KRUSHANAHARI DEBNATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') call in question of legality of their conviction for commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Petitioners faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34, IPC. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara held that petitioners were liable for conviction under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34, IPC. Each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for their conviction under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC. Similarly, each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for their conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara maintained conviction and sentence in appeal so far as Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC, is concerned. He only casually referred to allegations relating to Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC, but dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Background facts and accusation which led to the trial of the petitioners sans unnecessary details are as follows : On 26-11-1989 one Ripana Debnath (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') wife of accused Sanatan Debnath lost her life. Ripana and Sanatan were married about three years prior to the alleged occurrence. After the marriage, deceased was living in her father-in-law's house peacefully for some time. Subsequently accused persons put mental and physical torture and accused Sanatan left her with her parents. After some time accused persons brought her to their house. While she was staying with them they assaulted her, and accused Sanatan set fire to her saree, as a result of which she sustained severe burn injures on her person. She was first brought to Ramnagar dispensary and subsequently shifted to SCB Medical College Hospital, Cuttack where she breathed her last. One Krupasindhu Debnath (PW 4), a relative of the deceased lodged information at Jamboo Out Post on 26-11-1989, which was subsequently registered as Mahakalapada P.S. Case No. 75 of 1989, investigation was undertaken by the SI of Police of Jamboo Out Post. Subsequently, on 31-12-1989, the Officer-in-charge, Mahakalapada P.S. received information form Mangalabag P.S. about the death of deceased on 27-11-1989. A case for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC was registered. Mangalabag police also registered U.D. Case No. 460 of 1989 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A and 304B, IPC against the accused persons. According to petitioners, there was no demand for dowry and there was no question of physical or mental torture. The deceased was not mentally sound for which she committed suicide.

(3.) Nine witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. Prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs. 4, 5 and 6. PW 5 is the mother of the deceased, PW 6 is the father's elder brother of deceased, and PW 4, her cousin brother is the informant. These witnesses mainly stated about demand of dowry and alleged physical and mental torture. Learned trial Judge held that accused persons were guilty and have committed offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC for having demanded a cycle, wrist watch and cash of Rs. 500.00 from the parents of the deceased at the time of her marriage. When articles and cash were not paid, the accused persons tortured physically and mentally, and as such committed offence under Section 498A, read with Section 34, IPC, in furtherance of common intention of all. It was further held that the deceased in order to save herself from torturous demands of dowry made by the accused persons finding no other alternative because her parents were poor and could not meet the demand, committed suicide. The matter was assailed in appeal before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, who maintained the conviction and sentence.