IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.1570 of 2017)
SARADA PRASANNA DALAI …APPELLANT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCH, ODISHA ORS. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1 Leave granted.
2 The appellant is the brother of deceased Sulekha Dalai. Sulekha
Dalai was married to Trilochan Rout on 4th June, 2008. According to the
appellant, at the time of marriage, dowry in the form of cash of
Rs.1,50,000/-, 20 tola gold ornaments, TV and washing machine was given to
the three accused persons as per their demand and that certain additional
sums have also been given through the deceased. It was contended that the
accused have murdered the deceased. Therefore, he lodged a complaint
against the accused persons and First Information Report at Talcher Police
Station was registered against them under Sections 498A, 302, 304B, 34 IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was further contended
that after scientific investigation, the cause of death was recorded as
ante mortem hanging and that ligature mark found on the body of deceased
was not possible by the seized sari. However, after five days of the
registration of the case, the I.O. made a query seeking clarification
whether the hanging was suicidal or homicidal in nature and the medical
officers, who had conducted the post mortem, opined the hanging to be
suicidal hanging. After investigation, charge sheet dated 4th June, 2011
was submitted against the accused under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with
34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The I.O. dropped
charges against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, the
appellant filed a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No.1131 of 2012 before the
High Court of Orissa for a direction for reopening the case and to hand
over further investigation to the Crime Branch or the CBI. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition on 29th February, 2016 by holding that further
investigation into the case is unnecessary. The appellant has challenged
the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.
3 The appellant contends that sufficient material is available on
record for framing an additional charge for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC.
4 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
it is just and proper for the Sessions Court before whom the case is
pending to consider framing of an additional charge under Section 302 of
the IPC. Therefore, the Sessions Court is directed to peruse the entire
material on record in order to consider the aspect of framing of an
additional charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
However, this shall not be construed as our opinion on merits of the case.
5 The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
April 10, 2017.