STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SEVANLAL MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in G.R. Case No. 408 of 1987 acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 498-A IPC and section 6(1)(2) of D.P. Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant had married P.W. 3 on 21.07.1986. In the said marriage father of the P.W.3 had presented gold ornaments and other house hold articles and cash of Rs. 1,00,001/- to the respondent who was then working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Balasore. All these ornaments and jewellery were given to the respondent at the time of marriage were kept in Bank Locker at Sambalpur and the key was retained by the respondent. It is alleged that after having gone for a few days honey moon trip at the cost of the father of P.W.3, the respondent wanted for going for the training at Hyderabad and then wanted cash of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by the father of P.W.3 when he was paid Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated that during training period P.W.3 stayed with her-in-laws at Sambalpur and on return of the respondent from training, she again went to Balasore. It is alleged that she was not allowed to come to Calcutta during Durga Puja, Kali Puja and on other occasions when she wanted to go. The respondent said to have been demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the father of P.W.3 for construction of a building at Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, allegations run that the P.W.3 was assaulted causing bleeding injuries followed by such kind of assault taking place several times. In view of P.W.3's reluctance to avoid the demand advanced by the respondent, it is also stated that P.W.3 was not allowed to communicate with others and finally she was driven out of by the respondent. P.W.3 finding no other alternative, had returned to Calcutta where she disclosed the incident to her father and thereafter written complaint was lodged with the Director General of Police which being treated as an F.I.R., necessitated registration of the case and commencement of investigation. On completion of investigation when the charge sheet was submitted, the respondent faced the trial for above offences.

(3.) In the trial the respondent denied the allegation levelled against him as regards the demand and torture.