ASHOK KUMAR RATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTION under Sections 304 -B and 498 -A, I.P.C. are assailed by both the accused persons in this appeal.

(2.) APPELLANTS are father and son. Accused Ashok is the husband of the deceased and accused Balgopal is her father -in -law. She is daughter of P.W. 1 and sister of P.Ws. 2 to 5. She married Ashok on 4.3.1990. On 1.7.1991 she died of burn injuries in the house of her father -in -law. One Lalit Mohan Rath of that village lodged a written report at the Police station that day at 10 A.M. On that basis, P.W.6 the police officer registered case and proceeded to the village with P.W. 7, an Executive Magistrate. In the village P.W. 4 with another two brothers of the deceased were present (other than P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5) on getting information that house of accused persons was burnt. When P.Ws. 6 and 7 arrived in village the three brothers filed an application that in the morning house of accused was burnt and their sister died accidentally having bum injuries. They have no suspicion about the accidental death and there is no necessity for any post -mortem examination of the dead body (Ext. A). Large many villagers also filed an application written by one Lalatendu Biswal that Maithili died an account of bums due to the accidental house blaming which was enquired into by P.W. 6 in presence of P.W. 7. At the time of house burning there was no member of the house present except the deceased as revealed during investigation on finding the house ablaze. When villagers arrived, they found Maithili dead. There is no suspicious circumstance for her death. (Ext. B). In the inquest report (Ext. 2) also P.W. 6 expressed the opinion that death is on account of burn caused by accidental fire which has been signed by villagers and P.W. 4. P.W. 6 has also gave the endorsement that cause of death is due to accidental burning. On 24.7.1991 while examine father of deceased (P.W. 1) the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) was informed by him that the death was dowry death. Accordingly, he reported the entire case to officer -in -charge in plain paper (Ext. 3) which was treated as formal F.I.R.

(3.) 3.1990. There was no demand of any dowry, but they had voluntarily given cycle, radio, watch and ornaments of 2 -1/2 tolas (gold) utensils etc. as per their social custom. On 5.6.1991 Ashok visited house or P.W. 1 with deceased and they requested him to cash of Rs. 15,000/ - to be spent for the service of her brother -in -law and a T. V. with a Motor cycle to her husband according to advice to her husband as dowry. P.W. 1 expressed his inability. Ashok went away getting annoyed leaving his daughter. On 8.6.1991, he went with his daughter and left her in house of accused. On 1.7.1991 Lalatendu Biswal, Gagan Bihari Padhan of Mahimunda came to his house and intimated that house of accused is completely burnt. On getting information three sons of P.W. l went to village of accused and returned in the evening. They told P.W. 1 that Maithili was also lying dead inside her house being burned. Since definite cause of death could not be known, he suspected some foul play in the death of her daughter and did not believe that she died due to accidental fire. From this P.W. 6 strongly suspected that due to mental torture for non -compliance by her father, she committed suicide by setting fire to her own body inside the house during absence of inmates. On receipt of this report Officer -in -charge registered P.S. Case under section 304B I.P.C. 4. Appellants were charge -sheeted and committed. They were charged under sections 304B/498A I.P.C., read with 34 I.P.C. To prove the charges, prosecution examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 is father of deceased, P.Ws. 2 to 5 arc her brothers, P.Ws 5 and 8 arc the investigating officers and P.W. 7 is the Executive Magistrate. Eight documents have been exhibited. Ext. 1 is the invitation card of the marriage, Ext. 2 is the inquest -report, Ext.3 is the plain paper F.I.R., Ext. 4 is the spot -map, Exts. 5 to 7 arc the seizure lists and Ext.8 is the zimanama of dowry articles.