat meeting was convened and pursuant to
the decision taken by the village elders, on 30.05.2004 at about
4.00 p.m., the deceased accompanied the appellant to his house.
On the following day, i.e., on 31.05.2004, P.W.4 received
information about the death of the deceased. He rushed to the
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 3 of 25
house of the appellant, found the dead body of the deceased and
formed a firm opinion that the appellant had caused her death.
On the version of P.W.4, D.W.1, Manu Nayak, scribed
the report, which was presented before the Officer in-Charge of
Baunsuni Police Station. Accordingly, Baunsuni P.S. Case No.37
dated 31.05.2004 was registered under sections 498-A, 304-B
and 302 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
P.W.9, the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police
Station, after registration of the case, himself took up the
investigation. He examined the informant, submitted a
requisition to the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh, for deputation of an
Executive Magistrate to hold the inquest and also deputed a
Constable and the Grama Rakhi to guard the spot and the dead
body.
Upon reaching the spot, the Investigating Officer
seized broken pieces of bangles, a saree and other articles under
seizure list, Ext.8, examined other witnesses, and prepared the
spot map, Ext.9. He searched for the appellant but found him
absent. On 01.06.2004, the inquest over the dead body of the
deceased was held in the house of the appellant in the presence
of the Executive Magistrate and other witnesses and the inquest
report was prepared. The dead body was then sent for post-
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 4 of 25
mortem examination and the wearing apparels of the deceased,
produced by the Constable who escorted the dead body, were
seized by the Investigating Officer under seizure list, Ext.7.
On 02.06.2004, the appellant was arrested and
forwarded to Court. The dowry articles were seized by the
Investigating Officer in the presence of witnesses, a seizure list
was prepared, and the said articles were released in favour of
the father of the deceased on execution of a zimanama, marked
Ext.10. The Investigating Officer received the post-mortem
report on 24.06.2004 and continued the investigation till
13.08.2004. Upon his transfer, the charge of investigation was
handed over to S.I. of Police, R. N. Das, who, upon completion of
the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the
appellant.
Framing of Charge:
3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was
committed to the Court of Session after complying due
formalities. The learned trial Court framed charges against the
appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the
charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions
trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his
guilt.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 5 of 25
Prosecution Witnesses & Exhibits:
4. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined
as many as nine witnesses.
P.W.1 Rama Meher stated that he knew the appellant
as well as the deceased Lalita, the wife of the appellant. He
deposed that the deceased had died more than a year prior to
his deposition. After her death, the police came to the village,
conducted the inquest over her dead body, prepared the inquest
report, and obtained his signature on the same, marked as
Ext.1. He stated that his house was adjacent to the house of the
appellant. He further stated that during deceased's lifetime, the
appellant used to abuse her at times and also abused his
parents. He claimed that he had no further knowledge about the
case.
P.W.2 Gopinath Meher, the father of the appellant,
stated that about one and a half years prior, the appellant
married the deceased, the daughter of Upendra Meher of village
Bikalapali, and that after marriage she lived in his house. He
stated that about fifteen days after the marriage, the appellant
and the deceased went to Sambalpur to attend the Sitalsasthi
festival and returned after about twelve days. After taking dinner
on the night of their return, the appellant and the deceased slept
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 6 of 25
separately, and during the night, the deceased died. He stated
that he could not say how the deceased died. He further deposed
that after her death, the local police came to the village, held
inquest over the dead body in his presence and prepared the
inquest report. He also stated that the police seized the articles
given at the time of the appellant's marriage from his house and
prepared the seizure list marked Ext.2.
P.W.3 Subash Ch. Mishra a constable attached to
Baunsuni Police Station, stated that on the basis of a command
certificate issued to him, he proceeded to village Tikarapada.
From there, he escorted the dead body of the deceased to the
mortuary at DHH, Boudh for post-mortem examination. He
stated that the Investigating Officer issued the dead body
challan, marked as Ext.3, and that Ext.4 was the command
certificate issued to him. He further stated that on 01.06.2004,
the Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem examination over
the dead body of the deceased. After the post-mortem, the
doctor handed over the wearing apparels of the deceased to him,
which he produced before the Investigating Officer, who seized
the same.
P.W.4 Khirod Meher stated that the deceased Lalita
was his sister and identified the appellant in Court. The deceased
was married to the appellant on Akshaya Tritiya at Mahadev
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 7 of 25
Temple, Titipali. After marriage, she stayed at her matrimonial
home and later visited her parental house on two occasions.
