Lingaraj Dakua Vs State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

CRA No. 217 of 2000

An appeal from the judgment and order dated 06.09.2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska in Sessions Case No.5 of 1999.

¶4

¶5

Lingaraj Dakua and Others ....... Appellants -VersusState of Orissa ....... Respondent For Appellants: Ms. Kumudinee Panda Advocate For Appellant Nos.3 & 4 For Respondent: Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty Addl. Standing Counsel ---------------------

¶6

P R E S E N T:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. SAHOO

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶10

¶11

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 12.08.2025

¶12

¶13

By the Bench: The Criminal Appeal has been filed by Lingaraj

¶14

Dakua, his wife Sabati Dakua and their two sons Ladu Kishore

¶15

Dakua and Yudhisthir Dakua. During pendency of the Appeal,

¶16

//2//

¶17

since Lingaraj Dakua and Sebati Dakua expired, the Appeal stood abated in respect of those two appellants vide order dated 13.08.2024. Now, therefore, the Appeal survives only in respect to Ladu Kishore Dakua, the husband of deceased Namita @ Laxmi Dakua and Yudhisthir Dakua, the husband’s elder brother (brother-in-law of the deceased).

¶18

The four appellants along with one Bishnupriya Dakua, the sister-in-law of the deceased, faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No.5 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 498-A/34, 201/34 and 304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘D.P. Act’).

¶19

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2000, while acquitting Bishnupriya Dakua of all the charges and the appellant no.1 Lingaraj Dakua (dead) of the charge under section 304-B/34 of the IPC, found him guilty under Sections 302/34, 498-A, 201/511 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. So far as appellant No.2 Smt. Sebati Dakua (dead) is concerned, she was acquitted of the charges Sections 304-B/34, 498-A of the IPC and also under Section 4 of the D.P.

¶20

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 2 of 30

¶21

//3//

¶22

Act, however, she was found guilty under Section 302/34 and Section 201/511 of the IPC.

¶23

The appellants Ladu Kishore Dakua and Yudhisthir Dakua were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34, 498-A/34 of the IPC so also under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, but they were found guilty under Section 201/511 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each.

¶24

Prosecution Case :

¶25

The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report (Ext.3) lodged by P.W.6 Narasingha Sahu before the IIC of Badagada police station on 18.06.1996, in short, is that on the very day, in the morning at about 07.00 a.m., he had been to village-Godarlupi with one Kala Gouda. Having returned to his village at about 09:00 a.m., he came to know that the deceased who had married to the appellant-Ladu Kishore Dakua about one and half years prior to the incident, had died and the in-laws’ family members of the deceased had not intimated any of the family members of the deceased and spreading a propaganda that the deceased died out of dysentery and preparing for cremation of the dead body. On hearing such news from others, the informant (P.W.6) became suspicious. Previously, the

¶26

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 3 of 30

¶27

//4//

¶28

deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture by her in-laws family members and over this issue, there was settlement between the parties and in presence of the covillagers, the in-laws’ family members were asked not to torture the deceased. Just a day prior to the date of occurrence, the parents of the deceased along with the villagers had also tried for an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties for the alleged torture in connection with the demand of dowry, but since no fruitful result came out of the meeting, they left for their own houses. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that over this issue, while both these appellants i.e. Ladu Kishore Dakua and Yudhisthir Dakua were absent in the house, the parents-in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased assaulted the deceased and strangulated her to death by means of a rope. The Informant also tried to restrain the in-laws’ family members of the deceased not to take the dead body to the burial ground for cremation, but they did not listen to him and accordingly P.W.6 came to Badagada police station and lodged the F.I.R.

¶29

On the basis of such F.I.R., Badagada P.S. Case No.45 dated 18.06.1996 was registered under Sections 302/201/498-A/34 of the I.P.C.

