Advocates:
['RAMESH MOHANTY', '', 'TUKUNA MISHRA', 'AMICUS CURIAE']

JCRLA 157 of 2005 Page 1 of 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

JCRLA No. 157 of 2005

Jadumani Dehury

….

Appellant

Mr. Tukuna Mishra, Advocate

-versus-

State of Orissa

….

Respondent

Mr. Janmejaya Katikia

Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

ORDER

24.09.2022

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

09.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15^th September 2005,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in S.T. Case

No.20 of 2003 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment

(RI) for life.

2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that apart from the present

Appellant, four others were sent up for trial and for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B read with 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act). However, by the impugned

judgment of the trial court, the other four co-accused have been acquitted

of all the offences and the Appellant himself has been acquitted of the

JCRLA 157 of 2005 Page 2 of 13

offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 IPC as well as Section

4 of the DP Act. In effect, therefore, the Appellant alone has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for the death

of his wife, Nandini.

3. The case of the prosecution is that about two years prior to the date of

the occurrence i.e., 15^th October 2002, the deceased, the daughter of

Akshaya Sahu (P.W.1) was married to the present Appellant. Although it

was the case of the prosecution that the deceased was being ill-treated by

the present Appellant and her in-laws on account of dowry, the trial court

has disbelieved that part of the evidence. The fact, however, is that the

deceased was six months pregnant at the time of her death.

4. Relevant to the case on hand is the statement of P.W.1, the father of the

deceased, in his deposition that on account of quarrel among the family

members of her matrimonial home as regards the partition of the family

properties, the deceased came to live in her parents’ house. It is further

transpired that P.W.1 left the deceased back in the matrimonial house but

after 10 to 15 days, she again returned to her parents’ house. One day after

she had returned, the present Appellant i.e., the husband of the deceased

came to the house of P.W.1 and insisted on taking the deceased back to his

house. According to P.W.1, he refused to permit the deceased to return

with her husband since there was a quarrel in his family. However, the

Appellant took the deceased back to the matrimonial home assuring P.W.1

that he would live separately from the other members of the family if

necessary.

JCRLA 157 of 2005 Page 3 of 13

5. Two days thereafter, P.W.1 received information from one Butu Sahoo

(not examined) that his daughter had been killed.

6. According to P.W.1, he then proceeded to the house of the accused and

found the dead body of the deceased in the bedroom with a cut injury on

the left side of her head. The FIR was registered on the report made by

P.W.1 to the police.

7. According to the Investigating Officer (IO), Suresh Chandra Setha

(P.W.16), he received the information about the death of the deceased on

16^th October, 2002 and proceeded to the spot. He held an inquest on the

dead body of the deceased and later sent the body for post mortem

examination. He seized one iron barishi (weapon of offence) on

production by the accused and this was done in the presence of Maguni

Sahu (P.W.3) and Arjuna Behera (P.W.