Orissa High Court
Pramod Gouda vs State Of Odisha on 9 July, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA
CRLA No.28 of 2023
Pramod Gouda ..... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dash,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. P.B. Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 09.07.2024
I.A. No.28 of 2024
11. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-
appellant petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Perused the impugned judgment. The appellant appellant-petitioner along with another has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A/304 A/304-B/302/34 B/302/34 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. Rs.10,000/-(rupees (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offences under sections 498-A/304 A/304-B of the I.P.C. and d section 4 of the D.P. Act by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur vide judgement and order dated 06.01.2023 passed in S.T. Case No.22 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased Sa Sasmita Gouda and he is in judicial custody since 15.09.2014 and he is having no criminal antecedent and the case is based mainly on the evidence of dying declaration, declaration which is stated to have been made by the deceased before the Executive Magistrate ((P.W.18).
P.W.18). Learned counsel by referring the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.17) further argued that the petitioner was hospitalized for having burn injuries and after his discharge, he was arrested and contended that the petitioner tried to save the deceased while she was attempting to commit suicide as she was not allowed to go to her father's place and there are good chances of success in the appeal and balance of convenience is in his favour and therefore,, the bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned earned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.18 18 so also Ext.13, which is the dying declaration wherein it is mentioned that since the petitioner poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on ffire, she sustained burn injuries. Learned counsel further placed the evidence of the doctor (P.W.19), who stated to have noticed burn injuries involving approximately 90- 90 95% of total body surface and the cause of death has been opined to be on account of b burn urn injury and complicacy thereof. Learned counsel further submitted that in the accused statement, though it is stated by the petitioner while answering to question no.15 that the deceased wanted to go to her father's place and she did not take any food and and ultimately committed suicide but no clinching evidence has been adduced in that respect and even the petitioner has not produced any medical document to show that he has sustained burn injuries for which he was hospitalized and he has not even taken a p plea lea that while he was trying to save his wife, he sustained burn injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized on 18.04.2014 and the occurrence in que question stion took place on 23.08.2014, i.e i.e.. barely within four months mont and therefore, the petitioner who is an accused of bride burning, should not be released on bail.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced, the dying declaration made by the deceased before P.W.18, the post mortem report finding and the short time gap of the date of marriage and the date of death of the accused and the circumstances under which the deceased sustained sust burn injuries, we are not inclined release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected and I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Dash Judge I.A. No.29 of 2024
12. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed on the appellant-petitioner appellant by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2023 passed in S.T. Case No.22 of 2015 pending disposal of the criminal appeal. The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue certified copy as per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Dash Judge sipun Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Jul-2024 13:40:15