Orissa High Court
Gandadhipa Sahu And Others vs State Of Orissa on 25 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 376 of 2004
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Gandadhipa Sahu and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 25.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellants under Sections 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 21/1 of 2001-2003, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months each.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 29.04.2000, the informant lodged a written report before the O.I.C., M. Rampur P.S. that his sister, (deceased), had been given in marriage to accused no.1- Gandadhipa of Kasuria in the year 1994 and they had provided the marriage articles (Pathani Saman) at the time of her departure for her in- law's house according to their capacity, but his sister could not live happily in her in-law's house. Her husband and father-in-law always tortured her demanding dowry and threatened her to kill by giving poison and his sister had written letters many times to them in that respect. She had also informed them that her life was not safe. Her father-in-law had also written letter demanding T.V., dressing table, more gold etc. Therefore, the informant suspected that the deceased has been killed in the night of 28/29.04.2000 in a doubtful manner. The husband and father-in-law of the deceased and their family members, in Page 2 of 20 order to kill the deceased to get rid of the blame, have brought her to the hospital in serious condition.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, M. Rampur P.S. Case No.32 of 2000 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as eleven witnesses, Out of whom, P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 7 were the witnesses to the inquest, P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were the witnesses to the Panch that was convened in the maternal house of the deceased before her death; P.W.8 was the witness to the seizure; P.W.9 was the witness to the consumption of poison by the deceased. Among the witnesses, P.W.3 is the own brother of the deceased, while P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are the cousin brothers of the deceased. P.W.10 was the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas P.W.11 was the doctor, whereas the appellants Page 3 of 20 examine none, took a stand of complete denial of the charges and claimed trial.
5. The appellants were initially charged under Sections 498-A/304- B/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. However, the learned trial Court by recording the following findings on appreciation of evidence, found the appellants not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C., which reads as under:-
"None of the P.Ws. except P.W.5 has stated in his evidence that he has witnessed the demand of dowry or torture relating to that, and though P.w.5 has stated in his evidence that the deceased had made complain before him during his visit to her in-laws' house but this witness has not stated when he had visited. The letter which according to the prosecution was written by accused Mohan Charan Sahu demand dowry has not been proved to be his handwriting vide Ext.A.
13. P.W.3 has also stated in his evidence that Ext.6 and 7 are the letters written by the deceased to him and his father respectively within one year of her marriage. Ext.6 and 7 do not bear any date or year.
In Ext.6 and 7 there is mention of demand of dowry and torture relating to that. P.W.9 has stated that the deceased had never intimated her about any demand of dowry or torture. That itself is of no consequence because it depends upon nature and mentality of the person concerned. It is further Page 4 of 20 established from the evidence of P.W.9 and from Ext.15 the Chemical examiner's report that the deceased had died taking poison. But no proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry of demand and the consequential death is proved by the prosecution.
14. "In the case of Kansaraj Vrs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2000(2) Crimes page 213 Supreme Court para-14 it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"xxxxx proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
Thus the charge u/s. 304-B I.P.C. is not established against the accused persons."
In the absence of any challenge to the said findings by the State, the acquittal recorded in favour of the appellants stand affirmed.
6. The learned trial Court by strongly relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and the documentary evidence i.e. Exts.6 and 7 found the appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of I.P.C. as well as Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The following findings reflect the Page 5 of 20 appreciation of the evidence led to the recording of conviction against the appellants: -
"15. Now, to consider, whether the charge u/s.498-A, I.P.C. is established against the accused persons. According to the prosecution Ext.6 and 7 are the letters written by the deceased to her brother and father respectively. Therefore it is to be ascertained first whether Ext. 6 and 7 are written by the deceased. P.W.3, own brother of the deceased has identified Ext.6 and 7 that those were written by the deceased, his sister. That apart, it is suggested by the defence to P.W.3, brother of the deceased that he once had said the accused Gandadhip to be get out from their house. In Ext.6 also, there is such a mention like the suggestion which reads as under:
"xxx TORA JUAIN AMA GAN RU FERILA DUNU MOTE KAHUCHHANTI TORA NANA PAKHAKU CHITHI KHANDE DE BOLI MU LEKHI DEUCHI TAHA UTARI DE BOLI MU KINTU MANAKALI. TORA JADI MORA GHARE RAHIBARA ACHHI BOILE DE TORA NANAN MOTE GET OUT KAHILA. TO TARA UTTARA DE NA DELE TORA BHALA HEBA NAHI......."
