DILIP ALIAS BIDYADHAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Conviction and sentence passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack under Sections 498-A and 304-B(I), I.P.C. has been assailed in this appeal.

(2.) The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as unravelled during trial is as follows: The appellant No. 1 was the husband of the deceased Narmada Pradhan and their marriage was undisputedly solemnised sometimes in the month of Jestha, 1993. It is the further case of the prosecution that two months preceding the marriage, there was a demand for Bullet Motor Cycle as dowry by appellant No. 2 Nakul alias Makar Pradhan on the father of the deceased, Udhab Behera. But Udhab Behera could not immediately comply with it, therefore, Makar lessened his demand to Rs. 11,000.00 cash, over and above, a wrist watch, a gold ring and a radio set in lieu of a Bullet Motor Cycle to which Udhab had agreed. At the time of marriage, the father of the victim paid Rs. 8,000.00 cash besides a wrist watch, gold ring and a radio. The balance amount of Rs. 3,000.00 could not immediately be paid to Makar. But, however, Udhab agreed to pay the same sometime later. But unfortunately due to severe financial stringency, the balance amount of Rs. 3,000.00 could not be paid as a reason whereof there was lickering and misunderstanding between the two families and quarrel ensued in the matrimonial house of the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased Narmada was subjected to torture and cruelty for the demand of dowry. Two days preceding the death, the deceased Narmada had sent a message to PW 1 (illatom son-in-law) of Udhab Behera. But by the time PW-1 reached the matrimonial house of the deceased, he learnt that Narmada had died by taking poison, and thereafter her deadbody was cremated.

(3.) PW-1 Ajodhya Behera lodged a report at Manabandha Outpost and on 11-12-1994 subsequently a case was registered as Baramba Police Station. During investigation the dowry articles presented to Narmada (deceased) were seized and the appellants were arrested and finally the charge sheet was submitted after completion of the investigation. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on discussion of oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.