GOPAL CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.2.2001 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 28/19 of 1999 on the file of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rourkela. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment held the Appellant guilty of the charge Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo punishment of imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 18.6.1998 the deceased Namita Padhi married to the accused -Appellant in the Laxminarayan temple of Sector -14, Rourkela. It was an arranged marriage. In the marriage the Appellant and his family members demanded scooter, gold ring and gold chain or instead of scooter Rs. 20,000/ - as cash for purchase of the scooter and the informant, the father of the deceased paid Rs. 15,000/ - and promised to pay the rest amount later. On 18.6.1998 being Thursday, the informant did not allow his daughter to go her husband's house. On the next day i.e. on 19.6.1998 deceased Namita was sent to her husband's house being accompanied by her brother and other relations. After leaving Namita (deceased) his brother and other relations returned from the house of the accused in that night. On the next date i.e. 20.6.1998 at about 6 A.M., Abhimanyu Choudhury, father of the present Appellant came and informed the son of the informant that some one has committed suicide. On being questioned, Abhimanyu did not disclose the name of the deceased. However, the son of the informant, Susanta Padhi found that her sister was hanging from the beam of the kitchen of Abhimanyu Choudhury, the father of the Appellant. Her legs were touching the ground. When Susanta Padhi asked the accused as to the reason for the unfortunate incident, the accused remained silent. Thereafter, the informant reported the matter to the Police Station at 9.30 A.M., vide the F.I.R. Ext.1. On receipt of the F.I.R., Police registered a case under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and on the requisition of the Police, inquest was done in presence of the Executive Magistrate. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present Appellant and Abhimanyu Choudury the father of the Appellant. By order dated 25.8.1999, Abhimanyu Choudhury was discharged by the learned trial court and the present Appellant was charged only Under Section 302 I.P.C.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined as many as 11 witnesses in this case and defence has examined none. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased, P.W.4 is the witness to the seizure, P.W.5 is a Doctor, who conducted autopsy, P.W.6 is the Executive Magistrate in whose presence the inquest was made, P.W.7 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.8 is the brother of the deceased in whose presence broken golden necklace, silver chain and broken bangles and other materials were seized from the bedroom of the accused -Appellant by the Investigating Officer, P.W.8(a) is the Police Officer, who registered the case and took up preliminary investigation. P.W.9 is the I.O., who filed charge sheet and P.W.10 is the Doctor, who examined the Appellant -accused. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who clarified the query made by the I.O.