MURARI PRASAD PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants having been convicted for offences under Sections 304(B)/201/34, IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonepur in S.C. No. 38/3 of 1991 have preferred this appeal. Consequent upon the conviction as above, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence under Section 304(B), IPC and for a period of two years and six months for offence under Section 201, IPC with the stipulation that the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case is that Premasila, the daughter of Govinda Panda had married appellant No. 3, the son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of appellant Nos. 4 and 5 in the year 1987. It is stated that at the time of marriage, articles were given to Premasila which they had decided looking to their financial capability. It is also stated that some articles were given to the son-in-law, the appellant No. 3.

(3.) The appellants during the trial have taken a plea that deceased was never given any taunting remarks and they had never made any demand of dowry as stated. She was never tortured on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry or during advancement of the said demand of dowry. It is also their case that deceased did not die having been administered with poison. Although the dead body was cremated with the consent of P.W. 1, at a later point of time with change of mind and being highly aggrieved by the death, without understanding the reasons that death was due to diarrhoea and vomiting without any involvement of these appellants therein in any way, these appellants have been arraigned in the case for being unnecesssarily harassed.