S TRIPAT PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 1 is the husband of deceased Suryamani Patra (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, Marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the deceased was performed on 1-3-1993 and on 19-11-1993 she died due to consumption of poison i.e. insecticidal substance. Prosecution case to the aforesaid effect is not disputed by the parties. Because of the aforesaid death of the deceased, appellants faced a trial for the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'the Act'). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore on 20/01/2000 delivered the impugned judgment of conviction conviting each of the appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years for the offence under Sections 304-B/34, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 498-A/34, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Act along with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each on that count. Being aggrieved by that order of conviction, appellants have preferred this appeal. Inter se relationship and the cause of death has not been disputed by the accused persons.

(2.) Prosecution also alleged that at the stage of negotiation of marriage there was demand of dowry i.e., cash of rupees one lakh and ultimately it was settled at a cash rupees fifty thousands and it was agreed upon by appellant No. 2 that such dowry amount be paid within one year from the date of marriage and with that understanding marriage was performed. After the marriage, as alleged by the prosecution, there was ill-treatment and torture to the deceased and also misbehaviour to the family members of her paternal house by not permitting her to make customary visit to parents house soon after the marriage, asking her to bring further dowry articles like Refrigerator, gold and garments on her subsequent customery visit to her parents house and misbehaving with her brother when he had gone to invite for customary visit or to see the well-being of the deceased. It is also alleged that such ill-treatment on the deceased was intimated to informants' family by a co-villager of the appellant, i.e., S. Mallikeswar Patra (P.W. 11). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 19-11-1993 on getting information when the father of the deceased (P.W. 7) with a common relative of both the families (P.W. 9) reached in the house of the deceased, she was found ill having taken poison and according to P.W. 7 she made dying declaration stating that poison was administered to her by the accused persons conjointly. She was taken to the hospital and there she was declared dead.

(3.) Appellants taking the plea of denial for all and the plea of alibi for appellants 1 and 2 (husband and father-in-law of the deceased) denied to the charge and claimed for trial. In course of the trial prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1 the informant, is the brother of the deceased, P.W. 7 is the father; P.W. 8 is the elder sister; P.W. 9 is a cousin through the paternal side. Amongst the other witnesses, P.W. 5 is the priest and P.W. 12 is another Samudhi of P.W. 7. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem was examined as P.W. 10 and the Investigating Officer as P.W. 13. Rest of the witnesses are from the village of the accused/appellants. But some of them were declared hostile by the prosecution because they advanced statements supporting the appellants. Out of ten documents exhibited from the side of the prosecution postmortem report is Ext. 3, report of the chemical examiner Ext. 9 and the FIR Ext. 1. Those are the three relevant documents which require reference and consideration. Accused persons also examined two witnesses as O.P.W. 1 and 2, both of whom were their neighbours.