Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Sushant Kumar Meher & Ors.. – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Crl. Rev. No. 1093 of 2006 with Crl. Rev. No. 20 of 2016 (From the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 88-B of 2005 and the order dated 15.12.2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 54-B of 2006.)
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Indian Penal Code - Charges Framed - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201, 202, and 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code related to dowry, cruelty towards a woman, murder, causing disappearance of evidence, and common intention, as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the evidence to determine if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved charges against the petitioners for offenses under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201, and 202 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased's family alleged demand of dowry, physical and mental torture, and disposal of the deceased's body in a clandestine manner. The petitioners claimed it was a case of suicide and presented a suicidal note, but the authenticity of the note could not be established.
Finding of the Court:
The court found grounds for presuming that the petitioners committed the offenses for which charges were framed. It noted the evidence of dowry demand, torture, and disposal of the deceased's body, justifying the framing of charges. The court dismissed the revision petitions and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Issues: The issues involved the authenticity of the suicidal note, the demand of dowry, physical and mental torture on the deceased, and the disposal of the deceased's body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to evaluate the evidence at the stage of framing charges, considering the broad probabilities of the case and the existence of suspicious circumstances against the accused. It highlighted the importance of establishing a strong suspicion based on material to justify framing charges.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioners Sushant Kumar Meher and Subransu Sekhar Meher have filed Crl. Rev. No.1093 of 2006 challenging the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir (hereafter 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 88- B of 2005 in rejecting the petition filed by them under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the offences under sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner Dushila Meher has filed Crl. Rev. No. 20 of 2016 challenging the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 54-B of 2006 in framing charges against her for the offences under sections 498- A, 304-B, 302, 201 and 202 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since both the revision petitions arise out of one case and common questions of fact and law are involved, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, those were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
The learned trial Court has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners in Crl. Rev. No. 1093 of 2006 as per impugned order dated 30.08.2006 on the ground that charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 and 202 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and three witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and there are prima facie materials against them.
Pursuant to the query made by this Court as per order dated 17.08.2022 as to why there was delay in filing the discharge petition before the learned trial Court by the petitioners in CRL. REV. No. 1093 of 2006, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused Lingaraj Meher (since dead) approached this Court earlier in CRLMC No. 179 of 2006 challenging the order of framing of charge dated 02.01.2006 and this Court vide order dated 14.02.2006 granted liberty to him to file suitable petition before the learned Court below, whereafter discharge petition was filed by the petitioners and the impugned order dated 30.08.2006 was passed and therefore, there is no delay in filing the discharge petition.
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by Yudhistir Meher before the officer in charge of Tusura police station on 31.03.2005 is that he had given marriage of his daughter Bharati Meher (hereafter 'the deceased') to the petitioner no.1 Sushant Meher as per Hindu rites and customs on 04.07.2003. During the marriage, he had given one Hero Hondo motor cycle, gold ornaments weighing about seven tolas and other house hold articles to his son in-law. In the month of September 2004, the petitioner no.1 told the deceased wife Bharati to bring cash of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) from her father (informant) for opening of a Homeopathic clinic at village Tusura and her father-in-law Lingaraj Meher (dead), mother-in-law Dushila Meher and brother-in-law Subransu Sekhar Meher along with her husband (petitioner no.1) threatened her to bring the same from the informant. During the Dussehra, when the informant made a phone call to the mother-in-law of the deceased and requested her to allow the deceased to visit her paternal place, she replied that unless Rs.25,000/- was not paid, the deceased would not be allowed to go to her father's place. On the day of Maha Saptimi of Dussehra, the informant along with his elder son-in-law Sashibhushan Meher came to the in-laws' house of the deceased with pooja materials and dresses and by that time the mother- in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and the husband of the deceased misbehaved with them due to non-payment of the demanded amount and the informant expressed his inability to fulfill their demand for which the deceased was tortured physically and mentally. On 03.03.2005 the deceased gave birth to a male child and the informant and his wife visited the house of her in-laws on 05.03.2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating the evidence at the stage of framing charges, emphasizing the need for strong suspicion based on material to justify f....
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide; a direct nexus between the accused's actions and the suicide must be established.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effe....
The court upheld that at the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., all relevant materials must be considered, allowing for sufficient grounds to discharge an accused if charges lack substantial ....
At the stage of framing charges, the Court should only consider whether a prima facie case is made out, without conducting a mini trial or examining the probative value of evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
