JAGANNATH RANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack whereby he has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack convicting the accused Jagannath Nana (petitioner No.1) under 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, I.P.C.) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous, imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the first said offence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default, to under gorigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for the said second offence and further convicting him and his co-accused Nakula Rana, Rama alias Ramesh Rana and Kausalaya Rana (opposite parties 2 to 4 respectively) under section 201, read with section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a direction that the sentences imposed on accused Jagannath Rana shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, shortly stated, is as under: Accused Jagganath is the son of accused Kausalya and accused Nakula and Rama alias Ramesh are his agnates and they all belong to village Harirajpur under Banki Police Station. Accused Jagannath. married Sarojini, the deceased of village Ranapur five years back and brought and kept her in his house at Harirajpur. Sometimes after the marriage accused Jagannath and Kausalya subjected Sarojni to mental and physical torture for which she was frequently going and staying in her mothers house. In one occasion the deceased Sarojni remained in her mothers house for a period of about six months, but at the intervention of some gentlemen, the deceased Sarojni returned to her matrimonial home. It is also alleged that notwithstanding such amicable settlement the accused Jagannath and Kausalya and their other family members continued to torture the deceased Sarojni both physically and mentally for which in the night of 2nd13rd August, 1987 she committed suicide by hanging and thereafter, the dead body of Sarojni was stealthily thrown away to river Mahanadi flowing by the side of their village at some distance apart before dawn at about 3 to 4A.M.

(3.) On the following day of the fateful night, the sisters son of accused Jagannath (not examined) went to the mothers house of the deceased and enquired if Sarojni had come there. On such quarry Sarojnis mother and her other family members thought that Sarojini was missing and accordingly Sarojini s brother and uncle rushed to the house of accused Jagannath and finding Sarojini absent from the house, her brother lodged a missing report, on the same day i.e. 3.8.1987, at 2 p.m. which was registered as Station Diary No 50 (Ext. 5). About 15 minutes thereafter the accused Jagannath lodged a missing report as per Ext. 6. Both these missing reports were entrusted to the junior Sub-Inspector of Banki Police Station (P.W. 10) for inquiry. In courses of inquiry. P.W. 10 ascertains that the missing reports were not true and that in the fateful night the deceased Sarojini committed suicide by hanging as a result of the torture noted out to her by the accused persons and that in order to screen themselves from legal punishment the accused persons disposed of the dead body of Sarojini by throwing the same into the bed of river Mahanadi and accordingly he having submitted the F.I.R. (Ext. 3), the case was investigated by the Officer in-charge of Banki Police Station (P.W. 8). In course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased could not be traced but, however, Jour pieces of rope, one sickle and one saree (not admitted in evidence) were seized as per the seizure list, Ext. 1 on production by accused Kausalya and after completion of investigation charge-sheet having been placed; accused Jagannath and Kausalya faced trial for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and further they along with their other two co-accused also faced trial for the offence punishable under section 201 red with section 34 I.P.C.