During the Sital Sasthi festival, the deceased alleged ill-
treatment by the appellant due to his habit of consuming liquor.
A village meeting was convened in the presence of Mohan Meher
and Bihari Meher, where the appellant admitted his misconduct
and assured improvement, following which the deceased
returned to her matrimonial home. On the next day, P.W.4 was
informed that the deceased had died. On reaching the appellant's
house, he found the deceased was lying dead with ligature marks
and nail marks on her neck, blood was oozing from her mouth,
nostrils, and eye, and her tongue was protruding. He lodged the
FIR (Ext.5), which was scribed by Manu Naik, and signed the
same. He was present during the inquest and signed the inquest
report (Ext.1/3). He further stated that dowry of Rs.6,000/- and
one bhari of gold had been demanded and paid at the time of
marriage.
In cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased
initially did not complain of ill-treatment but stated that she
complained about assault 10-15 days prior to her death. He
denied the defence suggestion that there was no dowry demand
or that the appellant was not responsible for her death.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 8 of 25
P.W.5, Upendra Meher stated that he knew both the
appellant and the deceased, who used to call him "Kaka," and
that P.W.4 was his son-in-law. He corroborated the fact of
marriage of the deceased on Akshaya Tritiya and her stay in the
matrimonial home for about one month and ten days. During
Sital Sasthi, the deceased disclosed that the appellant had
assaulted her with a tube light and split firewood. In a village
meeting attended by Mohan Meher and Bihari Meher, the
appellant admitted his guilt and assured not to repeat such acts.
On the following day, Lalita was found dead in the house of the
appellant.
In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that
no such meeting took place or that he was falsely deposing due
to his relationship with P.W.4.
P.W.6 Mohan Meher stated that he knew the
appellant and the deceased and that they were married on
Akshaya Tritiya. After Sital Sasthi, Lalita disclosed her
unwillingness to return to her matrimonial home due to assault
by the appellant. A meeting was held in which the appellant
assured that he would not repeat such conduct. The deceased
thereafter returned with the appellant, but on the next day,
information was received about her death.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 9 of 25
In the cross-examination, he denied the defence
suggestion that no such meeting was held or that he deposed
falsely at the instance of the father of the deceased.
P.W.7 Souvagya Ranjan Ranasingh, the Autopsy
Surgeon conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead
body of the deceased on 01.06.2004. He found bruises and nail
marks on both sides of the neck, fracture of the hyoid bone,
congestion of internal organs, and other injuries consistent with
throttling. He opined that the death was homicidal in nature,
caused by asphyxia due to throttling, and had occurred 24-30
hours prior to the post-mortem.
In cross-examination, he reiterated that the injuries
were ante-mortem and consistent with homicidal throttling.
P.W.8 Banita Behera, the Police Constable stated
that he was a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of
the deceased, which were seized under a seizure list marked
Ext.7.
P.W.9 Udayanath Bantha, the Investigating Officer
stated that he registered Baunsuni P.S. Case No.37 of 2004,
conducted the investigation, held the inquest, seized material
objects, arrested the appellant and his successor submitted the
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 10 of 25
charge-sheet. He confirmed that during investigation, statements
were recorded regarding dowry demand, ill-treatment, and
assault of the deceased by the accused.
The prosecution also exhibited twelve documents.
Ext.1 is the inquest report, Ext.2 is the seizure list showing
seizure of all the articles given at the marriage of the accused,
Ext.3 is the dead body challan, Ext.4 is the command certificate,
Ext.5 is the plain paper F.I.R., Ext.5 is the P.M. report, Ext.7 is
the seizure list, Ext.8 is the seizure list, Ext.9 is the spot map,
Ext.10 is the zimanama, Ext.11 is the office copy of forwarding
letter sending Exhibits to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and
Ext.12 is the chemical examination report.
Defence Plea:
5. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial.
From the side of the defence, the Grama Rakhi who
was the scribe of the F.I.R. was examined as D.W.1. The witness
stated that he did not know the accused present in the dock but
knew the informant. He had studied up to +2 (Arts) and had
been working as a Grama Rakhi under Baunsuni Police Station
for the last ten years.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 11 of 25
On being confronted with Ext.5, he stated that on
31.05.2004, he scribed the F.I.R. (Ext.5) at the dictation of the
then Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, Mr. Bantha. As
per the instruction of the O.I.C., he made the endorsement
marked Ext.5/2 and signed the F.I.R. He further stated that, to
the best of his recollection, he did not see the informant on that
day and the informant did not put his signature (Ext.5/1) in his
presence. He clarified that, being subordinate to the O.I.C., he
acted strictly as per his instructions.
