Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 420 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Samir Rout …. Appellant (s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Susant Kumar Baral Adv. For Respondent (s) : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-17.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the appellant jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions, Athagarh, in S.T. Case No. 18 of 2014, arising out of C.T. Case No. 257 of 2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 2. Upon such conviction, the learned Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 304B of IPC. The Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The prosecution case in brief are as follows: (i) On 22.02.2011, the deceased was married to the Appellant in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is further stated that, after about one month of the marriage, the Informant came to know that the deceased was being subjected to pressure by the Appellant and others for demand of Rs. 50,000/-. (ii) It is further stated that on the day of the incident, in the evening hours, the Appellant informed that due to consumption of a high dose of medicine, the victim had expired. (iii) It is stated that immediately thereafter, they proceeded to Athagarh, where they found the dead body of the deceased at Athagarh Hospital. It is further stated that P.W. 4, the uncle of the deceased and the Informant in the present case, lodged the F.I.R., which was registered as Athagarh P.S. Case No. 99 of 2011. (iv) Thereafter, investigation was taken up in the matter and charge- sheet was submitted on 16.01.2013. The case was committed to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 the Court of Session and charges were framed against the Appellant. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The F.I.R., seizure list, inquest report, post-mortem report, spot map, and other relevant documents were exhibited during the course of trial. (v) It is stated that there was no history of the deceased suffering from fever or cold prior to her death on the day immediately preceding the incident. It is further stated that there was, therefore, no apparent justification for the deceased to have consumed chloroquine tablets in excess dosage. It is also stated that the circumstances under which such a high dose of tablets was allegedly consumed, resulting in loss of life, have not been established by any cogent evidence on record. (vi) It is further stated that, shortly prior to her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Appellant in connection with demand of dowry. It is submitted that, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, a presumption arises under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is rebuttable in nature. However, it is stated that the Appellant has failed to adduce any cogent or concrete evidence to rebut the said statutory presumption. (vii) It is stated that the alleged occurrence took place under suspicious circumstances and in secrecy, without the sight or hearing of any outsiders. It is further stated that, for the said reason, there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 (viii) It is further stated that the aforesaid circumstances constitute circumstantial evidence, which, according to the prosecution, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. (ix) Taking all the aforesaid circumstances into consideration, the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appellant has approached this Court by way of the present criminal appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Appellants submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment along with imposition of fine, is wholly erroneous, unsustainable both on facts and in law, and is liable to be set aside. (ii) The Appellants further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the materials and evidences available on record and thereby erroneously recorded the order of conviction. It is contended that the learned Court below has Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 not applied the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence, as a result of which the impugned judgment has become legally unsustainable. (iii) The Appellants contend that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought not to have drawn an inference of guilt against the accused persons. It is further contended that, in a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under a bounden obligation to establish a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances which must be wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. In the present case, according to the Appellants, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not satisfy the settled principles governing circumstantial evidence and are not sufficient to sustain the conviction. (iv) The Appellant further contended that P.W.1., who is not only a neighbour of the Appellant but also a seizure witness to the case, has categorically stated in his evidence that he could not say as to how the deceased died. It is further submitted that the said witness also disclosed that he had learnt from the father of the Appellant that, after the marriage, the deceased and her husband were residing separately from the family members. According to the Appellant, the testimony of P.W.1 does not support the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 prosecution case in any manner and, on the contrary, creates serious doubt regarding the allegation of cruelty and harassment attributed to the Appellant and his family members. (v) The Appellant submits that the contents of the F.I.R. itself disclose that, prior to her death, the deceased had consumed medicine for cold, which prima facie indicates that she was suffering from such ailment and had taken the medicine on her own volition. According to the Appellant, the aforesaid circumstance assumes significance inasmuch as it creates a reasonable possibility that the death may have occurred due to causes unconnected with the allegations levelled by the prosecution, thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful and unworthy of implicit reliance. (vi) The Appellant further submits that the P.W.2, the Investigating Officer, has categorically disclosed during the course of his evidence that, in the course of investigation, he came to know that, on the very date of the alleged incident, the deceased had telephonically contacted her parental house and stated that she was living happily in her matrimonial home. According to the Appellant, the said circumstance materially weakens the prosecution allegation of continuous cruelty and harassment soon before the death of the deceased and creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. (vii) Further, the Appellant contends that P.W.9, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 the deceased, has clearly opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to excessive consumption of chloroquine tablets, leading to circulatory failure and coma. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report nowhere suggests any forcible administration of such tablets to the deceased. According to the Appellant, the medical evidence, therefore, does not support the prosecution allegation of homicidal death or any overt act attributable to the accused persons, rather it probabilises a case of voluntary consumption of the medicine by the deceased herself. (viii) In view of the facts and circumstances elaborated hereinabove, the Appellant contends that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are wholly unsustainable in the eye of law, being contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment suffers from serious infirmities, illegality, and perversity and is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the submission that the present CRLA deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Respondent submits that the learned Trial Court, upon a proper and meticulous appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during trial, has rightly recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the Appellant. It is Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 contended that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court are well-reasoned, founded upon cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence available on record, and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Appellate Court. The Respondent therefore humbly prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be affirmed in toto and the appeal preferred by the Appellant be dismissed being devoid of merit. (ii) It is vehemently contented on behalf of the Respondent that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence, thereby proving the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the materials available on record clearly demonstrate the existence of cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death, thus fully attracting the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. (iii) It was further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the conduct of the husband and the brother-in-law of the Appellant in absconding after the occurrence constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance against them. According to the Respondent, had they been innocent and not involved in the commission of the alleged offences, there would have been no occasion for them to evade the process of law or remain Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 absconding. Such conduct, it is contended, clearly reflects a guilty mind and lends additional assurance to the prosecution case. (iv) The Respondent further contends that, although during the course of investigation it surfaced that on the very date of the incident the deceased had telephonically informed her parental family that she was living happily in her matrimonial home, the same cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of absence of cruelty or harassment. It is submitted that, in several cases relating to matrimonial cruelty and dowry death, victims, owing to fear, intimidation, social pressure, or in an attempt to shield their parents from anxiety and emotional distress, often refrain from disclosing the actual circumstances prevailing in the matrimonial home. According to the Respondent, such statements made by the deceased prior to the occurrence are therefore required to be appreciated in the broader factual context and cannot outweigh the other incriminating materials available on record pointing towards persistent harassment and cruelty. (v) The Respondent further contends that the avarice and persistent greed of the in-laws of the deceased remained unfulfilled despite having received substantial articles and valuables in the form of dowry and customary gifts at the time of marriage. It is submitted that, notwithstanding such receipt, the accused persons continued to subject the deceased to harassment and cruelty with a view to extracting additional money from her Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 parental family. According to the Respondent, the deceased was repeatedly pressurized and compelled to convey such unlawful demands for further monetary consideration to her parents, which ultimately subjected her to continuous mental and physical cruelty within the matrimonial home. (vi) The Respondent further submits that the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased are highly suspicious in nature. It is contended that the deceased had spoken to P.W.4 barely 30 to 60 minutes prior to her death, and during the said conversation everything appeared to be normal. According to the Respondent, the sudden and unnatural death occurring immediately thereafter gives rise to serious suspicion regarding foul play. It is further submitted that the presence of injury marks on the body of the deceased constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance, strongly suggesting that the death was not natural and that the deceased had been subjected to violence prior to the occurrence. (vii) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Respondent contends that the materials available on record clearly and unerringly point towards the complicity of the Appellant in the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that the chain of circumstances, coupled with the oral and documentary evidence adduced during trial, sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the Respondent, the learned Trial Court, upon a proper and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 judicious appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly arrived at the finding of guilt against the accused persons and has convicted them in accordance with law, warranting no interference by this Appellate Court. IV. FINDINGS OF THE AD-HOC ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK), JEYPORE, KORAPUT: 6. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the Appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding dowry and subjecting her to harassment in connection therewith. 7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court held that sufficient materials were available to substantiate the charges framed against the accused. On a careful evaluation of the testimonies of the victim, the medical officers and the Investigating Officers, the learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusions there was commission of the alleged offences by the Informant. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the charges under Section 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code stood proved. 8. In order to bring home the charges it was held by the Court that the circumstantial evidence which is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased died within 7 years of marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons in connection to the demand of dowry. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the offence Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 12 under Section 304B and 498A of IPC. Consequently, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 for committing the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. The Appellant is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- and in default whereof he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for committing the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. And the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 11. The Section under 498-A of the IPC, contemplates “cruelty” as a foundational ingredient for its applicability. Such cruelty must be of such a nature ad is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical. The provision further elucidates that cruelty also encompasses harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security made by the husband or his relatives. 