P.W.5 Golak Chandra Sahu who is the cousin brother of the deceased has deposed in his evidence in para 6 that he had visited the inlaw's house of the deceased, which also gets corroborated from Ext.7. Where in it is mentioned that:
Page 6 of 20
"GOLAKA NANA ASI THILA SHASU SABU BAKHANILE SABU KATHA SUNI MOTE KAHILA TO TUNI HEI RAHA xxxxx"
From all these there cannot be any semblance of doubt that Ext.6 and 7 were written by the deceased. The next point is to be ascertained whether Ext.6 and 7 were received by the brother and father of the deceased. P.W.3 the own brother of the deceased has deposed that the letters were received by them by post and the postal covers were given to the Police. Though the I.O. is cross-examined at length but it is not ascertained from him as to whether the postal covers were given to him. So the evidence of P.W.3 that Ext.6 and 7 were received by post remains unshaken. More so, it is the consistent evidence of P.Ws.6 and 8 that Ext.6 and 7 are seized by Police on production by Agadhu Sahu, the father of the dedeased. P.W.10, the investigating officer has also affirmed the same. From all these it is established that Ext.6 and 7 were written by the deceased and received by her brother and father respectively."
7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
8. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants have extensively read out the evidence of all the witnesses and also read out Page 7 of 20 the contents of Exts.6 and 7. He submitted that even Exts.6 and 7 are taken at its face value, reading of the contents would reveal that there is no specific allegation made by the deceased against the appellants regarding any torture, harassment or demand of dowry. Therefore, he submitted that the learned trial Court has completely misread the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence to arrive at the conclusion as reproduced above. He has also pointed out various contradictions appearing in the evidence to disbelieve the credibility of the witnesses. He has also submitted that none of the witnesses have deposed before the Court regarding any specific instance of harassment meted out to the deceased by any of the appellants.
9. I have carefully gone through the evidence brought on record. It is true that there is only general and omnibus nature of evidence has been brought on record relating to the torture meted out to the deceased by her husband, in-laws for alleged non-fulfillment of unlawful demand without there being any specific or definite instances about the particular day, date, time, place and the manner of torture being mentioned. However, Page 8 of 20 the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5, the cousin brothers of the deceased along with the contents of the letter Exts.6 and 7 cannot be discarded without delving upon the trustworthiness of those evidences. For ready reference, the contents of Exts.6 and 7 are reproduced hereunder:-
Ext.6.
"SANMANIYA NANA"
xxx TORA JUIN AMA GANRU FERILA DUNU MOTE KAHUCHHANTI TORA NANA PAKHAKY CHITHHI KHANDE DE BOLI MU LEKHI DEUCHI TAHA UTARI DE BOLI, MU KINTU MANA KALI TORA JADI MORA GHARE RAHIBARA ACHHI BOILE DE TORA NANA MOTE GET OUT KAHILA TO TARA UTTARA DE NADELI TORA BHALA HEBA NAHIN.