In the cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that he
belonged to village Baidyanathpur, situated about one kilometre
from Baunsuni Police Station, and that Tikarapara was a large
sahi within the jurisdiction of Baunsuni Police Station, located
about half a kilometre away. He stated that he was occasionally
deputed for law and order duties and, having worked as a Home
Guard for about ten years, he was acquainted with most villagers
within the local limits of the police station. He admitted knowing
Gopi Meher, the father of the appellant, who worked as a tailor.
He denied the suggestion given by the prosecution
that he had scribed the F.I.R. at the instruction of the informant
Khirod Meher (P.W.4) or that the endorsement Ext.5/2 was
made after scribing the F.I.R. He further denied the suggestion
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 12 of 25
that he had been won over by the appellant or that he had
suppressed the truth and deposing falsely.
Findings of the Trial Court:
6. The learned trial Court, after assessing the oral as
well as documentary evidence on record, held that the evidence
of P.W.7, who conducted the post-mortem examination, clearly
indicated that the death of the deceased was homicidal in
nature, caused by throttling leading to asphyxial death. The
learned trial Court further held that the essential ingredients of
the offence under section 304-B of the I.P.C. were not made out
and, therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the said
charge.
However, upon taking into consideration the
evidence of P.W.4, the brother of the deceased, P.W.5, the
father-in-law of P.W.4, and P.W.6, a co-villager, the learned trial
Court came to the conclusion that their testimonies clearly
established that the deceased was subjected to harassment and
cruelty at the hands of the appellant. Consequently, the
appellant was held guilty of the offence under section 498-A of
the I.P.C.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 13 of 25
The learned trial Court disbelieved the defence plea
that the death might have been caused due to diarrhoea or
stomach-related ailments in view of the specific and cogent
medical evidence on record pointing to death by throttling. On
the basis of the positive and consistent evidence adduced by the
prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, the
learned trial Court further concluded that it was the appellant
who had committed the murder of the deceased by throttling her
neck and, accordingly, held him guilty of the offence under
section 302 of the I.P.C.
Contentions of the Parties:
7. Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that most of the material witnesses were not
examined by the prosecution. Although the charge sheet cited as
many as twenty nine witnesses, only nine witnesses were
examined during trial, and the Investigating Officer who had
taken over the charge of investigation from P.W.9 was also not
examined. It was further argued that, in view of the evidence of
D.W.1, the scribe of the F.I.R., who stated that the F.I.R. was
scribed at the dictation of the Officer-in-Charge of Baunsuni
Police Station, it would appear that from the very inception, the
prosecution attempted to concoct a false case against the
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 14 of 25
appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that in the absence
of any direct evidence and considering the nature of the
circumstantial evidence on record, the chain of circumstances
was not so complete as to unerringly point towards the guilt of
the appellant. Therefore, it was urged that it is a fit case for
extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.
Per contra, Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, learned
Additional Standing Counsel, supported the impugned judgment
and argued that the occurrence had taken place within forty days
of the marriage. According to him, there is consistent and cogent
evidence on record regarding the demand of dowry and the
cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellant, on account
of which she was unwilling to accompany him to her matrimonial
home. The evidence of P.W.6 also corroborates that a meeting
was held wherein, upon the assurance given by the appellant
that he would not ill-treat the deceased any further, she was
sent with him. Significantly, the death occurred on the very next
day. It was further argued that the medical evidence adduced by
P.W.7 clearly established that the death was homicidal, caused
by throttling leading to asphyxial death. Since the deceased was
in the company of the appellant and the appellant failed to offer
any explanation as to how the deceased met with such a death,
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 15 of 25
the burden cast under section 106 of the Evidence Act remained
undischarged. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in
holding the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 498-
A/302 of the I.P.C.
8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, we now proceed to examine
the evidence on record to ascertain whether the prosecution has
been able to establish that the deceased met with a homicidal
death. Apart from the inquest report (Ext.1), which indicates that
the dead body was found inside a room of the appellant and was
thereafter brought to the verandah where several injuries were
noticed on the person of the deceased, including broken bangles
seized from the spot, the medical evidence also assumes
significance.
P.W.7, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased at the District
Headquarters Hospital, Boudh, stated that he noticed the
following injuries:-
"i) There is a fracture of hyoid bone;
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 16 of 25
ii) There is extensive subcutaneous bruising
detected below the nail marks below the
dissection."
