State of Orissa v. Kalia Gouda

Orissa HC18 Nov 2025CRLLP/80/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grant of leave to State under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. to appeal against acquittal; dowry death charges Sections 304-B, 34 IPC (altered from 498-A, 306, 34 IPC); acquittal dated 28.11.2006 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Sessions Case No.59 of 2005; Section 32 Indian Evidence Act statement of deceased to P.W. 1 (father) two days before death regarding dowry demand/assault; Section 113-A Indian Evidence Act presumption, death within seven years of marriage; delay of 56 days condoned; government appeal ordered to be filed within four weeks; CRLLP disposed of; single Judge: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; decision date 18.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the State to prefer a government appeal against the acquittal; government appeal to be prepared and filed within four weeks; CRLLP application stands disposed of.

State of Orissa Vs Kalia Gouda — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave granted to the State to prefer a government appeal against the acquittal; government appeal to be prepared and filed within four weeks; CRLLP application stands disposed of.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the Petitioner-State to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.59 of 2005.

¶¶18

Court's answer

On a careful scrutiny of the grounds taken in the leave application, this Court found that the grounds are genuine and ultimately the same are likely to affect the outcome of the present appeal.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

A ground for reconsideration is that the trial Court ignored to take note of the statement of the deceased made before her father (P.W. 1) two days prior to her death, to the effect that she was being assaulted by the accused persons for getting more dowry (urged to be admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act), described as clinching evidence cited by the prosecution.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

There exists a presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act as the death had occurred within seven years from the date of marriage, and the same was not properly addressed by the learned trial Court while examining such important legal issue.ratio¶¶25
Considering the gravity and nature of the allegation and the several grounds requiring reconsideration, the Court held this to be a deserving case where leave should be granted to the State to prefer an appeal, in the larger interest of justice; leave was granted and the government appeal was directed to be prepared and filed within four weeks.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLLP No.80 of 2007, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., order dated 18.11.2025 (State Of Orissa v. Kalia Gouda and others): The State's leave application under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. to appeal against the acquittal dated 28.11.2006 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.59 of 2005 is granted. The accused were tried originally under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC, the charge having been altered to Sections 304-B, 34 IPC, and were acquitted of all charges. Filed on 10.05.2007 with a delay of about 56 days (condoned vide order dated 15.04.2014), the matter lay pending since 2014. Finding the grounds in the leave application genuine and likely to affect the outcome of the appeal, the Court noted that the trial Court had ignored the deceased's statement made before her father (P.W. 1) two days prior to her death alleging assault by the accused for getting more dowry (urged admissible under Section 32, Indian Evidence Act) and had not properly addressed the presumption arising under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the death having occurred within seven years of marriage. Taking into account the gravity and nature of the allegation, leave was granted to the State to prefer a government appeal, to be prepared and filed within four weeks; the CRLLP application stands disposed of. None appeared for the opposite parties despite valid service of notice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No.80 of 2007

¶3

State Of Orissa

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Smt. S. Nayak, ASC

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Kalia Gouda and others

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

None

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.11.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the State. None appears for the opposite parties-accused.

¶18

On perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that the present leave application was filed on 10.05.2007 by the Petitioner-State seeking leave to prefer an appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C. The State-Petitioner has sought for leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.59 of 2005. The accused-opposite parties faced charge in the trial under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 of IPC, which was altered to Sections 304-B, 34 of IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court has held that the accused persons are not guilty of the offences alleged and accordingly they were acquitted of all charges.

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

Further, on perusal of the order-sheet, it reveals that initially at the time of filing of the application there was a delay of about 56 days. However, such delay has been condoned by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2014. Therefore, the appeal is pending for admission since 2014, i.e. for more than 11 years. The matter was last listed on 27.06.2014 and then again on 06.11.2023. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner-State is present, however, none appears for the opposite parties despite valid service of notice.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State at the outset contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused-opposite parties. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner to this Court through the evidence of the P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, and other relevant witnesses. He further submitted that the allegation with regard to the demand of dowry is clearly established, however, such fact has been tossed aside by the learned trial Court while delivering the judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the grounds taken in his leave application, submitted that the State-Petitioner has good grounds to succeed in appeal to.

¶22

On a careful scrutiny of the grounds taken in the leave application, this Court found that the grounds are genuine and ultimately the same are likely to affect the outcome of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the learned trial Court has ignored to take note of the statement of the deceased made before her father, P.W. 1, two days prior to her death to the effect that she was being assaulted by the accused persons for getting more dowry and such statement it is urged by the learned counsel for the State, is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the learned trial Court has clearly ignored

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

the aforesaid clinching evidence against the accused persons which was cited by the prosecution.

¶25

This Court, on a careful analysis of the impugned judgment and on a close scrutiny thereof, found that there are several grounds which require reconsideration by this Court. This Court also found that there exists a presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act as the death had occurred within seven years from the date of marriage and the same has not been properly addressed by the learned trial Court while examining such important legal issue. Taking into consideration the gravity and nature of the allegation, this Court is of the view that this case is a deserving case where leave should be granted to the State to prefer an appeal, and the same would be in the larger interest of justice. Accordingly, the leave is granted to the State to prefer a government appeal. Let the government appeal be prepared and filed within four weeks from today.

¶26

8. Accordingly, the CRLLP application stands disposed of.

¶27

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

¶28

S.K. Rout

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 21-Nov-2025 10:20:44 Page 3 of 3.

State of Orissa v. Kalia Gouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Kalia Gouda

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

Dillip Ku.Nayak Vs Bansidhar Nayak

Prabina Pradhan @ Praveen Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Best Book Store, Bbsr Vs Academic Heights Public Schools, Keonjhar

Rabindra Akshit Vs State

Jyotirmayee Parida Vs Pradeep Ku.Nath

Sudeesh Swarup Sahoo Vs State of Odisha