NANA MUN TUMA MANANKU CHHADI A MINUTE RAHIPARIBI NAHI AMITI ANAPIPASU GHARE KIA RAHIBA KAHILU ATHARE MORE NISWAS PRASWAS GHUTI HOI JAUCHI TO AU A RAKSHYASA GHARAKU ASIBU NAHI. MAJHIA NANA KU PATHAI DEBU SE PUNI KATHA DEITHILA SABU SAAMAN KINIKARI DEBA BALI. A KATHA MU TA JANI NATHILI MUI JANITHILE MOTE ASI NATHANTI. A GHARE BHALA KARI MORA SANGARE KATHA HEU NAHANTI. MU KEMITI CHALIBI. Xxx BAPAKU KAHIBU AU KAHA PAKHAKU CHITHI DEBA DARKAR NAHI. MOTE BI CHITHHI DEBA NAHI KARANA CHITHHI DEITHILA BALI. MORA ATIKI DARKAR MAJHIA NANA ASIKIRI MORA SAMANARE Page 9 of 20 KAHI DEBU. MU KICHHI KAHI NATHILI BOLI. ATIKI JADI NA KARIBA PRABHA KU AU PAIBA NAHI.
KEUN MUHA NEIKI MY UTKALA JIBI. SABU LUCHAIBARU PHALA PAILI. TU KAHITHILU PRABHA SILA SILIPA NA DELE PRABHA KATHA SUNIBA KINTU KANTRU BAUNI PRAYANT MOTE KATHA SUNIBAKU PADUCHI. xxxx"
"Dear brother ,,,, After returning from home, your brother-in-law asked me to write a letter to you. He also offered to write the letter and asked me to copy the same, but I refused. If you want to reside in my house, then you have to answer me why your brother said Get out to me. If you won't give me an answer, this won't be good for you.
Brother, I cannot live one minute without you in this house. I am losing my breath here. You do not come to this evil house. Send middle brother here, as he gave his word that he will buy things. I did not know about this. If I knew this, then I would not have come. Here, no one talks to me nicely. How would I live here?
Tell the father that he does not need to send a letter to anybody. You do not have to send letter to me because they will know that I wrote a letter. I only want that middle brother to come here and say that I did not say anything in front of others. If you won't do this, you won't find Prava here. How will I go to Utkala. I got the result for hiding everything. You said that if Prava did not give Sila Page 10 of 20 Silipa, then Prava would listen to things. But all the time I have to listen a lot."
Ext.7 "PUJYA NIYA BAPA xxxx BAPA TUMAKU JAHA LUCHAI THILI KINTU DASHARA KU GAN KU SETEBELE TUMAKU JAHA KAHILI TUME O NΑΝΑ ΧΙ MOTE TU TIKE KATHAKU SAHI PARUNU BOLI KAHILA MU KINTU BAHUTA SAHITHILI BAPA HOSPITAL BU GHARAKU GILI TUMAKU MU KANA KAHILIKI MA NANA BAU KAHAKU MU KICHHI KAHINAHI, SAMASTE PACHARILE MU BHALARE ACHHI BOLI KAHILI.
BAPA AU ANIKI MUN SAHI, PARIBINI MORA SAHIBARA SAKTI SESA HOI JAICHHI SABU-BELE SHASU SHASURA: PATI BAJUCHHI MORA UPARE JAHA KAHUTHANTI LEKHI HEU NAHI O TUMARA JUIN MORA UPARE SABU BELE GARA GARA AU KAHUCHHANTI TU JAHA DINA SUKHA BHOGA KALO ΑΝΙΚΙ ΤΟΤΕ xxx BHOGIBAKU HEBA. BAPA TUMAKU MORA RANA MORA CHITHHI KAHAKU KAHIBA NAHI.
GOLAKA NANA ASI THILA. SHASU SABU BAKHANILE. MU KANDI KANDI MORA AKHI PATA SABU KALA PADIGADANI AKHI BINDHUCHHI KHIABA THIKANA NAHIN. MU CHITHHI DEBATA ΚΙΑ JANI NAHANTI.
