RAJANI KANTA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 02-03-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in S.C. No. 253 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 302/498-A of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. with a further direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the deceased-Sumitra alias Tiki Panda had married the accused-appellant about ten years prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 01-02-2001. Though at the time of marriage dowry had been given to the accused as per the demand, he was constantly demanding more dowry and for non-fulfilment of the demand he had been torturing the deceased physically and mentally. At times he was taking some amount of money from his father-in-law. On 31-01-2001, he had come to the house of his father-in-law (informant) and demanded the Pass Book in which a sum of Rs. 15,000/- had been deposited. But his demand was not complied, for which, he had left the house of the informant by giving threats. On the following day, i.e. 01-02-2001, two persons of the village of the accused intimated the informant that his daughter was killed by the accused. On receipt of such information, the informant lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1) in the Mahila Police Station, Berhampur, on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation taken up during the course of which the I.O. held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the body for post mortem examination, examined witnesses, effected seizure of different articles including some dowry articles and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused.

(3.) In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1, the informant, is the father of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 6 are respectively the mother and brother of the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4 are witnesses to seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W. 5 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination. P.W. 7 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased and is an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 8 is a photographer, who had taken photographs of the dead body of the deceased on police requisition, and P.W. 9 is the I.O.