STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KARUNAKAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in S.C. No. 75 of 1995 acquitting the respondent of the charge under sections 304-B/498-A, I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is short is that Debaki @ Manjula Sahu (hereinafter called as the deceased) was given in marriage with Ramhari Sahu the son of the respondent. At the same time, the daughter of the respondent was also given in marriage with Chandramani Sahu, the brother of the deceased. It is stated that after the marriage, the husband of the deceased and other family members detected some deformity on the left hand of the deceased and that made them unhappy. At the time of marriage of the deceased and Ramhari dowry articles, such as cycle, transistor, gold ornaments, utensils etc. have been given. After coming to know about such deformity with the deceased, the respondent, his wife and son started ill-treating the deceased by depriving her of proper clothing and by not providing food. It is also stated that the deceased was put to mental torture by denial of the conjugal life and also being abused regularly. During Dasahara festival in the year 1994 she had been to her parent's house and at that time none of the family member of the respondent came to take her back. So, finally her brother and uncle took her and left her in parent in-laws place. It is next alleged that thereafter the respondent demanded a sum of 10,000.00 from the father of the deceased who expressed his inability. In that situation, fifteen days prior to the incident Ramhari left for Delhi. The deceased in this way being tortured and ill-treated committed suicide by taking poison on 17.5.1995. On 18.5.1995 morning, this respondent first of all presented a written report at Kesinga police station narrating the unnatural death of his daughter-in-law by taking poison. So one U. D. Case was registered and inquiry commenced. During inquiry on 20.5.1995, father of the deceased (P.W. 6) submitted a written report which was treated as F.I.R. and the case got converted to regular one and the same was investigated. In course of investigation the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, visited the spot and after holding inquest over the dead body, the same was sent for post-mortem examination and seizure of the incriminating articles were also made. Finally, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted placing this respondent, his son Ramchandra and wife-Manjula for trial. It may be started here that the case against accused Manjula and Ramhari was spilt up as their presence could not be secured. So, the present respondent faced the first round of trial.

(3.) During trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses when the defence examined none. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the neighbours of the respondent. The father and mother of the deceased are P.Ws. 6 and 8. The doctors who have conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased are P.Ws. 4 and 5. The investigating officer has come to the dock at last as P.W. 13. besides them, other formal witnesses have also been examined, over and above, the prosecution has proved the inquest report Ext. 1, post-mortem Report Ext. 3, the written report treated as F.I.R. Ext. 4 and other seizure lists.