JADI A GANRE KIA JANILE MORA JA BANA RAHIBA NAHI.XXX MORA SANA KHUDI MORA SHASU SAAMNARE KICHHI NAHAN SHASU 100 GUNARE ADHIKA CHANDI CHAMUNDA MU A GHARE DANDE 1 GHANTA RAHI BAKU ICHHA NAHI. MU KANA KARIBI JEMITI HELE MOTE NEI JAA. TUMAKU GOTE ANURODH 15 DINA APEKHYA KARI RAHILI. TUME Page 11 of 20 JADI KAUNISI SAMADHANA NAKARA TAARA UPAYA MOTE KARIBAKU HEBA. TUMETA JANI THIBA MU KANA KARIBI. AINLATARA RA JHIA JE PARI KALA SEPARI KARIBAKU HEBA. xxx"
Respected father, Father, whatever I have hidden from you but in dashara what I told you in village You and brother told me I have not kept patience about the incident but I endured a lot Father. After returning from the hospital, what I said to you I didn't say anything to brother and mother. Everyone asked me and I said, I am fine. Father now I can't tolerate anymore, I've endured a lot I've exhausted my tolerance limit. At every moment my father-in-law and mother-in-law are scolding me in I can't even write what they're saying, and your son-in-law is angry at every moment, he's telling me you've enjoyed your better days and now you have to suffer. Father, please, you will not share anything regarding my letter with anyone. Golakha brother had come to my house. My mother-in-law told him everything. I am crying in every moment, my eyes are sore and turned black. I am not eating at the right time. Nobody knows about my letter, if anyone in this village knows about my letter, I won't be alive. My sana khudi is nothing in front of my mother-in-law, she's 100 times more dangerous than my mother-in-law. I do not even want to live one hour in this house. What can I even do, take me from here anyhow. I am requesting you one thing, I have been waiting for 15 days. If you will not solve the matter then I have to solve that. I have to do things same way as Ainlata's daughter did."Page 12 of 20
10. The learned trial Court has given much emphasis to the letters exhibited as Exts.6 and 7, which according to the learned trial Court has corroborated with the evidence of the relatives of the deceased.
11. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants however submitted that the seizure of the letters is doubtful and whether the letters were indeed posted to be delivered to the destined receiver is also doubtful, if the evidences are appropriately appreciated. To examine this aspect of the matter, the evidence of P.W.10, the I.O. of the case assumes importance. The I.O. in his testimony in regard to the aforementioned issue raised by Mr. Dhal, has deposed as under:-
"7. I am not acquainted with the handwriting of co- accused Mohan Charan Sahu. I have received the report of the handwriting Bureau to which Ext.12 was sent through S.P. Kalahandi. Ext.A is the said report. It is a fact that according to Ext.A the specimen handwriting of accused Mohan charan Sahu does not tally with Ext.12. I have not seized any document except Ext.6 and 7 written by the deceased due to non-availability. It is a fact that except Ext.8 I have not directed my investigation to ascertain the date of marriage between the deceased and the accused Gandadhip. I have not directed my investigation to seize the manuscript basing on which Ext.8 is printed. It is not a fact that Ext.8 is fabricated for the purpose of this case. It Page 13 of 20 is not a fact that the marriage of the deceased with accused Ganadhip was not solemnized according to Ext.8. It is not a fact that the marriage between the deceased and accused Gandadhip was solemnized in April, 1993.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
11. I have examined Trinath Sahu, P.W.6. He has not stated before me that after 3 to 4 years of her marriage, the deceased had come to her parental house to Utkela for her delivery and Prabhasini had stayed in her parental house for about one to two years. He has also not stated before me that in the meeting the father of the deceased showed the letters given by accused Mohan to the father of the deceased regarding demand of dowry and the letter given by the deceased to her father. He has also not stated before me that as because meanwhile four years have already lapsed. So he cannot give vivid description of the demanded articles. He has also not stated before me that the letter which was given by Prabhasihi to her father was regarding anticipatory danger to her life. In case the demanded dowry articles are not given. He has not stated before me that after some months they came to know that the deceased died by taking poison but he has stated before me that they came to know that the deceased died by taking poison on 29.04.2000.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Ext.6 and 7 are not seized from Jayant Sahu but they are seized from Agadhu Sahu his father. I cannot recollect whether accused Gandadip was present at the time of inquest. It is not a fact that the viscera and M.O.I are planted in this case at my instance."Page 14 of 20
From reading of the evidence of the I.O., it is apparent that the existence of Exts.6 and 7 and the seizure cannot be doubted. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the said documents.
