SHIBANI BARIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-5-9
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on May 28,2020

Shibani Barik Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S K Panigrahi, J. - (1.) "People from the past, have a tendency to walk back into the present, and run over the future." Anthony Liccione's statement is epitomized in the present case, where a ghost of the petitioner's past has revivified to haunt her present and wreck her future. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail. She is an accused in GR Case No. 4342 of 2019 arising out of Dhanupali PS Case No. 496 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Sambalpur involving the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.
(2.) The storyline is brutal in its simplicity as summarized in the FIR. The allegation against the accused/petitioner is that she along with the co-accused have inflicted direct and indirect mental torture on the deceased (Padmalochan Barik) which resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr. PC reveals that the petitioner had tied her nuptial knot with the deceased (Padma lochan) on 21.02.2019.However,prior to her marriage, she was alleged to have been in love relationship with the co-accused Upendra and it was alleged to have continued even after her marriage. The co-accused (Upendra) had sent some of the intimate and private Tik Tok videos with the petitioner to the deceased which were also alleged to have been streamed in social media. The said Tik Tok videos depicting such fornication got deep seated in the frail mind of the deceased and the addictive power of instantaneity made him loose perspective and balance. Of course, the underpinnings of familial shame made him suffer a lot internally in the form of tremendous mental pressure which invited a dangerous haste in ending his life on the fateful day of 13.07.2019 by hanging himself in the ceiling fan of his bed-room.
(3.) From the investigation and statements extracted under Section 161 of Cr. PC, it is evident that Upendra Mahananda is responsible for the abetment of suicide. The investigation does point finger at the role of the petitioner herein but not in a clear term. However, at this stage, the investigation of the case is at its infancy and more information needs to be gathered.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.