BRAJABANDHU ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T.No.9/116 of 1996. Two appellants in both the appeals are related as father and son. Brajabandhu Acharya -appellant in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 1999 is father of Girijanandan Acharya, appellant in Criminal No.56 of 1999. Both of them have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short 'IPC) and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for conviction under Section 304 -B IPC. No separate sentence has been imposed for their conviction under Section 498 -A IPC.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that appellant -Girijanandan Acharya married the deceased -Pravasini on 30th June 1994. It is alleged that at the time of negotiation for marriage, there was demand of dowry. Appellant -Girijanandan demanded a Hero Honda Motorcycle whereas appellant -Brajabandhu demanded a colour T.V. and cash of Rs.15,000/ -towards travelling expenses of the bridegroom party. Two days prior to the marriage, elder brother of the deceased, P.W.6 handed over Rs.15,000/ -to the appellant -Brajabandhu through his brother -in -law, P.W.12 and at the time of marriage, he also gave Rs.55,000/ -to the mediator, P.W.13, who in turn gave the same to appellant -Girijanandan for purchasing a Motorcycle. Apart from the above, on demand of the appellants, a further sum of Rs.20,000/ -was given towards the cost of utensils and furniture. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased -Pravasini was ill -treated and tortured by both the appellants and appellant -Girijanandan, husband of the deceased, made further demand of a Motorcycle as the amount of Rs.55,000/ -given by P.W.6 for purchasing a Motorcycle was spent by both the appellants in course of marriage of appellant -Girijanandan. It is also alleged that deceased -Pravasini used to tell about the ill -treatment and torture meted out to her by both the appellants whenever she visited her parents house or when anyone visited the house of the appellants. Case of the prosecution is that for non -fulfillment of second demand for a Motorcycle, Pravasini was killed in the night of 2nd/3rd August, 1995 in the house of the appellants. At about 2.00 A.M. on the said date appellant -Brajabandhu presented a written report (Ext.11) in Kumbharapara Police Station, which was registered as Kumbharapara P.S.Case No.105 of 1995 under Section 302 IPC and investigation was taken up by P.W.25. In course of investigation, it was found that bed room of appellant -Girijanandan was locked from outside and P.W.25 learnt from the appellant -Brajabandhu that the dead body is lying on a cot inside the said room. As the key of the lock was not available, P.W.25 broke open the lock in presence of witnesses and found the deceased lying dead in a poll of blood on her face on the bed in flat position facing upward and three pillows had been kept under her body from knee to neck. Bleeding injuries were found on her left check and upper lip. Some household articles were lying scattered in the said room. Appellant -Girijanandan was not available in the house. On 5.8.1995 on receipt of information, appellant -Girijanandan was arrested from Baramunda Bus Stand, Bhubaneswar. After getting information about death of the deceased -Pravasini, P.W.6 and other relatives immediately came to Puri and after ascertaining the cause of death, a written report was lodged in Kumbharapara Police Station (Ext.3) but the same was not treated as F.I.R. as an F.I.R. has already been lodged by appellant -Brajabandhu in that respect earlier and on completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A IPC but at the time of trial, both the appellants faced trial for commission of offence under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A IPC read with Section 34 of the said Code and appellant -Girijanandan was separately charged under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing death of his wife -Pravasini in the night of occurrence.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of P.Ws.6,7,8,11,12 and 14 and came to a conclusion that not only at the time of marriage but also after the marriage, there was demand of dowry and deceased -Pravasini was ill -treated and tortured for non -fulfillment of demand of dowry by appellant -Girijanandan for a Motorcycle. Relying on the evidence of the above witnesses and evidence of the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty of the charge under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A read with Section 34 IPC and convicted them thereunder. Appellant -Girijanandan, who had been separately charged under Section 302 IPC, was acquitted of the said charge.