¶30

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 4 of 30

¶31

//5//

¶32

P.W.16, the I.I.C. of Badagada P.S. after registration of the case, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.9), examined the witnesses, seized the half-burnt wood etc. from the cremation ground vide seizure list Ext.6. He also seized the plastic rope on being produced by appellant-Lingaraj Dakua (dead) from his house under seizure list Ext.8, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.1) and sent the dead body of the deceased to Bhanjanagar S.D. Hospital for post mortem examination through Constables. He also seized some dowry articles from the house of the appellants under seizure list Ext.7 and left the same in the zima of Abhimanu Dakua (P.W.19) under zimanama (Ext.12). He arrested the accused persons on 24.06.1996 and forwarded them to Court on 25.06.1996. On 29.07.1996, he made a query from the Medical Officer regarding the cause of death of the deceased and on his transfer, he handed over the charge of investigation to the Inspector D.Taresu Patra (P.W.13), the Circle Inspector of Police, Hinjili, who on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons on 20.09.1996 under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

¶33

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 5 of 30

¶34

//6//

¶35

The case was committed to the Court of Session after complying the due procedure, where the learned trial Court framed the charges as aforesaid. Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial, the session trial procedure was resorted to prove their guilt.

¶36

Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits & M.Os. :

¶37

During the course of trial, in order to prove its case,

¶38

the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses.

¶39

P.W.1 Sitaram Padhy is the villager who stated to have known the informant and the deceased. He further stated that he knew the deceased married to the accused Ladu Kishore prior to one year of her death; that the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and he signed in that inquest report Ext.1.

¶40

P.W.2 Kabichandra Panda, who is the front door

¶41

neighbour of the accused persons, stated that he knew the deceased Laxmi who married to the accused Ladu Kishore since one year prior to her death; that all the accused persons were staying in the house where Laxmi died; that there was quarrel between the husband and wife on account of love affairs between the deceased and Lingaraj. It is further stated by P.W.2

¶42

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 6 of 30

¶43

//7//

¶44

that he found all the accused persons carrying the dead body at 09:00 a.m. for which he entertained a doubt and contacted the Gramarakhi (P.W.6) to obstruct the accused persons from carrying the dead body to the funeral ground and also advised him to bring the matter to the notice of the police. He further stated that P.W.6 obstructed the dead body on the way, but the accused persons took the corpse to the funeral ground; that Police arrived at the funeral ground with P.W.6 and prevented the accused persons from burning the dead body. He also stated that the dead body of Laxmi was brought out from the funeral pyre and kept under a tree and that they saw marks of injuries on the neck and both the thighs of the deceased. He further stated that the police prepared the inquest report and he signed thereon.

¶45

P.W.3 Chandrasekhar Pati, who was the Paediatric Specialist from Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bhanjanagar, stated that on 19.06.1996 at 12.45 p.m., a team of doctors conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Laxmi Dakua and prepared P.M. Report (Ext.2).

¶46

P.W.4 Kishore Kumar Padhy, who was the Paediatric Specialist from P.P. Centre, Bhanjanagar, also participated in the

¶47

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 7 of 30

¶48

//8//

¶49

post mortem examination of the deceased Laxmi Dakua and he agreed with the observation of P.W.3 found on Ext.2.

¶50

P.W.5 Dr. Srikanta Sahu stated that the accused Lingaraj Dakua came to his residence and called him stating that his daughter-in-law was suffering from dysentery accompanied with vomiting; that he went with him to his house to treat his daughter-in-law; that he saw that the patient was already dead and he blamed the accused and left the place to see other patients. He further stated that when he observed the patient, he could not think that it was a medico-legal case and that the wife of the accused Ladu Kishore Dakua was present near the patient; that when he visited the house of the accused, the entire body of the patient was covered excepting her face; that he examined her pulse and beating of the heart and he declared her dead and that he had not removed the cloth to check the patient.

¶51

P.W.6 Narasingh Sahu, the Informant as well as Gramarkahi at Badagada police station stated that he knew all the accused persons; that accused Ladu Kishore Dakua had married to the deceased since two to three years back; that the deceased used to stay in the house of her in-laws after her marriage; that there was some quarrel and ill-feeling in the

¶52

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 8 of 30

¶53

//9//

¶54

family between the deceased on the one hand with her parentsin-law and the sister of her husband on the other; that the parents of the deceased used to come to the house of the deceased persons frequently in order to settle the dispute and misunderstanding that arose in the family. He further stated that he informed the incident at the police station in writing and proved the F.I.R. (Ext.3).

¶55

P.W.7 Muna Sahu, is the villager of the informant and the deceased. He stated that that the marriage of the deceased Laxmi was performed with accused Ladu Kishore Dakua two years back; that the dead body of the deceased was taken to the funeral ground for cremation; that the police arrived when funeral pyre was lighted and that the police brought out the corpse from the pyre. He further stated that he was present there and saw the dead body when it was shifted to another place by police; that he marked some injury on the neck of the deceased and that the police prepared the inquest report in which he signed.

