Dismissed

State v. Narada

Orissa HC8 Dec 2020GA/29/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of respondents charged with dowry-related cruelty and murder under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and 34 IPC. Applying Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., the court held that the appellate court requires very substantial and compelling reasons to overrule a trial court's acquittal, none of which were established here.

What did the court decide?

Government Appeal stands dismissed.

State Vs Narada — Domestic Violence | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK.

¶2

GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1999

¶3

From the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.12.1997 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati in Sessions Case No.108 of 1997.

¶4

-------------------State of Orissa ..…..… Appellant

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Narada Dharma Reddy @ Rao and others

¶7

……….. Respondents

¶8

For Appellant: - Mr. G.N.Rout, (Addl. Standing Counsel)

¶9

For Respondents: - None

¶10

¶11

P R E S E N T :-

¶12

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing-08.12.2020 : Date of Judgment-08.12.2020

¶14

¶15

S.K.MISHRA, J . The respondents, Narada Dharam Reddy @ Rao, N.Bairiamma Reddy and P.Tariniamma faced trial under sections 304-B/498-A/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur in Sessions

¶16

¶17

Case No.108 of 1997. The learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 05.12.1997 acquitted all the respondents of all the charges. Hence this Government Appeal.

¶18

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased-N.Anuradha was married to accused-N.Dharma Reddy at Kamapalli on 28.07.1994, whereafter the bride and groom went and lived in the house of the groom at village Khambarigan. A few days thereafter, the deceased came to her parents house and complained of ill-treatment by the accused persons. Accused-N.Dharma Reddy came and took the deceased with him. Four days thereafter, both of them came back to the parental house of the deceased on the plea that the parents of accused-Dharma Reddy are unwilling to keep them in the house, as Dharma Reddy has no income. The newly wed couple resided in a rented house at Lanjipalli, but there also accused Dharma Reddy regularly assaulted the deceased. Since they could not live there peacefully, both of them went to Khambarigan. But 3-4 days thereafter, the deceased ran away from that house and came to her parental house. She alleged that the accused persons were demanding dowry and that they were ill-treating and assaulting her. The husband and father-in-law of the deceased came to take her back, but she refused to go complaining of ill treatment and assault. The accused persons then demanded that either the deceased should go with them to Khambarigan or her family should pay Rs.30,000/- and take a divorce. There was a caste panchayati on this issue and the gentlemen advised that the deceased would stay with her in-laws and that the accused persons would behave properly with her. The

¶19

¶20

deceased was taken to the house of the accused persons, but she was not welcome there and she had to come back out of fear. The family of the deceased could not pay Rs.30,000/-, so the deceased volunteered to go to the house of her in-laws. She was taken there on 20.09.1996. On 25.09.1996, night the family members and relations of the deceased received news that the deceased has been hospitalized at Patrapur P.H.C. with extensive burn injuries. They went there, but found that the deceased was already dead. The accused-late Jageya Reddy and others threatened them with dire consequences, if they report the matter in the Police Station. After some hesitation, the brother of the deceased lodged a report before the S.P., Berhampur, who directed the C.I., Berhampur, Sadar, Berhampur to take up investigation of the case. After thorough investigation, it was found that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty demanding dowry and that she died due to this cruelty and harassment of the accused persons.

¶21

During pendency of the case, accused- N.Jageya Reddy died and the case abated against him. The trial was continued against the rest three accused persons named above.

¶22

3 . In order to prove the charges, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and during the course of examination of witnesses, several documents like- F.I.R., Inquest report, Seizure lists, sport map, Chemical examination report etc. were relied upon and exhibited. The defence did not examine any witness in support of its case.

¶23

4. The plea of the accused persons is one of denial and false implication. Accordingly to them, they never demanded any dowry

¶24

¶25

and never treated the deceased with cruelty, but the deceased, who was an educated urban girl addicted to modern luxuries of life, did not like to stay in the rustic atmosphere and ran away from her nuptial house to her parental house often and ultimately when her own family members brought and left her at Khambari gaon, she committed suicide out of frustration.

¶26

5. The learned Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had been unable to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Law is well settled that appeal against acquittal is treated as a different plain then an appeal against conviction shall be off-quoted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal Vrs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to examine almost all the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has taken into consideration the judgments of the Privy Council passed in the case of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) and other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on earlier occasion and has observed the principles to be followed in a case of appeal against acquittal by the High Court and other appellate courts which is reflected at Paragraph-70. We find it appropriate to quote the same:-

¶27

“In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:

¶28

¶29

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:

¶30

i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;

¶31

ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

¶32

iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”;

¶33

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

¶34

v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

¶35

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the Ballistic expert, etc.

¶36

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

¶37

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.

¶38

3. If two reasonable views can be reached-one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction-the High

¶39

¶40

Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused”.

¶41

6. Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that there has been ignorance of evidence of P.W.6 for which the appeal should be allowed.

¶42

7. However, from the record we see that evidence of P.W.6 has been discussed by the learned Sessions Judge and he has disbelieved this witness. So, it is erroneous to submit that the evidence of P.W.6 has been ignored. Rather, the evidence of P.W.6 has been disbelieved. So, we cannot hold that this is a case where the evidence laid on behalf of the prosecution has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge. No other serious infirmity has been pointed out by the State Government to warrant interference in this appeal

¶43

8. Thus unless very substantial and compelling reasons are there the appellate court should not overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal. Very substantial and compelling reasons are that the trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong or the trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law. It is not the case of the State that the facts material evidence has been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge nor it is that the trial court’s decision was based on erroneous view of law. The State also do not submit that the trial court’s judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice or the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the trial court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable or that the trial court has ignored the evidence or misreading of the material facts and

¶44

¶45

has ignored the material document like dying declaration report of the ballistic report etc. Moreover, where two views are possible, one that leads to acquittal and other to conviction, then the view in favour of the accused is to be adopted.

¶46

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts succinctly stated by us and the principles guiding the appeal against acquittal, we find no merit in the Government Appeal and, therefore, come to the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of any merit and there are no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the findings recorded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur.

¶47

With such observation, the Government Appeal stands dismissed. The L.C.R. be returned back to the learned Trial Court immediately.

¶48

As restrictions are continuing due to COVID-19 pandemic, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶49

………………………… S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶50

SAVITRI RATHO, J. I agree.

¶51

…………………………. SAVITRI RATHO, J.

¶52

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8^TH DECEMBER, 2020/Rohit

¶53

State v. Narada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Narada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Kanhar Vs State

Samir Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha

Girish Sendha Vs State of Odisha

Sartika Balua Vs State

Raghunath Burudi Vs the State

Harendra Pradhan Vs S.P, Balasore