State Of Orissa vs Niranjan Mohapatra & Ors on 3 February, 2005

0
55
Supreme Court of India
State Of Orissa vs Niranjan Mohapatra & Ors on 3 February, 2005
Author: B.P.Singh
Bench: B.P. Singh, B.N. Srikrishna
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  938-939 of 1998

PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA                             

RESPONDENT:
NIRANJAN MOHAPATRA & ORS.                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/2005

BENCH:
B.P. SINGH & B.N. SRIKRISHNA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

B.P.Singh,J.

We have heard counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa,
Cuttack in Criminal Appeal Nos.149 and 221 of 1994 dated 24th September, 1997. The High
Court by its impugned judgment and order allowed both the appeals and acquitted the
respondents of all the charges levelled against them. Earlier, the appellants had been convicted
by the trial court under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years under Section 498A and 7 years under Section 304B IPC. However,
the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.221/1994 who are respondent 3 and 4 before us were
released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. As earlier noticed, the
High Court by its impugned judgment and order has acquitted all of them of the charges levelled
against them.

We have heard counsel for the parties and we have also perused the records placed
before us. We find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that so far as the allegations
relating to the offence under Section 498A is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to
establish its case against the respondents. The High Court has considered the evidence on record
and we find no reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the High Court. So far as
the offence under Section 304B is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that soon before the
occurrence the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment. In the absence of any such
evidence, conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained. Even the medical evidence on
record is rather ambiguous.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the High Court has recorded the
order of acquittal based on the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of such evidence.
We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *