GANANATH PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 06,2002
M.GANANATH PATTNAIK
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SURENDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-61] [REFERRED TO]DINESH VS. SHANTIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2011-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. DALBIR [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-253] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. ANNI POOJARI [LAWS(KAR)-2004-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KASHINATH RAIMAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJIRAO DATTU BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI JAMNADAS RAMAVAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
JAYDEB SAU ALIAS SHAW VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR SON OF ROOP SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-60] [REFERRED]
SANTOSH RAJBANSHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT KUMAR JANGADE VS. SMT. SHARDA JANGADE [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIPAL MESHRAM VS. URMILA MESHRAM [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
AWDHESH PRASAD DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-8-159] [REFERRED]
DHIRAJ S O AMBADAS INGALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
HILESHBHAI @ NILESH CHANDUBHAIGOHEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-5-142] [REFERRED TO]
PENTAKOTA SRINIVAS RAO ALIAS SRINU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
THAHERA BEGUM VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
Nagender Kumar VS. State of H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. RAJINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-137] [REFERRED TO]
GURPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
SANGITA NIGAM VS. SAURABH NIGAM [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-228] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-319] [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2000-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUSANTA KUMAR DAS VS. ANINDITA DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2023-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDER SHARMA VS. RENU SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-219] [REFERRED TO]
DATTA S/O. SANTOBA KAMBLE & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. GURPREET KAUR VS. SHRI RAJEEV SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-271] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN BABU CHAVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN KISANRAO KADAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PRIYANKA SINGH VS. AMIT SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK S/O HARIBHAU MOON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
BHUVANESWARI ALIAS SHARMILA VS. M PRABHAKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-269] [REFERRED]
BALDEV RAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2008-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
K.C. AYYASAMI (M. NO. 1017) VS. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (FISHERIES) DMS COMPLEX TEYNAMPET CHENNAI - 600 006. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2013-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA NANDI VS. SHIPRA KARMAKAR [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
P MANIMEKALAI VS. R KOTHANDARAMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. THE STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
NIHAR RANJAN KANUNGO AND TWO ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
PINAKIN MAHIPATRAY RAWAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
U. SREE VS. U. SRINIVAS [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
HARIOM VS. MANJULATA SAHU [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-193] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN SAHU VS. NANDKUMARI SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SHIVARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2004-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND VS. TATE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOW CHHATTISHGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2007-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
MANGE LAL VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2017-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
SANGANNAGARI NARASIMULU VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK ABDUL RAHEEM VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-2010-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. PRITHI CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2010-7-226] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SHYAM LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PRASAD GUPTA VS. ASHA DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2023-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJU VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-78] [REFERRED]
MAHAVIR MAHTO @ MAHABIR MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI YESHWANT KHARADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-117] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN BHAGWANRAO PAIJANWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
MONOHAR RANGNATH PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-139] [REFERRED TO 18]
BALMUKUND AGARWAL SON OF SHRI RAGHUBIR PRASAD AGARWAL VS. SUNITA AGARWAL WIFE OF DR BALMUKUND AGARWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. KAMAL SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
ANINDI MUKHARJEE VS. SHRABONI [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
RANI BAI ALIAS SHAKUNTALA VERMA VS. CHANDRASHEKHAR VERMA [LAWS(CHH)-2010-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL PATEL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS VS. STATE OF JANDK [LAWS(J&K)-2007-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAM KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV NARULA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-197] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMOULI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-122] [REFERRED TO]
PARTHA DEY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
NIRODE RANJAN ACHARJEE VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-259] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-283] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. KRISHAN LAL S/O KESHAV RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2012-5-268] [REFERRED]
NANHI BAI ALIAS RADHABAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2010-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
NANHI BAI ALIAS RADHABAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2010-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
LILABEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI MOCHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH @ MUNNO CHHAGANBHAI JETHWA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-6-901] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SANJEEV KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PAWAN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2015-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM DADA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHEFAL DEBNATH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-140] [REFERRED]
ANISH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2012-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SHIVARAJ [LAWS(APH)-2004-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
G K DEVARAJULU NAIDU VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-8-86] [DISTINGUSED (DISTING.) 4]
SUBHASHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
PALLAV TAMULY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN BISWAS & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-157] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. CHUNI LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-124] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PARVINDER SINGH @ PAMMA & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