¶56

P.W.8 Anantaram Panda, a villager stated that he knew P.W.6, the Gramarakhi as well as all the accused persons. He further stated that the accused Ladu Kishore married since 2 to 2½ years back; that the wife of Ladu Kishore was staying in

¶57

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 9 of 30

¶58

the house of the accused persons after her marriage; that he saw the dead body of the wife of Ladu Kishore was brought out from the house to the village road.

¶59

P.W.9 Laxman Pradhan, who was the Constable attached to Badapada police station stated that on 18.06.1996 P.W.6 came and informed at the P.S. about the taking away of the dead body to the burial ground for the purpose of cremation; that the police, he himself, P.W.6 and others came to the burial ground of village Sidhapur, observed the funeral pyre of one Laxmi Dakua at the burial ground; that the accused persons were present and one of them was trying to light up the fire; that they brought out the dead body from the funeral pyre and placed under a tree; that the police officer conducted inquest; issued command certificate to take the dead body to Bhanjanagar for post-mortem examination; that N.K. Bhol and he himself took the dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination; that the dead body was handed over to the parents of the deceased after post-mortem; that the doctor gave him saree, blouse, silver ring of the leg, chain of the neck, waist thread and the nose stud of the deceased; that he handed over those articles to the I.O. at the police station; that those articles

¶60

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 10 of 30

¶61

//11//

¶62

were seized under seizure list Ext.5 and he put his signature thereon.

¶63

P.W.10 Basu Naik, a villager of the accused persons so also P.W.6, the Gramarakhi of his village, stated that accused Ladu Kishore Dakua married since two years back. He further stated that one day while he was returning from his field, police called him to the burial ground, where he marked injuries on the neck and both the legs of the deceased and that police prepared the inquest report and he signed thereon. He also stated that a plastic jerrycan containing kerosene and some firewood were seized in his presence from the burial ground under Ext.6.

¶64

P.W.11 Laxman Jena, who is also a co-villager of the accused persons stated that he knew all the accused persons and the informant; that the accused Ladu Kishore Dakua married at village Radhipalli since two years back; that after the death of the wife of Ladu Kishore, the police came to the house of the accused Lingaraj and seized certain articles in his presence under seizure list Ext.7 and one rope was also seized from the house of the accused persons i.e. M.O. II under the seizure list Ext.8.

¶65

P.W.12 Basudeba Behera, another co-villager of the accused persons and the informant stated that police called him

¶66

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 11 of 30

¶67

//12//

¶68

after six to seven days of the death of the wife of Laku Kishore; seized gold ornaments and one rope in his presence from the house of the accused persons and he put his signatures on the seizure lists.

¶69

P.W.13 D. Taresu Patra, who is the Circle Inspector Police, Hinjili stated that as per the direction of the S.P., Ganjam, he took charge of investigation of the case on 16.09.1996 and after perusing the records, he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons.

¶70

P.W.14 Kishore Chandra Chhatoi, a co-villager of the accused persons and the informant, stated that the deceased was the wife of the accused Ladu Kishore Dakua and after her marriage, she was staying in the house of the accused persons; that one day while he was returning from his field at about 10 a.m., he found a gathering at the funeral ground of his village; that the dead body of the deceased was available in the funeral ground; that the police seized kerosene container and half burnt firewood in his presence so also seized earthen pot and a Kulla at the funeral ground.

¶71

P.W.15 Rabindranath Das, another co-villager of the accused persons and the informant stated that on 18.06.1996 on

¶72

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 12 of 30

¶73

//13//

¶74

his return to the village, he found the police vehicle in his village; visited the funeral ground of his village and saw the dead body of the deceased at the funeral ground and that the accused persons were also found present at that place and that the police took the dead body for post mortem examination and that the deceased was found wearing blouse and green colour saree and that he signed on the inquest report.

¶75

P.W.16 Sangram Kishore Patnaik, who is the IIC of Badagada police station stated that on 18.06.1996 at 10:10 a.m., on receipt of the written report of P.W.6, he registered P.S. Case No.45 of 1996 and took up investigation of the case; that during the course of investigation, he visited the spot, prepared the spot map; that he examined the witnesses, seized some wood, half burnt wood, one Kula and other materials used in the pyre and prepared the seizure list in presence of the witnesses vide Ext.6.