12. The letters written by the deceased to her father and brother was exhibited through the informant (P.W.3). P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased, who in his testimony has stated as under:-
"Ext.6 already marked is the handwritten letter of the deceased to me. Ext.7 already marked is the handwritten letter of the deceased to my father. Ext.6 and 7 were produced before the police during investigation by me.
The said witness in his cross-examination has stated as under:-
"I cannot recollect the dates on which Ext.6 and 7 were written and also despatched to myself and to my father. But both Ext.6 and 7 were given by the deceased to myself and my father within one year of her marriage. There is no difference between the handwriting in Ext.6 and 7. It is a fact that there are some scorings here and there in Ext.6 and 7. Both Ext.6 and 7 were received by post. The postal covers were given to the police. Those postal covers are not available on record.
It is not a fact that I have not stated in my previous examination before the court that Ext.6 was given to myself by the deceased. It is a fact that I have not stated in my earlier examination in the court that I had given Ext.6 and Page 15 of 20 7 to the Police. It is not a fact that Ext.6 and 7 are not written by the deceased. It is not a fact that I have manufactured Ext.6 and 7 for the purpose of this case.
13. The evidence of P.W.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.10 lead to the only conclusion that Ext.6 and 7 have been duly exhibited and the letters were indeed written by the deceased to her father and brother. Reading of the contents of the letters would also indicate that the trauma suffered by the deceased has been narrated by her. Apart from the two letters, the other witnesses, namely, the father and the brother of the deceased also reveals that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Although the element of cruelty and the manner in which the cruelty was meted out to the deceased in specification like the date, time and place of incident has not come on record but it cannot be ignored that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on the basis of the exhibits and other evidences available on record.
14. Although it is clear proposition of law that general and omnibus nature of evidence relating to the torture on the victim or the deceased by her husband or her in-laws for fulfillment of their any unlawful demand Page 16 of 20 without any specific/definite instances about the particular day, date, time, place and manner of torture will not come under the mischief of Section 498A of I.P.C. but in the instant case, the deceased appears to have been referring to some incident in her letters. She has also given certain particulars regarding the cruelty meted out to her. However, from the evidence, nothing apparently coming clear regarding any demand of dowry particularly if the evidence is referred vis-à-vis Exts.6 and 7, nothing of that sort is illuminating. Hence, it may not be safe to convict the appellants for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Accordingly, the appellants are acquitted from the charge under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
15. In view of the aforementioned analysis of evidence and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, I am of the view that the conviction recorded against the appellants for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. cannot be doubted. Hence, the same is affirmed.
16. At this stage, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the incident relates back to the year 2000. At Page 17 of 20 that point of time, the appellant No.1 was 34 years of age whereas appellant Nos.2 and 3 were in their late 50s. Therefore, at present the appellant No.2 and 3 must be in their late 70s and the appellant No.1 must be in his 60s. They have no criminal antecedents, and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against them. Over the years, they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is 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 same, the sentence awarded to the appellants is liable to be modified. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction under Section 498A/34 of I.P.C., the sentence of three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- awarded to each of the appellants is modified as under:-
The appellant No.1 is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one Page 18 of 20 month. In so far the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their sentence is reduced down to R.I. for one month each and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for fifteen days each. The amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to the parents of the deceased in accordance with the provision under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
17. However, although the sentence on the appellant Nos.2 nd 3 is reduced but having regard to the advance age of the appellant Nos.2 and 3, their position in society, clean antecedents, and the fact that the incident had taken place as far back as in the year 2000, I am of the considered view that the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The case of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 is covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vrs. State of Orissa reported in 2007 (Supp-II) OLR 250.
18. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction under Section 498A of I.P.C is concerned, is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant Nos.2 and 3 to suffer Page 19 of 20 imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant Nos.2 and 3 to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of three months on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each within one month with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall keep peace and good behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of three months.
19. With this observation, the CRLA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 25th September, 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:53:30 Page 20 of 20