MANJULATA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal revisions have been preferred against order dated 5.7.2007 passed in G.R. Case No. 33 of 2007 by the Court of S.D.J.M. , Udala taking cognizance of the offence under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 201/34, I.P.C. read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) PROSECUTION alleges that in the month of June, 1997 marriage of Sanjukta was solemnized with Narayan Behera. At the time of marriage, there was demand for dowry, which was adhered to by the parents of the deceased. Thereafter also, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment for demand of dowry. In the meantime, she was blessed with two sons. On 27.1.2007 afternoon, the informant received the news that his sister Sanjukita was seriously ill. He along with his relations proceeded to village San Bisol. There they found the deceased lying dead. There were burn injuries on her body and bleeding from mouth, nose and head. Thereafter, the informant lodged the F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Kaptipada P.S. The police investigated into the case and finally submitted charge-sheet on 26.5.2007 for the alleged offence under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 201/34, I.P.C. read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Narayan Behera and charge-sheeted other four accused persons namely Smt. Manjulata Behera, Basanata Kumar Behera and Hemanta Kumar Behera under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201/34, I.P.C. read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned S.D.J.M., Udala took cognizance of the offence under sections 498-A, 302, 394-B, 201/34, I.P.C. read with section 4 and issued process of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued process against all the accused persons. Such order of cognizance is challenged in this revision.

(3.) IT is not disputed in this case that the marriage of the deceased took place with the accused Narayan Behera in the month of June, 1997. There is also no dispute that the occurrence took place on 27.1.2007, that is the date on which the deceased died. In order to attract the provision under section 304-B, I.P.C, it must be shown prima facie that (a) if a married woman died otherwise than under normal circumstance, (b) such death was within seven years of marriage, and (e) that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. Baljeet Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2004 (16) AIC 100 (SC) : 2004 (49) ACC 21 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 1714 is relied upon. In this case, the requirement (a) and (c) are satisfied, whereas it is the case of the prosecution that the death of the deceased was beyond seven years of her marriage. The offence under section 304-B, d.P.C. prima facie is not attracted in this case. Hence, the order of the learned S.D.J.M. taking cognizance of the offence under section 304, I.P.C. is illegal.