P.W.7 has opined that the cause of death was
homicidal throttling leading to asphyxial death and that the time
since death was approximately twenty four to thirty hours at the
time of conducting the post-mortem examination. He preserved
the viscera during the post-mortem examination and proved the
post-mortem report as Ext.6.
In his cross-examination, when a specific suggestion
was put as to how he arrived at the conclusion of homicidal
death, the doctor clarified that there was fracture of the hyoid
bone and extensive subcutaneous bruising detected beneath the
nail marks on dissection, which are classical findings in cases of
throttling. On the basis of these findings, he concluded that the
death was due to homicidal asphyxia caused by throttling.
A peculiar defence plea, though no specific plea was
taken by the appellant himself, was sought to be introduced
through his father, examined as P.W.2, who turned hostile but
stated that on the date of occurrence, after taking dinner, the
appellant and the deceased slept separately. However, he
admitted that he did not know how the deceased died. He further
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 17 of 25
stated that the deceased slept on the outer verandah while the
appellant slept on a cot close to her. He also claimed that he did
not notice any injury on the person of the deceased, but found
that she had passed stool in her saree and had vomited.
If, as stated by P.W.2, the appellant was sleeping
close to the deceased and the death was homicidal by throttling,
an explanation was clearly expected from the appellant.
However, the appellant has not offered any explanation
whatsoever, even when specific questions were put to him in his
statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C in that respect.
Therefore, in our considered view, the learned trial
Court has rightly concluded, on the basis of the medical evidence
adduced by P.W.7 that the prosecution has successfully
established that the deceased died a homicidal death due to
throttling leading to asphyxial death.
9. Coming to the evidence of the informant (P.W.4), the
brother of the deceased, he stated that on the day of Akshaya
Trutiya, the appellant and his deceased sister got married in a
temple. At the time of marriage, a demand for dowry of cash
amounting to Rs.6,000/- and one tola of gold was made from the
side of the appellant and, in compliance with such demand, the
said cash and gold were given to the appellant. He further stated
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 18 of 25
that three to four days after the marriage, both the appellant
and the deceased came to his house, stayed there for some
time, and thereafter returned to the matrimonial home. About
fifteen to twenty days thereafter, they again came to his house
with the intention of visiting the Sitalsasthi festival at
Sambalpur. However, the appellant went alone to witness the
festival, leaving the deceased behind.
After returning from Sambalpur, when the appellant
asked the deceased to return to the matrimonial home, she
refused, complaining that the appellant was ill-treating her after
consuming liquor. Finding no alternative, a meeting was
convened, wherein the appellant admitted his conduct and
assured that he would not ill-treat the deceased in future. On
such assurance, the deceased was allowed to accompany the
appellant to her matrimonial home. P.W.4 further stated that on
the very next day, he received information regarding the death
of the deceased and rushed to the appellant's house. When
confronted, the appellant maintained silence. He noticed ligature
marks around the neck of the deceased, nail marks on both sides
of her neck, blood oozing from her mouth, nostrils and right eye,
protrusion of the tongue, and bite marks on the tongue.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 19 of 25
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
gentlemen in whose presence the meeting is alleged to have
been held, namely Mohan Meher and Bihar Meher, were not
examined by the prosecution and that no explanation has been
offered for withholding such material witnesses.
We are not impressed by the said submission
inasmuch as P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 have consistently deposed that a
meeting was convened when the deceased expressed her
unwillingness to accompany the appellant due to the torture
inflicted upon her and that pursuant to the assurance given by
the appellant that he would not torture or ill-treat the deceased
any further, she was permitted to accompany the appellant to
his house and therefore, non-examination of the said two
persons cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the
prosecution case or to hold that no such meeting had ever been
taken place.
It is well settled that the quality of evidence, and not
the quantity, is decisive. The evidence of the aforesaid three
witnesses has remained unshaken and clearly establishes the
demand of dowry, torture meted out to the deceased, her
unwillingness to accompany the appellant back to matrimonial
house and the convening of a meeting, pursuant to which, on the
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 20 of 25
assurance of the appellant not to subject her to further cruelty,
the deceased was sent with him. Significantly, the death
occurred on the very next day. In such circumstances, the non-
examination of some official or other witnesses does not, in any
manner, impair the credibility of the prosecution case.
