SARALA MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No. 57 of 1995 (S.C. No. 345 of 1995 GCD) convicting the appellants under Section 498 A/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing both the appellants to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ , in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days each for the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. and further sentencing appellant No. 1 Sarala Moharana to undergo R.I. for three moths and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ , in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days for. the offence under Section 4 D.P. Act, is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) BEREFT of all unnecessary details, the short facts necessaiy for appreciating the case, are stated herein below : An F.I.R. (Ext 14) was filed by P.W.5 alleging that during the marriage of Sankar Prasad Maharana (D.W.4), the younger son of appellant No. 1 and Susanti Maharana (deceased), the daughter of Debendranath Maharana (P.W. 10), the appellants demanded a Colour T.V. and a Scooter as dowry apart from other articles. It was further alleged: that in lieu of colour T.V., a cash of Rs. 15,000/ was paid at the time of marriage in addition to other articles such as Gold ornaments, etc. After the marriage the appellants demanded a Scooter and Susanti was subjected to cruelty and harassment as the scooter, as demanded, was not given. It was further alleged that as Susanti was subjected to cruelty and harassment, she committed suicide by hanging herself on 26.1.1994. On the basis of the said F.I.R., Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 1994 was initiated. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 498 A, 304 B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The said P.S. Case was converted to G.R. Case No. 72 of 1994 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and after commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the same was tried by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, out of whom, P.W.I was the doctor who conducted post mortem, P.W.2 was the hand writing expert, P.W.3 was the A.S.I. of police and a seizure witness, P.W. 4 was the constable who proved dead body challan, P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, P.W.5 was the brother of the deceased and the informant, P.W.7 was the Addl. Tahasildar cum Executive Magistrate, P.W.8 was the Inspector of Human Rights Protection Cell, P.W.9 was the S.I. of Police, P.W. 10 was the father of the deceased and P.W. 11 was the another brother of the deceased. The prosecution also exhibited twenty six documents.