BANAMBAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants Banambar Misra and Satyabhama Misra have been convicted under S. 304-B of the Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant Banambar Misra has further been convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months thereunder. Appellant Satyabhama Misra has further been convicted under S. 498-A, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years thereunder. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The judgment dt. 31-10-1998 passed by Shri K. B. Sahu, Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 17/170 of 1994 convicting the appellants and sentencing them as stated above has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The appellants are husband and wife and are residents of village Harisaranpur under Satyabadi Police Station in the district of Puri. Their son Harihar Misra (P.W. 2) had married deceased Suchitra, daughter of Jayakrushna Misra (P.W. 4) of village Dugal on 17-6-1986 and the couple were blessed with two sons and a daughter. They were residing in a rented house at Ottasahi in village Sakhigopal which is at a distance of about 11/2 kms from village Harisaranpur. About five months prior to her death the deceased and her children were residing in the house of the appellants at village Harisaranpur since P.W. 2 was frequently remaining absent from his house in connection with his business. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellants had demanded dowry in the shape of cash of Rs. 5,000.00 and gold ornaments worth Rs. 10,000.00 at the time of negotiation of marriage of their son with the deceased and the father of the deceased had paid Rs. 3,000.00 to appellant No. 1 prior to the marriage promising to pay the balance amount and gold ornaments at the time of marriage. For non-payment of the balance amount of Rs. 2,000.00 and a gold necklace, the appellants and their two sons, Shyamsundar Misra and Pravakar Misra as also the daughter Santilata Misra, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the trial Court, were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for which P.W. 2 had to take a house on rent at Sakhigopal and reside separately from them. On 28-11-1992 while the deceased, her husband and the children were in the house of the appellants, the husband of the deceased (P.W. 2) left the house for marketing and when he returned home at 9.15 p.m. he found the deceased lying dead on the floor. To his query none of the inmates of the house could tell him as to how the deceased died. So P.W. 2 went to the village of his father-in-law and informed about the death of the deceased. Sasanka Misra (P.W. 3), brother of the deceased, went to the house of the appellants, ascertained the cause of death of the deceased and lodged a written report (Ext. 3) at 8 a.m. on 29-11-1992 at Satyabadi Police Station. The Officer-in-charge of the said Police Station (P.W. 12) treated the same as FIR, registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation he examined witnesses, visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the house of the appellants, sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination in the District Headquarters Hospital at Puri, sent the viscera for chemical examination at the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and seized the wearing apparels of the deceased after the post-mortem examination as also some other articles given in dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased. On 20-12-1992 he arrested both the appellants and forwarded them to Court in custody. On 15-2-1993 he made over charge of investigation to P.W. 13, an Inspector of Police attached to H.A.D.D. Cell at Cuttack. After completion of the formalities of investigation he submitted chargesheet against the appellants and their two sons and a daughter who were shown as absconders. All of them stood their trial. The two sons and daughter of the appellants who were accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the trial Court have been found not guilty and acquitted while the appellants were found guilty and convicted by the learned trial Court and sentenced as stated earlier.

(3.) The defence plea is one of denial.