AJAY KUMAR MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the accused Ajaya Mallick who was the husband of the deceased Rangalata is the sole Appellant in this case: Undisputedly, the marriage of the Appellant with Rangalata was solemnised some time in the month of Jestha, 1993. After solemnisation of marriage, Rangalata had been to her matrimonial house m village Saratha. The further case of the prosecution is that Rangalata was subjected to cruelty, harassment and torture by the Appellant and other inmates of the family on account of non -fulfilment of dowry. She, therefore, left the matrimonial house few days before her death and did not return to the appellant 's house. Accordingly, the Appellant and his father went to the house of the deceased's father and when the deceased was left in the company of the Appellant, his father remained in the house of the deceased in village Chhanua. It is the further case of the prosecution that while she came with her husband, on the way, she was assaulted by the Appellant which had been witnessed by some villagers. After she came back to the appellant 's house, she was subjected to further torture which compelled her to leave the matrimonial house and stay in the house of one Pageli Behera who was a neighbour of the Appellant. Again she was brought back to the appellant 's house and subjected to further assault. This time, she had taken shelter in the house of Anr. neighbour Bikartan Mallick. Since the torture meted out to the victim had gone beyond her power of tolerance, it is stated that she closed the door of the bed -room and put an end to her life.

(2.) ON the following morning, the appellant 's elder brother knocked at the door. When it did not evoke any response, he lodged a report at the Sartha out -post on the basis of which a U.D. Case was registered by P.W.6. There was an inquest over the dead body of Rangalata in presence of her father as well as the Executive Magistrate. At that time P.W.7 who was a signatory as a witness to the inquest report was also present. In the endorsement since no suspicion had aroused in his mind, had not attributed any motive against the Appellant. But, however, three days after the incident, the FIR was lodged by P.W.7 on the basis of which further investigation was carried on. The Investigating Officer (P.W.10) visited the appellant 's house, examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and arrested the Appellant and his brother and after completion of investigation placed the charge sheet against the accused persons.

(3.) THE prosecution had examined ten witnesses in order to sustain a conviction against the Appellant and the other accused. The learned trial Court on a brief resume of the evidence was inclined to acquit the other co -accused, but convicted the Appellant under Sections. 304 -B/306/398 -A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.