STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SURENDRA SUHULA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur on 01.09.1994 in ST. Case No. 159/20 of 1992 -93. The respondents stood charged for committing alleged offences under Sections , and of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC for brevity.

(2.) THE prosecution case, sworn of necessary details, is that the deceased was given in marriage to respondent Surendra @ Suren Suhula in the year 1991. Both the deceased and her husband remained as husband and wife in the house of the accused persons. During her life time the accused persons were dissatisfied with the presentation given by the father of the deceased at the time of her marriage with the accused Suren Suhula. The prosecution, further, alleges that the accused demanded a T.V. and a new wrist watch from father of the deceased as the wrist given at the time of marriage was old. Since the father of the deceased failed to supply the dowry demanded, the deceased was subjected to torture. On one day she died. Her dead body was buried by the accused persons after sending message of her death to her father. Since he was not intimated about the reasons of her death, father of the deceased suspected foul play and, therefore, he lodged an FIR before the Police. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and inquest was held over it. The dead body was subjected to postmortem at V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the alleged commission of offences as narrated above.

(3.) ASSAILING such judgment of acquittal, the learned Addl. Government Advocate strenuously argued that there is enough material on record to come to the conclusion that the deceased died an unnatural death and that she was subjected to ill -treatment and tortured for dowry. Hence, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that since the vital ingredients like unnatural death of the deceased and torturing the deceased soon before her death has not been established in this case, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.