PARTHA DEY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
GURPREET KAUR VS. SHRI RAJEEV SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-353] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD RAO & OTHERS AND RAVINDRA RAO BHONSLE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2012-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR PRAJAPATI VS. ANITA PRAJAPATI [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
U SREE VS. U SRINIVAS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-319] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR DEY VS. JHARNA DAS [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-8-61] [REFERRED]
JAGIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-351] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAJAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-127] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MANNAN ALIAS MANNAN MIAH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAKBHAI DAYALBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJ [LAWS(GJH)-2009-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK KUMAR DUBEY VS. STATE OF C.G [LAWS(CHH)-2007-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER TOKAS VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BHAGAL CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SATPAL [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-104] [REFERRED TO]
VINOJ KUMAR VS. PUSHPA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-117] [REFERRED]
NITAI BAIDYA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MILAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN MAHAJAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-233] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK BHIMRAO BHARNE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VISHWANATH GURAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR VS. USHA DEVI [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
N. THANGAVEL VS. BALASARASWATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-224] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPTI GOHITE VS. SANTOSH GOHITE [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-195] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KOHLI VS. NEELU KOHLI [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
S A HUSSAINY ALIAS VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH MANDAL VS. CHAITALI MAJUMDAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN PRADHAN VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2012-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sethi, J. -
(1.)The appellant was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Penal Code for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and causing the dowry death. After trial, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 304B but convicted under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
(2.)The facts of the case are that the appellants marriage with Rashmirekha was solemnised on 4.3.1984. A male child was born to the parties on 3.5.1985. Rashmirekha, the wife of the appellant died by hanging herself in the bathroom regarding which the appellant is stated to have lodged a written report to the Police Station Sahid Nagar and he informed the family members of the deceased. PW1, the father of the deceased thereafter lodged an FIR alleging therein that his daughter was murdered by the appellant and his family members. During the investigation it transpired that the deceased had committed suicide on account of dowry demands, allegedly made by the appellant and his family members. It was further revealed that the deceased had been subjected to ill-treatment, harassment and cruelty. The appellant was alleged to be having illicit connection with his brothers wife. The accused totally denied the occurrence. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted that the deceased was his wife but asserted that he was having very cordial relations with her. There was no demand of dowry either by him or his brother or his family members. According to him the deceased had committed suicide which is not related to either cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry.
(3.)Upon analysis of the prosecution evidence, the trial court concluded that, "in absence of any acceptable evidence to establish the foundational fact, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 304B of IPC". The trial court, however, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC by finding :
"In this case there is evidence that the accused has given purses to the deceased in presence of PW4. He has taken away the child from her as stated by PW5. There is also evidence that the deceased was not allowed to sit on the scooter by the accused and he was frequently staying absent in the house. He also failed to explain his position in relation to his sister-in-law Bijayalaxmi to the deceased for which there was an impression that he had illicit relationship with Bijayalaxmi. I find the evidence of the witnesses on this score is consistent. Taking away the child and the further ill treatment of the accused to the deceased as indicated above amounts to cruelty in as much as by the said conduct of the accused, it could be much possible that the deceased Rasmirekha could be driven to commit suicide."
(2.)The facts of the case are that the appellants marriage with Rashmirekha was solemnised on 4.3.1984. A male child was born to the parties on 3.5.1985. Rashmirekha, the wife of the appellant died by hanging herself in the bathroom regarding which the appellant is stated to have lodged a written report to the Police Station Sahid Nagar and he informed the family members of the deceased. PW1, the father of the deceased thereafter lodged an FIR alleging therein that his daughter was murdered by the appellant and his family members. During the investigation it transpired that the deceased had committed suicide on account of dowry demands, allegedly made by the appellant and his family members. It was further revealed that the deceased had been subjected to ill-treatment, harassment and cruelty. The appellant was alleged to be having illicit connection with his brothers wife. The accused totally denied the occurrence. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted that the deceased was his wife but asserted that he was having very cordial relations with her. There was no demand of dowry either by him or his brother or his family members. According to him the deceased had committed suicide which is not related to either cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry.
(3.)Upon analysis of the prosecution evidence, the trial court concluded that, "in absence of any acceptable evidence to establish the foundational fact, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 304B of IPC". The trial court, however, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC by finding :
"In this case there is evidence that the accused has given purses to the deceased in presence of PW4. He has taken away the child from her as stated by PW5. There is also evidence that the deceased was not allowed to sit on the scooter by the accused and he was frequently staying absent in the house. He also failed to explain his position in relation to his sister-in-law Bijayalaxmi to the deceased for which there was an impression that he had illicit relationship with Bijayalaxmi. I find the evidence of the witnesses on this score is consistent. Taking away the child and the further ill treatment of the accused to the deceased as indicated above amounts to cruelty in as much as by the said conduct of the accused, it could be much possible that the deceased Rasmirekha could be driven to commit suicide."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.