DAMODAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 9.8.2007 passed by Smt. S. Patnaik, J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No.97 of 1996 acquitting the accused-opp.parties, Laxmikanta Mohapatra and Ramakanta Mohapatra of the charge under Sections 498-A/420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and accused-opp.party, Prasana Mishra of the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. The prosecution case succinctly stated is as follows :

(2.) The informant (P.W.2) gave her daughter (P.W.9) in marriage to Umakanta Mohapatra, the brother of accused-opp.party, Laxmikanta Mohapatra and Ramakanta Mohapatra on 23.1.1995. The marriage was arranged on the mediatorship of accused-opp.party, Prasana Mishra. It is alleged that the father and mother of Umakanta, namely, Trilochana Mohapatra and Santilata Mohapatra and accused opp.parties-Laxmikanta Mohapatra and Ramakanta Mohapatra demanded cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh, a Hero Honda motorcycle, a colour T.V., a freeze and a gold bracelet for the bride groom as dowry before the betrothal ceremony was performed. During the betrothal ceremony which was performed in the temple of Lord Jagannath on 28.11.1994, the accused persons re-agitated their demand of dowry. So, P.W.2 paid cash of Rs. 25,000/- and a bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused persons. Subsequently, they insisted to pay cash of Rs. 50,000/- in place of bank draft. Accordingly, P.W.2 did it. Again, they re-agitated their demand of the balance cash and articles on the marriage altar. P.W.2 gave 13 and 1/2 Bhary of gold ornaments, Rs. 12,000/- and bank deposit of Rs. 1,23140/- standing in the name of P.W.9 to the accused persons. On 23.1.1995 at about 9.00 P.M. P.W.9 was escorted by his brother, P.W.5 to her matrimonial home at Puri. It is further alleged that after the arrival of P.W.5 and 9 at Puri, the accused persons again demanded the balance dowry articles and cash to P.W.5 and when he expressed the inability of his father to give the same, all of them misbehaved him and also started torturing P.W.9. On 20.6.1995 accused, Trilochana gave her daughter Dipti in marriage giving all the dowry articles of P.W.9.

(3.) It is the further case of the prosecution that since the bridegroom, Umakanta was an alcoholic, his spleen, kidney and liver got damaged and the spleen was removed at AIIMS, New Delhi in the year 1988. But the accused persons without disclosing this fact deceitfully managed to get Umakanta married to P.W.9. As Umakanta became seriously ill, on 18.2.1995 he got admitted to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and was discharged on 28.2.1995. While he was undergoing treatment, P.W.9 came to know from his treating physician that Umakanta was suffering from portal Hyper Tension and that his spleen had been removed at AIIMS, New Delhi on.12.1.1988 and that his liver and kidney were also damaged Again, as Umakanta became serious, he got admitted to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 10.10.1995 and was discharged on 14.10.1995. For the third time, he got admitted in the same Medical College and Hospital on 18.10.1995 and while undergoing treatment breathed his last on 3.11.1995 at 4.45 A.M. On 4.11.1995 at about 9.00 A.M. all the accused persons forcibly entered into the room of P.W.9, abused her in filthy language and accused-opp.party, Trilochana Mohapatra forced her to sign in five blank papers and out of fear she signed those papers. Then the accused-opp.party, Ramakanta snatched away a bunch of key from P.W.9. opened her almirah and took away one VIP brief case from inside, wherein a cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 13 and half Bhary had been kept. They also took away valuable sarees and shawl of P.W.9 and the Insurance Policy standing in the name of deceased, Umakanta. So P.W.9 sent a letter through Ananta Behera, P.W.8 to her mother. On receipt of the letter P.W.2 along with some Others went to Puri on 5.11.1995 and arrived in the house of accused Trilochana Mohapatra at 1.00 P.M. He asked Trilochana Mohapatra to return back the cash, gold ornaments, sarees etc. which he assured to return on 26.11.1995. On 26.11.1995, when the accused persons did not return the cash, gold ornaments and other articles, P.W.2 sent a telegram to accused Trilochana Mohapatra on 27.1.1995 under Ext.20, but there was no response. The accused persons left their residential house. On 10.12.1995 accused-opp.party, Laxmikanta Mohapatra was found in his rented house at Khalasigali, Cuttack and when asked by P.W.2 he assured to return the dowry articles, including cash and gold ornaments on 24.12.1995. As the same were not returned, on 24.12.1995 P.Ws.2 and 9 went to the rented house of accused, Laxmikanta at Khalasigali to enquire into the matter. Instead of expressing his difficulty in not returning the articles as promised, he assaulted P.W.9. So, on the same date P.W.9 lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Cantonment P.S., Cuttack. However, she was advised to lodge the report at Puri Town P.S., but as it appears P.W.9 did not lodge any report there. However, P.W.2 lodged a report on 27.1.1996 before the O.I.C. of Puri Town P.S. which was registered as P.S. Case No.26 of 1996 under Sections 420/498-A/34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and was investigated into. In course of investigation, the I.O. seized gold ornaments weighing 13 and half Bhary and gave the same in zima of P.W.2. While the case was being investigated into by the police personnel, Puri, the Human Rights Protection Cell, took over charge of investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused Trilochan Mohapatra, his wife Santilata Mohapatra and the accused-opposite parties. Since Trilochana Mohapatra and his wife Santilata Mohapatra expired in the meantime, the case against them was abated. As stated earlier, charge was framed against opp.party Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 498-A/420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 420 of I.P.C. agairisi Prasana Kumar Mishra (opp.party No.4). In order to establish its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all, as against, five witnesses examined on behalf of accused-opposite parties. After going through the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused-opposite parties of all the charges vide judgment and order dated 9.8.2007. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order of acquittal, P.W.2, the informant has preferred the present revision, as stated earlier.