BIBEKANANDA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, in this Appeal, assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/6/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) No.102 of 2011/ C.T.(S) No.41 of 2013, arising out of G.R Case No.15 of 2011 of the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Athmallik; wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul has convicted the Appellant (accused) for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000.00, in default to undergo R.I for six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Pramila Naik, wife of Nanda Kishore Naik lodged F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Kishorenagar Police Station on 15/1/2011 alleging that her daughter Parbati Naik was given marriage to the accused Bibekananda Naik of village Gambharimalia about 4 years ago. Her daughter told her several times that her husband accused Bibekananda Naik was frequently quarrelling with her demanding more dowry. On the morning of dtd. 15/1/2011, they received information that her daughter Parbati Naik died due to unnatural circumstance in the house of her in-laws. She rushed to village Gambharimalia the in-laws house of her daughter and found the dead body of her daughter lying on a cot and there were prominent ligature marks on her neck. On inquiry, she could know that on the preceding night the accused Bibekananda Naik throttled the neck of her daughter and killed her owing to demand of dowry. On such report, Kishorenagar P.S. Case No.4 dtd. 15/1/2011 for the offences under Ss. 302/304(B) of the I.P.C and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act was registered. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Ss. 498(A)/302/304 (B) of the 1.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act was submitted and after framing of charge of the above said penal Ss. , the accused was facing the trial.

(3.) The defence took the plea of denial and false implication. In order to prove the allegation, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Prosecution also placed reliance on the documents marked Exts.1 to 8.