GAGAN BEHARI PANDA Vs. SURESH CHANDRA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD further argument. Hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows :

(2.) PROSECUTION alleged was that under a false representation that he is well -placed in service accused No. 1 got married to the deceased. After marriage, the deceased could discover that not only accused No. 1 was a jobless person but also having illicit relationship with accused No. 2. When she protested to such extra -marital relationship there was ill -treatment and cruelty on her. Accused No. 1 asked her to bring a dowry of Rs. 20,000/ - for starting business and to stay separately. The deceased could not comply to that proposal because of poverty in her parents house and because of that dispute she was left in her parents' house. 15 to 20 days preceding her death she was taken back by the accused No. 1 and on 7.5.1991, the informant who is the brother of the deceased received information that deceased had taken to hospital, When the informant reached the hospital, he found her dead followed with an inquiry in a U.D. Case (unnatural death case) but the next day i.e., on 8.5.1991, he lodged the FIR alleging that deceased was poisoned and killed. On completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed and accused persons faced the trial for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 27.8.1994 acquitted the accused persons of the said charges on the ground of non -availability of clinching evidence relating to ill -treatment and cruelty on account of dowry demand and absence of evidence relating to administration of poison to the deceased. Incidentally, learned trial Judge also took note of the contention of the defence relating to the conduct of the informant that though he passed by the side of two police stations and gave a statement before the police officer conducting enquiry in the U.D. Case yet he did not lodge the FIR till 8.5.1991. Learned trial Judge also took note of the fact that there are glaring contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 relating to demand and payment of dowry and ill -treatment yet prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer as a result of which the confronted 161, Cr.P.C. statement of such witnesses could not be confronted to the I. O. which resulted in prejudice to the accused persons. Accordingly, learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed the order of acquittal.