STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NANKU PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents faced trial for offence under Section 304 -B IPC & under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baragarh in S.T. Case No. 8/5 of 1992. On culmination of the trial, only the Respondent No. 1 has been convicted for offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years & two years respectively for the said offences running concurrently with payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/ - for offence under Section 3 of the Act with default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year while being acquitted of the charge under Section 304 -B IPC & other Respondents have been acquitted of all the charges. Being aggrieved by such order of acquittal, the State has called in question the said order by filing this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the Respondent No. 1 has also filed an appeal challenging the order of conviction & sentence as stated above. These appeals therefore, have been heard together for their disposal by this common Judgment which would govern both. The parties have been referred to herein as shown in the appeal filed by State. The case of the prosecution is the following: -

(2.) THE Learned Additional Sessions Judge on analysis of evidence let in by the prosecution both oral & documentary has found the Respondents not guilty of offence under Section 304 -B of IPC by disbelieving the factum of demand of dowry at the time of marriage & as also that it was being insisted thereafter & the torture as said to have been meted out at the deceased on the account of non -fulfillment of the same & that too within a reasonable period of time prior to the death to fall with the ambit of the "soon before". So he acquitted all the Respondents from the charge under Section 304 -B IPC & Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have also been acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. However, the Respondent No. 1 has been convicted for offence under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act followed by sentence as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents while supporting the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court with regard to non -establishment of the demand of dowry in the marriage between Satya & Respondent No. 1; its continuation till death & torture being meted out at Satya by the Respondents for non -fulfillment of the same, he further submits that even on independent analysis of evidence, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to establish the same. So he contends that the appeal filed by the State has no merit. It is further submitted that on the face of such finding of Trial Court on the above factual aspects, the conviction recorded as against Respondent No. 1 for offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act is liable to be set aside.