¶76

P.W.18 Haribandhu Jena stated that he brought the

¶77

dead body of the daughter-in-law of the accused Lingaraj Dakua in his trolly to Bhanjanagar for post mortem on being asked by the police and that the dead body of the deceased was emitting a smell of vomiting and defecation.

¶78

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 13 of 30

¶79

//14//

¶80

P.W.19 Abhimanyu Dakua stated that the deceased

¶81

was his daughter; that after two to three months of marriage, his daughter informed him that her husband Ladu was demanding a colour T.V. and other articles; that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were assaulting her and that she was not being provided proper food and that she was being pressurized to bring those articles; that during the stay of her daughter in her parental house, one day accused Ladu and Lingaraj came to his house and forcibly dragged her daughter to the vehicle and took her away and thereafter, he went to the house of the accused persons to request the accused Lingaraj to allow his daughter to go with him, but the accused told him to give one colour T.V, gold ornaments and a fan; that the accused persons did not allow his daughter to visit his house and his daughter requested him to give the articles as the accused persons were torturing her; that one Constable informed him that his daughter was dead and that he along with other villagers proceeded to Sidhipur and found police were guarding the house of the accused persons and allowed nobody to enter inside; that the villagers of Sidhipur told him that his daughter had been taken to the cremation ground; that he went to the cremation ground and found his daughter was partially burnt;

¶82

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 14 of 30

¶83

//15//

¶84

that he saw black mark below her chin extending to both sides of both ears, her right ankle was swollen; that the police sent the dead body of his daughter for post mortem to Bhanjanagar and that he accompanied with the dead body; that during marriage, he had given Rs.7,500/- cash to the accused Ladu and also gave him one gold chain, one gold ring and Patta dhoti and chaddar and also a gold chain to his daughter along with other articles.

¶85

Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution exhibited twelve documents. Ext.1 is the Inquest report; Ext.2 is the post mortem report; Ext.3 is the F.I.R.; Ext.4 is the command certificate; Exts.5, 6, 7 & 8 are the seizure lists; Ext.9 is the spot map; Ext.10 is the dead body challan; Ext.11 is the written complaint and Ext.12 is the Zimanama.

¶86

The prosecution proved four material objects. M.O.I is the Plastic Jerrican, M.O.II is the Rope, M.O.III is the Kulla and M.O.IV is the earthen pot.

¶87

Defence Plea :

¶88

The defence plea of the appellants is one of complete denial and it is pleaded that the death of the deceased was normal due to dysentery and that they were not present in the village and after hearing about the death of the deceased, they

¶89

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 15 of 30

¶90

//16//

¶91

came to their house and found the deceased was dead and that they have been falsely entangled in the case.

¶92

Trial Court findings :

¶93

The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, on the basis of the evidence of the doctor and the post-mortem report findings, came to hold that the deceased met homicidal death. The learned trial Court took into account the plea taken by the present appellants regarding their absence at the time of occurrence and came to hold that the accused Lingaraj Dakua being the father-in-law of the deceased Laxmi subjected her to cruelty and therefore, the charge under section 498-A of the IPC is proved against him. It was further held that the accused persons Lingaraj Dakua and Sebati Dakua murdered the deceased and attempted to give a colour to the death to be natural for dysentery and vomiting and further attempted to cause the evidence of the commission of murder to disappear by taking the dead body of the deceased to the cremation ground, putting it on the funeral pyre and lighting the pyre. However, the dead body could be retrieved at the intervention of the police. It was further held that so far as the appellants Ladu Kishore Dakua and Yudhistir Dkua are concerned, on their arrival in the

¶94

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 16 of 30

¶95

//17//

¶96

morning, they must have seen the injuries on the neck of the deceased and must not have seen anything indicating that the deceased was suffering from loose motion and vomiting and having reason to believe that the deceased to have been murdered, they assisted their parents to cremate the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held that the charge under section 201 read with section 511 of the IPC has been proved against the appellants Ladu Kishore Dakua and Yudhistir Dakua so also appellants Lingaraj Dakua (dead) and Sebati Dakua. The learned trial Court further held that the appellant Lingaraj Dakua (dead) being the father-in-law of the deceased demanded colour TV, gold ornaments, fan from the parents of the deceased and subjected her to cruelty in order to put pressure to get those articles and accordingly, found that the charge under Section 4 of the D.P. Act is brought home against him.

