STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GAJENDRA KUMAR MUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal challenging acquittal of the Respondents of the offences under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 302, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.P.C.' for brevity) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' for brevity).

(2.) DECEASED Kalpana was given in marriage to one Gajendra Kumar Mund, (Respt No. 1) on 14.03.1993. After her marriage, it is alleged, the bride was subjected to mental torture and there was demand for dowry. On 14.12.1995, said Gajendra Mund submitted missing persons report before the police and sent intimation to his parents -in -law and parents intimating that Kalpana was missing since 13.12.1995. On such report, police enquired into the matter and discovered the dead body of the deceased inside an abandoned well, which situated at the backside of the house of the accused. On such discovery, Bhawanipatna Town U.D. Case No. 18 of 1995 dated 14.12.1995 was registered. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. On 16.12.1995, on the F.I.R. lodged by father of the deceased, the case was turned into a case under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 302/34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Act and Town P.S Case No. 15 of 1994 was registered. In that F.I.R., he alleged that the husband and parents -in -law were subjecting the girl to mental torture and also demanded dowry like Scooter, Fridge, gold chain etc. The case was originally investigated by the Officer In -charge of Bhawanipatna P.S., but later on, on the allegation that the local police was not taking proper interest in upholding truth the had approached the Human Rights Protection Cell, Cuttack. Accordingly, the Inspector of H.R.D.C., Orissa took up investigation. After completion of investigation, he chargesheeted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 302/34, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Act. It is also evident that at the lime of hearing of the arguments, the Public Prosecutor prayed for an alternative charge under Section 306, I.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED Sessions Judge, after elaborate discussion of the materials available on record, came to the following conclusions: (I) Gajendra & Kapana were married according to their caste custom on 14.04.1993 at village Chilakpur at the bride's residence. (II) That Kalpana died on 13/14. 12.1995 in the house of the accused. Death of Kalpana was unnatural & it took place within seven years of marriage. (III) There was no direct demand of any specific article before or at the time of marriage. - - (IV) The prosecution witnesses had never stated about the alleged demand of dowry or torture before the Investigating Officer but improved the case by implicating the accused persons to be demanding dowry & torture to the deceased in the Court. (V) There is not an iota of cogent, sufficient & convincing evidence available on record to come to a finding that 'on nonfulfilment of demand of Fridge & other articles, the accused persons tortured & committed murder of the deceased. (VI) There was delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which has not been explained properly. (VII) The F.I.R. has been lodged after due deliberation & meeting of mind to foist a false case against the accused persons. (VIII) The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, 9 & 11 reveals that they have exaggerated the case at the time of trial & they have introduced new facts of the case by the prosecution to improve upon their previous statement. (IX) There is no evidence that soon before her death, Kalpana was subjected to any kind of torture. (X) P.Ws. 6, 7, 13, 14 & 15, who are neighbours of the accused, have not stated in their evidence that at any point of time the deceased complained before them that the accused persons were harassinq & torturing her for non -fulfillment of dowry.