The evidence of the Investigating Officer further
reveals that broken pieces of bangles were found at the spot,
and the inquest report indicates that the dead body was brought
from inside the house to the verandah where the inquest was
held. The evidence of P.W.2, the father of the appellant also
shows that the appellant was sleeping on a cot close to the
deceased in the fateful night. The medical evidence conclusively
establishes that the deceased died a homicidal death due to
throttling. Although specific questions were put to the appellant
under examination, he failed to explain the circumstances in
which the homicidal death occurred.
In view of section 106 of the Evidence Act, when
facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the
burden of explaining those facts lies upon him. While section 106
does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof,
the failure of the accused to offer any explanation regarding
facts within his special knowledge can be treated as an additional
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 21 of 25
link in the chain of circumstances, completing the prosecution
case.
In the case at hand, it is admitted that the homicidal
death of the deceased occurred in the house of the appellant
during the night, and the appellant was present in close
proximity, sleeping beside the deceased, as stated by P.W.2. If
the defence contends that someone else committed the crime, it
ought to have been specifically stated and substantiated;
however, the defence remains entirely silent on this point.
10. The scribe of the F.I.R. being examined as D.W.1 has
stated that he did not see the informant (P.W.4) when on the
dictation of the then O.I.C., Baunsuni P.S., he scribed the F.I.R.
He further stated that since he was working as home guard
under Baunsuni police station, he worked under the instruction of
the O.I.C. The prosecution in the cross-examination has
suggested that he scribed the F.I.R. as per the instruction of
P.W.4 and gave necessary endorsement after scribing the F.I.R.
and that being gained over by the appellant, he was concealing
the truth and deposing falsehood.
In view of such statement given by the scribe of the
F.I.R., the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was a
concocted F.I.R. and it was not lodged by P.W.4.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 22 of 25
The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is not at all acceptable. P.W.4 has specifically stated
that he lodged the F.I.R. being scribed by D.W.1 and that under
his instruction, D.W.1 scribed it. He further stated that the scribe
read over and explained the contents of the F.I.R. to him and
then he gave his signature thereon. He further stated that the
scribe also signed the F.I.R. in his presence and he proved the
F.I.R. as Ext.5, his own signature thereon as Ext.5/1 and the
signature of the scribe as Ext.5/2. In the cross-examination, he
has stated that he had read up to 5th class and he had prior
acquaintance with the scribe who was not his classmate nor
colleague. No suggestion has been given to P.W.4 that the F.I.R.
was scribed by D.W.1 on the dictation of the O.I.C., Baunsuni
P.S. and that he had not dictated the scribe nor the F.I.R. was
not read over and explained to him by the scribe and that his
signature was subsequently taken in the written F.I.R. and that
he has got no idea as to what was written in the F.I.R. Similarly,
the I.O. has stated in the cross-examination that he had got no
prior acquaintance with the scribe of the F.I.R. and that he had
neither examined him nor cited him as a witness. He denied the
defence suggestion that the F.I.R. has been scribed by D.W.1 to
his dictation.
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 23 of 25
Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant that it was a concocted F.I.R. prepared on the
dictation of the O.I.C. and not on the version of P.W.4 is not at
all acceptable.
11. In view of the consistent evidence on record that
within forty days of marriage, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty and due to such ill-treatment, she was unwilling to
accompany the appellant to her matrimonial house, it is evident
that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 498-A
of the I.P.C. Similarly, since the deceased suffered a homicidal
death by throttling and the appellant who was present with the
deceased inside the house at the relevant time, has offered no
explanation regarding the circumstances of her death, we are of
the humble view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the
appellant guilty under section 302 of the I.P.C. Thus, the
conviction of the appellant under sections 498-A/302 of I.P.C.
and the sentence passed thereunder stands upheld.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit
in the Jail Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, the JCRLA stands
dismissed.
It appears that the appellant was directed to be
released on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2010. The
JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 24 of 25
appellant shall surrender before the learned trial Court within
three weeks from today, failing which the learned trial Court
shall take necessary coercive steps in accordance with law to
take the appellant into judicial custody to serve out the
remaining sentence.
12. Before parting with the case, we place on record our
appreciation to Mr. Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the
appellant, for rendering his valuable assistance in arriving at the
decision above. We also appreciate the valuable assistance
provided by Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, learned Additional
Standing Counsel.
The trial Court records, along with a copy of this
judgment, be sent forthwith to the Court concerned, and a copy
of the judgment be communicated to the learned trial Court.
......................................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
................................................. Chittaranjan Dash, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th December 2025/AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Dec-2025 13:11:14 JCRLA No.105 of 2006 Page 25 of 25