¶97

Contentions of Parties :

¶98

Ms. Kumudinee Panda, learned counsel for the appellants Ladu Kishore Dakua and Yudhisthir Dakua contended that there is no clinching evidence that the appellants assisted their parents to destroy the dead body of the deceased and that they were aware about the homicidal death of the deceased and

¶99

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 17 of 30

¶100

//18//

¶101

therefore, the conviction of the appellants under section 201 read with section 511 of IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶102

Mr. Aurobindo Mohanty, learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and contended that the deceased had met homicidal death and the accused persons were trying to cause disappearance of evidence of offence by setting fire to the dead body hurriedly without intimating the parents of the deceased or to the police and the appellants were present at the burial ground while the dead body was put on funeral pyre and it was recovered with burn injuries, therefore, the conviction of the appellants is justified.

¶103

Whether the deceased met with homicidal death

¶104

P.W.16, the I.O. conducted inquest over the dead body at the burial ground of village Sidhapur in presence of witnesses and prepared the inquest report Ext.1, which indicates that there were injury marks on the neck and the body was having fresh burn injuries.

¶105

The evidence of the two doctors i.e. P.W.3 and P.W.4 who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased is very relevant on this issue. P.W.3 stated that on 19.06.1996, he was serving as the Paediatric Specialist, S.D. Hospital, Bhanjanagar and he conducted the post mortem

¶106

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 18 of 30

¶107

//19//

¶108

examination over the dead body of the deceased and noticed the

¶109

following injuries: -

¶110

“1. She had an average body build and was lying in a supine position. Her eyes were opened. Eye balls were protruded, pupils dilated, mouth open, tongue bitten. Hemorrhagic fluid coming out from the nostrils and mouth. Face was deeply congested, rigor mortis absent in all four limbs. Decomposition started. Body was swollen. There was peeling of skin epithelium from neck, chest, abdomen, thighs and both arms. Blisters of various sizes were present all over the body;

¶111

There was one abrasion 1/2" x 1/2” over the outer aspect of left ankle joint which was ante mortem in nature;

¶112

Ligature mark could not be detected due to peeling of epithelium over the neck.

¶113

Transverse zone of congestion of size 6.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. was present in front of the neck over the area of thyroid cartilage extending to both the sides.

¶114

On dissection, the following injuries were found:

¶115

Larynx and trachea- Mucous membrane was congested. Petechial hemorrhages present. There was fracture of hyoid cartilage. Blood-

¶116

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 19 of 30

¶117

//20//

¶118

stained fluid present in mouth and pharynx. The stomach contained 1 litre of partially digested food particles. Intestine was distended with gas;

¶119

Muscles of the antero-lateral aspect of neck of both sides were deeply congested and on dissection, collection of blood was found within the superficial muscle of the neck. There was fracture of the thyroid cartilage.

¶120

He opined the cause of death was asphyxia due to

¶121

strangulation. Time since death was 36 to 48 hours at the time of post-mortem examination. He further opined that the strangulation in the case was with the help of some external objects. He proved the post-mortem report as Ext.2. He further stated that one abrasion on the dead body so also the blisters were post-mortem in nature. He further stated that in order to cause fracture of thyroid cartilage, heavy compression of the neck is necessary.

¶122

In the cross-examination, he has stated that no figure marks were on the neck but stated that injury on the neck as found cannot be self-inflicted. He further stated that all the signs of asphyxia expecting ligature mark were present.

¶123

P.W.4, the doctor who assisted P.W.3 also stated that

¶124

he ageed with the observation of P.W.3 found on Ext.2.

¶125

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 20 of 30

¶126

//21//

¶127

Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to

¶128

challenge of any of the doctors regarding the conclusion arrived at by them that the death was due to asphyxia on account of strangulation.

¶129

The inquest report (Ext.1) clearly indicates that there were some burn injuries sustained by the deceased when it was recovered from the pyre. In the post-mortem report (Ext.2) also the doctor noticed blisters of various sizes present all over the body.

¶130

The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses clearly indicates that the deceased had met a homicidal death on account of strangulation.

¶131

The defence plea that the deceased died out of dysentery has been rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court in view the evidence adduced by the doctors P.W.3 and P.W.4 and their findings in the post-mortem report (Ext.2) so also the inquest report findings.

