PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT No. 3 is the.wife of appellant No. 1. Both of them have been convicted Under Sections 498 -A and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in brief 'IPC'). Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years Under Section 306 of IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years Under Section 498 -A of IPC, the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant No. 2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the some period on both the counts.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellants belong to Kiatenduli, a hamlet of Mruganayani under Chandabali police station, Ramakanta Rout is their son who had married Sabita alias Sabitri (hereinafter referred ta as 'the deceased') in the year 1986. At the time of marriage, father of the deceased agreed to give a cow as a dowry, but due to his poverty the promise could not be fulfilled. It is alleged that the appellants misbehaved and ill -treated the deceased from time to time and assaulted her on several occasions for non -fulfilment of the promise. On one occasion, the deceased after being assaulted by the appellants took shelter in the house of Kirtan Rout (PW 2) and after coming to know of such ill -treatment, PW 3, brother of the deceased and some of his villagers came to Kiatenduli and took the deceased to their village Farsibandha. She stayed at her parents' house for about six months when appellant No. 2 came and took the deceased back to Kiatenduuli with an assurance that she would not be ill -treated any further. The deceased gave birth to a male child who could not survive. The ill -treatment on the deceased continued unabated. PW 3 again came to village Kiatenduli and took his sister (deceased) for treatment. After sometime she was brought back and left in the house of the appellants when she gave birth a female child. On 10 -11 -1990 which was the 'Prathamastami day', PW 3 came to the house of his deceased sister with some articles, sweets and learnt from his sister that she was being assaulted for not fulfilling the promise of giving a cow. On the next day (11 -11 -1990) PW 3 returned to his village Farsibandha. On 12 -11 - 1890 he learnt that his sister was dead. Accordingly, he along with some co villagers went to the house of appellants and found that she (deceased) was hanged. He reported the matter in writing in Motto Out -Post. On the basis of the said report, U. D. Case No. 3 of 1990 was registered and the A. S. I. of Motto Out -Post submitted final report in the matter. PW 9 the Officer -in -charge of Chandabali police station on 2 -12 -1990 took charge of the enquiry of the U. D. case and proceeded to 2Kiatenduli and after coming to know that the deceased committed suicide due to ill -treatment and abetment of the appellants. he drew up a plain paper FIR and toook up investigation in the case. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial to face charges Under Section 498 -A and 306/34 of IPC.

(3.) THE prosecution examined ten witnesses in this case. PWs 1 and 2 are the co -villagers of the appellants. They turned hostile to the prosecution. PW 2 is the brother and PW 5 is the mother of the deceased. PWs 4, 6 and 7 are co -:villagers of PW 3. PW 8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. PWs 9 and 10 are the police officers who investigated the case.