12. Thus, the first limb of the provision pertains to willful conduct of such severity as to imperial the life or health of the women, while the second limb specifically addresses persistent harassment connected with dowry or unlawful demands, thereby attracting penal consequences under the said section. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 13 13. What a law contemplates is that for a fact to be held as proved, the evidence on record must establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. The expression “reasonable doubt” does not signify a trivial, fanciful or imaginary doubt, but a doubt founded upon reason and common sense arising from the evidence adduced in the case. A fact can be said to be proven when, after careful scrutiny and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Court either believes that it exists or considers its existence so probable that a prudent person would act upon the supposition that such fact exists. 14. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that every circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be firmly, cogently and conclusively established in accordance with law. Suspicion, however grave, can never take the place of legal proof, and there can be no scope for surmises, conjectures or speculative inferences while appreciating circumstantial evidence. 15. The circumstances so proved must be of a definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and must be wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. Furthermore, all such incriminating circumstances, when taken cumulatively, must form a complete and unbroken chain so as to irresistibly lead to the only conclusion that the offence has been committed by the accused and none else, thereby excluding every other plausible hypothesis consistent with innocence. 16. In the present case, the Medical Officer (P.W.9), who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 14 categorically stated that no external or internal injuries were detected on the person of the deceased and that the cause of death was attributable to excessive consumption of tablets. Thus, the medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the death of the deceased did not occur in the ordinary or natural course of events, but was one occurring under circumstances which were otherwise than normal. It has further come on record that prior to the occurrence, the deceased was maintaining good health and was not suffering from any serious ailment. The aforesaid circumstances, when viewed cumulatively, assume considerable significance while appreciating the nature and manner of death of the deceased. 17. Accordingly, it is contended that the chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution gives rise to grave suspicion regarding the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased, particularly in the absence of any plausible or satisfactory explanation as to the reason for the deceased allegedly consuming an excessive quantity of medicine. The prosecution case, therefore, proceeds on the premise that there existed a direct nexus between the alleged demand for dowry and the unnatural death of the deceased, the former being projected as the precipitating cause and the latter as its inevitable consequence. 18. It is submitted that the surrounding circumstances, when appreciated in their proper perspective, are sought to be relied upon by the prosecution to establish continuous harassment and cruelty connected with dowry demand, culminating in the untimely death of the deceased. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 15 19. The similar sentiments have been echoed by the Supreme Court in the case of Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab,1, the Court observed that: “15. As per the definition of ‘dowry death’ in section 304B of IPC and the wording in Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is necessary to show that ‘soon before death’ the woman concerned had been subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry”. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein. Under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, it becomes obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. 16. The expression “soon before death” in Section 304B IPC and Section113b of the Evidence Act was considered by this Court in Hira Lal v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi); 2003(8) SCC 80 and this court in paragraph (9) observed as under:- “9. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B of IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the preview of “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances”. The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act ad Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service.” 20. In the present case at hand, it is stated that the death of the victim occurred within seven years of her marriage, and therefore, the statutory presumption as contemplated under law stands attracted, giving rise to a presumption of cruelty and harassment having been inflicted upon the deceased soon before her death. It is further stated that the circumstances emerging from the record indicate repeated instances of cruelty and persistent harassment meted out to the 1 2015 (2) SCC 629 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 16 victim at various points of time prior to the occurrence, thereby raising grave suspicion regarding the treatment accorded to her in her matrimonial home. The cumulative effect of such circumstances, according to the prosecution, unmistakably points towards sustained ill-treatment and harassment, which culminated in the unfortunate death of the deceased. 21. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The conclusions arrived at are well-reasoned, judicious, and in consonance with the settled principles of law governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials. 22. The learned Trial Court has, upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, rightly held the Appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him and has justifiably convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court warrants no interference by this Court. VI. CONCLUSION: 23. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious and meticulous of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered and firm opinion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.18/2014, does not suffer from illegality, infirmity or perversity and thereby not warranting interference by this Court. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 17 24. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are founded upon a proper and judicious appreciation of the evidence on record and are supported by cogent and convincing reasons. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal, being meritorious, deserves to be dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Courts are hereby upheld. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to accede to the relief prayed for by the Appellant. 25. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed. 26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd May, 2026/