¶132

Whether the conviction of the appellants under section

¶133

201 read with section 511 of IPC is justified :

¶134

8 Section 201 of the IPC, inter alia, deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence. It states that

¶135

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 21 of 30

¶136

//22//

¶137

whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, can be said to have committed the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. Thus, the ingredients of Section 201 of the IPC are as follows: -

¶138

(i) that an offence has been committed;

¶139

(ii) that the accused knew or had reason to

¶140

believe the commission of such an offence;

¶141

(iii) that with such knowledge or belief, he caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear.

¶142

(iv) that he did so with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment;

¶143

Needless to say that mere suspicion is not sufficient;

¶144

there must be cogent evidence available on record that the accused caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen himself or another from the offence, and the act must have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.

¶145

At this stage, the evidence of some witnesses relevant to prove the charge needs to be discussed.

¶146

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 22 of 30

¶147

//23//

¶148

P.W.2 Kabi Chandra Panda stated that on the date of

¶149

occurrence, at about 9:00 a.m., he found all the accused persons were carrying the dead body and that he entertained a doubt and contacted the Gramarakhi (P.W.6) to obstruct the accused persons from carrying the dead body to the funeral ground. He further stated to have advised P.W.6 to bring the matter to the notice of the Police. He further stated that P.W.6 obstructed the accused persons on the way, but the accused persons took the corpse to the funeral ground. He further stated that the police arrived in the funeral ground with P.W.6 and prevented the accused persons from burning the dead body. The Police brought out the deceased’s body from the funeral pyre and placed it under a tree. Marks of injuries were noticed on the neck and thighs of the deceased, and accordingly, the inquest report was prepared.

¶150

In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he had seen one female pot maker going to the house of Lingaraj Dakua in the morning, but he had not seen anybody else going to the house of the accused persons that morning. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer to have instructed P.W.6, the Gramarakhi, to obstruct the carrying of the dead body by the accused persons

¶151

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 23 of 30

¶152

and that he instructed P.W.6 to report the matter at the police station and that he saw injuries on both the thighs of the deceased. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that since he was not on good terms with the accused persons, he was deposing falsely.

¶153

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 that he found the accused persons carrying the dead body at 9 a.m. which raised his suspicion and that police arrived in the funeral ground with P.W.6 and prevented the accused persons from burning the dead

¶154

body and that the dead body was brought out from the funeral pyre and that he noticed marks of injuries on the neck of the deceased has not been shaken in cross-examination.

¶155

P.W.6 Narasingha Sahu, the Gramarakhi has stated that on 18.06.1996, while he was passing through the village of the appellants at 9 a.m., he heard from some women that a girl had been strangulated to death on the previous night. He went towards the house of the appellants and found that they were preparing to take the dead body to the funeral ground for cremation and found a huge gathering when the dead body was brought from the house of the accused persons. He specifically stated that appellants Lingaraj Dakua (dead), Sebati Dakua (dead), Ladu Kishore Dakua and Yudhistir Dakua, were carrying

¶156

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 24 of 30

¶157

//25//

¶158

the dead body of Laxmi towards funeral ground. Lingaraj Dakua and Yudhistir Dakua were ahead and Sebati Dakua and Ladu Kishore Dakua were behind while carrying the dead body of Laxmi. He further stated that he obstructed the accused persons, claiming that the lady’s death was unnatural and suspecting noncooperation from the villagers, he decided to go to the police station to inform the police. He further stated that the dead body was taken directly to the funeral ground and he proceeded to the police station, where he reported the matter in writing. The police then came to the spot and he accompanied the police. By the time they arrived, the funeral pyre had already been prepared. The dead body was brought out from the pyre and the police conducted inquest over the dead body wherein he observed marks of injuries on the neck of the deceased and on both legs below the knee joint.

¶159

In the cross-examination, P.W.6 admitted that he had not stated to the I.O. that while the dead body was carried, he found Lingaraj Dakua (dead) and Yudhistir Dakua were ahead and Sebati Dakua (dead) and Ladu Kishore Dakua were behind them while carrying the dead body. It has been confronted to P.W.6 and proved through the I.O. (P.W.16) that he has not stated in his statement that the accused persons prepared the

¶160

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 25 of 30

¶161

//26//

¶162

funeral pyre and that he observed injuries on the neck and below both the knees of the deceased.

¶163

P.W.7 Muna Sahu has stated that the deceased after her death was taken to the funeral ground for cremation and police arrived when funeral pyre was lighted and the police brought out the corpse from the pyre and that he was present there and saw marks of injury on the neck of the deceased.

¶164

P.W.9 Laxman Pradhan who was the constable attached to Badagada police station stated that P.W.6 came and informed at the police station about taking away of a dead body to the burial ground for the purpose of cremation and that he along with other police officials and P.W.6 came to the burial ground and found the funeral pyre of the deceased in the burial ground and also the presence of the accused persons and one of them trying to light the fire and that they brought out the dead body from the funeral pyre.

¶165

P.W.10 Basu Naik has stated that he was called to

¶166

burial ground by the police where he saw the dead body of the deceased and found marks of injuries on the neck and both the legs.

¶167

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 26 of 30

¶168

P.W.15 Rabindra Nath Das has stated that he saw

¶169

the dead body of the deceased at the funeral ground and the accused persons were also present there.

¶170

P.W.19 Abhimanu Dakua, the father of the deceased

¶171

has stated that getting information about the death of the deceased from one Constable, he proceeded to village Sidhipur and the villagers of Sidhipur told him that the deceased had been taken to the cremation ground and that he came to the cremation ground and found the deceased was partially burnt. There was black mark below her chin extending to both sides of both ears and her right ankle was swollen.

¶172

P.W.16, the I.O. has stated that after registering the

¶173

case on the report of P.W.6, he visited the spot, where he held inquest over the dead body.

¶174

Nothing has been brought out in the crossexamination of any of these witnesses to demolish their evidence. From the evidence as discussed above, it is apparent that not only the prosecution has proved that the deceased met with a homicidal death but the appellants without informing the family members of the deceased from the paternal side, to the police, they carried the dead body to the funeral ground in spite

¶175

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 27 of 30

¶176

//28//

¶177

of objection raised by P.W.6 and that they put the dead body on funeral pyre and set fire and at the timely intervention of police on the report of P.W.6, the dead body was brought out from the funeral pyre and inquest was held. The presence of the appellants in the funeral ground has also been established.

¶178

Thus, there are ample materials on record to deduce that the two appellants herein were well aware that an offence had been committed in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, which they must have noticed at the time of carrying the dead body to the funeral ground and also at the time of placing it on the pyre for cremation. The act committed by these two appellants, along with the other co-accused who are since dead, in carrying the dead body to the funeral ground without even intimating the family members of the deceased or the police, is another factor that goes against them. It further appears from the evidence that, in spite of the restraint imposed by P.W.6, they took the dead body to the cremation ground and made every endeavor to place it on the pyre solely for the purpose of causing disappearance of the evidence. Had the police not reached at funeral ground in time, the evidence might have been totally destroyed. The police reached in time with P.W.6 and the dead body was recovered from the funeral pyre and

¶179

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 28 of 30

¶180

//29//

¶181

inquest was held over it and burn injuries were noticed apart from the injuries on the neck and other parts of the body and it was sent for post-mortem examination, which confirmed that it was a case of homicidal death. Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellants had knowledge that an offence has been committed and, with such knowledge, they attempted to cause the evidence of the offence to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment.

¶182

Conclusion:

¶183

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellants guilty under section 201/511 of the IPC.

¶184

It appears that the appellants were taken into judicial custody in connection with this case on 25.06.1996 and they were released on bail on 19.09.1996. However, after their conviction, they were released on bail under section 389 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Court so also by this Court in the present appeal and thereafter they were not taken to judicial custody in connection with the case.

¶185

Thus, the two appellants have been in custody for about three months. The occurrence in question took place in the

¶186

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 29 of 30

¶187

//30//

¶188

year 1996 i.e. almost thirty years back and the two appellants are now aged about more than sixty years. Keeping in view the age of the appellants and the passage of time, the sentence under sections 201/511 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶189

Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed

¶190

subject to modification of the sentence.

¶191

( S. K. Sahoo) Judge

¶192

…………………………………… (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶193

Orissa High Court The 12^th August 2025/Sarbani/AKPradhan/Bijay

¶194

Signature Not Verified

¶195

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 26-Aug-2025 14:10:26

¶196

CRA No.217 of 2000 Page 30 of 30

Lingaraj Dakua v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingaraj Dakua v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Lingaraj Nanda

Union of India Vs Aditya Prasad Panda

Bhramar Vs State

Kamala Kanta Parida Vs Dillip Routrai, Collector Cum D.M, Bhadrak

Chintamani Vs State

Chaitu Pujari Vs State