THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.13 of 1995

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) read with Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)

Narendra Kumar Pandey ……. Appellants

and another

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 16.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 23.12.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial No.142/37 of 1992, whereby the appellant No.1 (herein after A1 for brevity) has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.

and the appellant No.2-Dulari Pandey (hereinafter A2 for brevity) has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. read with Section 306 of I.P.C. On that count, the A1 has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and a half years and the A2 has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.

and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant no.2- Dulari Pandey has expired on 01.05.2014. Therefore, vide order dated 09.12.2025, the appeal qua the deceased-appellant No.2 stood abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by his legal heirs or next friend. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is confined to the appellant No.1-Narendra Kumar Pandey only.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Rambilash Pandey, a retired employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant, resided along with his wife A2(Dulari) and their only son A1(Narendra) in a quarter allotted by the Plant at Sector-6, Rourkela. After Rambilash Pandey took voluntary retirement in the year 1988, his son Narendra was absorbed in the Plant as a helper and the family continued to reside in the said quarter.

The deceased Anita, aged about 21 years at the time of her death, was married to the accused Narendra on 20.06.1990. Her parental home was in the village of Chakulia, in the district of Singhbhum, Bihar. During the period of her studies, she resided at Tata with her paternal uncle, who was an employee there. While she was continuing her studies at Tata, the marriage proposal came from the Pandey family through the accused Mewalal, who acted as the mediator.

It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of marriage negotiations, there was a demand from the side of the accused for dowry in the form of heavy cash and a two-wheeler, in addition to the customary dowry articles such as ornaments, clothes, furniture and utensils. The demand for cash was met, and the cost of the two-wheeler was also paid in advance. Further, even on the date of marriage, an additional sum of Rs. 9,000/- was demanded and paid by the father of the deceased to the accused Rambilash Pandey. On all such occasions of demand and payment, accused Mewalal is alleged to have acted as the intermediary.

After the solemnization of marriage, in accordance with the prevailing caste custom, the bridegroom returned to his parental home, leaving the bride at her parental house. Subsequently, in February 1991, the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home at Rourkela along with customary dowry articles including ornaments, clothes, furniture and utensils. She resided there with her husband and her parents-in-law. However, according to the prosecution, her marital life soon turned unhappy, as she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty by her in-

laws, who allegedly made further demands for money.

It is further alleged that the deceased wrote letters to her family from time to time describing h