STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BALAKRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in SC No. 29/95/(S.C. No. 362/95 G.D.C.) acquitting the Respondents and others accused persons of the charges under Sections 302/304B/498A/34, IPC and charge under Sections 201/34, IPC.

(2.) The marriage between Ashalata or Asharani and Respondent No. 2 Balakrishna Das took place in the year 1984. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage some dowry had been given. On 22.2.1995, one Rajendra Kumar Hota (P.W.6), co-villager of the informant, had been to the village of the Respondent: to participate in the feast. He visited the house of the deceased and came to know from her that both the Respondents 1 and 2 were giving her threat to kill. There was a proposal in the house of the Respondents that the properties of the deceased could be given to Respondent No. 4 at the time of her marriage.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302/304B/498A/34, IPC against the present Respondents and the Respondents accused persons along with the Respondents were charged under Sections 201/34, IPC. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses whereas the defence examined 3 witnesses. P.W 1 is the informant and also the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.2 is the doctor, who was treating the deceased. P.W.3 is a brother of the deceased and P.W.4 is a co-villager of P.W.3. P. W.5 is another brother of the deceased and P.W.6 is a witness, who was present at the time of marriage. P.W.7 is the I.O. On analysis of the evidence of the above witnesses, the Trial Court found that the death having occurred seven years after the marriage, the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. is not attracted. The Trial Court also entertained a doubt with regard to cause of death of the deceased and accordingly, the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. also failed. The Trial Court did not find any material to support the charge of offence under Section 498A IPC and accordingly acquitted all the Respondents of the charges. So far as offence under Sections 201/34, IPC is concerned, the Trial Court did not also find any material to support the same.