NIRANJAN DWIBEDI Vs. LADUKISHORE MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tragic and unnatural death of Sipra Mohapatra on 12.2.1993 resulted in a charge sheet under Sections 498-A/304-B/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to face the trial as accused persons. The Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in whose Court the trial was undertaken, after perusal of the Case Diary and hearing the parties framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 306/34, I.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial, on 30.6.1997 the trial Court recorded an order of acquittal and being aggrieved the father of the deceased has filed this application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'), invoking the revisional jurisdiction with the prayer to set aside he order of acquittal. In course of hearing of the Revision it was stated at the Bar that Government has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. State is the opposite party No. 3 in this revision.

(2.) Bijoy Kumar Mohapatra is the husband of the deceased and an employee in the Steel Plant at Rourkela. Accused/opposite party No. 1 is the father and accused/opposite party No. 2 is the elder brother of said Bijoy. At the time of trial, prosecution proceeded with the allegation that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty by the accused persons for the inexperience and unskilled performance in the household affairs which included cooking. As alleged by the prosecution, in that respect she was ill-treated and tortured by the accused persons by using abusive language which was giving her mental torture. The story further goes that on 11.2.1993 in the early morning hours at about 4 A.M. she was scolded by the accused persons due to her inability to supply tea to the accused/opposite party No. 1 when he got ready to go to Sundergarh. Thereafter when everybody left the house excepting the maid servant Banita Mohapatra (P.W. 12), the deceased asked her to stay outside on the pretext of taking a bath and thereafter she made self-immolation after pouring kerosene on her own body. P.W. 1, a Traffic Constable, who discovered the incident because of emitting of smoke from that house intimated that fact to Sri Tarun Kumar Das, S.I. of Police, Uditnagar Out-Post (P.W. 13) and that way he set the law into motion. P.W. 13 arrived at the spot, made arrangement for removal of the deceased to the Ispat General Hospital (in short 'IGIT'), visited the occurrence house and after noticing the condition there he came to the IGH and issued requisition, inter alia, for recording the dying declaration. Dr. Basudev Das, the then Deputy Director of IGH (P.W. 4), recorded the dying declaration Ext. 1. On 12.2.1993 the deceased, having about 90% burn injuries, succumbed to end the chapter. After a routine investigation, as noted above, charge sheet for the offence was filed and charge was framed for the offence under Section 306/34. I.P.C.

(3.) In course of the trial as many as 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of them P.W. 13 is a cousin being her uncle's daughter and P.W. 2 is the husband of P.W. 3. P.W. 10 Niranjan Dwibedi is the father of the deceased. Dr. Puspa Mishra, the then Superintendent of IGH (P.W. 5), is her aunt. P.W. 7 Raj Kumar Dwibedi and P.W. 9 Rudra Madhab Dwibedi are also her relations and P.W. 8 Benumadhab Dwibedi is a close acquaintance. As already noted, P.W. 4 recorded the dying declaration and P.W. 12 is the maid servant in the house. In course of the trial the defence plea of the accused/opposite parties was that they reside at Bhubaneswar and at times visit Rourkela to the quarters of Bijoy. They have denied the allegation of ill-treatment or torture. No evidence was adduced from their side.