ANIL KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 59 of 2005 convicting the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short, "the I.P.C." and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is important to note here that the appellant along with his three relatives stood charged under Ss. 498 -A/304 -B/302/201 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, vide impugned judgment dated 21.9.2006, three relatives of the appellant were held not guilty of the charges levelled against them and were acquitted therefrom. So far as the appellant is concerned, he was also not found guilty of the charges levelled against him under Ss. 498 -A/304 -B/201 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.2.2005 at 12.30 P.M. on receipt of written report (Ext. 12) submitted by P.W.2 to the effect that one dead body of a female was lying at kilometer No. 410/24S -26S, P.W.12 registered U.D. Case No. 1 dated 4.2.2005 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, P.W.12 visited the spot, sent requisition to the Scientific Officer, D.F.S.L., Rourkela, conducted inquest over the dead body of Sudharani, wife of the appellant, sent dead body for autopsy and during such investigation, P.W.9 father of the deceased presented a written report (Ext. 7) on 5.2.2005 at 00.10 A.M. to the effect that on 14.7.2004 his daughter Sudharani (deceased) had been given in marriage to the appellant. At the time of marriage P.W.9 had given a cash of Rs. 52,000/ -, one gold chain, two gold rings and a cash of Rs. 5,000/ - for purchasing dress. He had also given other gold ornaments and articles to his deceased daughter to lead her family life. After marriage, the appellant sent the deceased to bring cash of Rs. 10,000/ - and accordingly, P.W.9 handed over Rs. 10,000/ - to the appellant during November, 2004. Again, when the appellant compelled the deceased to bring Rs. 20,000/ -, the deceased made it clear that P.W.9 was not in a position to pay such amount and thereafter the appellant started assaulting the deceased in drunken condition. In such background, P.W.9 assured the appellant to give him money after arranging the same. In his report under Ext. 7, P.W.9 also indicated that the deceased was complaining before him that the brothers of the appellant were instigating the appellant to bring more money otherwise they were asking the appellant to leave the deceased. On 4.2.2005 at about 6.30 A.M. when P.W.9 was doing 'A' shift duty in Rourkela Steel Plant, his wife P.W.13 informed him that one Amar Mohapatra, brother of the appellant had informed her that their daughter Sudharani had committed suicide. Hearing this, P.W.9 asked P.W.13 to go to the spot. When P.W.13 went to the house of the appellant, he found the appellant sleeping and at her sight, the appellant left the place. Sometime after P.W.9 reached the spot and found the dead body of his daughter lying near the railway track with injuries on her body. At that point of time, the deceased was five months pregnant. Since the report revealed a cognizable case under Ss. 498 -A/304 -B/302/201 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, P.W.12 made a Station Diary Entry and transmitted the case to I.I.C., Plant Site Police Station for registration. On 7.2.2005 the I.I.C. of Plant Site Police Station received the written report and transmitted the same to Mahila Police Station, Rourkela. On the same day at 7.30 P.M., P.W.19 registered the case and took up investigation. During course of investigation, she examined P.W.9 immediately. On the same day, she visited the spot, examined the witnesses. She arrested the accused persons. P.W.19 also prepared the spot map and visited the house of the appellant and seized streedhan property and left the same in zima. She also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and received post -mortem report, sent exhibits to Scientific Officer, R.F.S.L., Sambalpur for chemical examination. On 26.4.2005 P.W.19 made query to the Medical Officer, Panposh and on 11.5.2005, she handed over the charge of investigation to P.W.18. P.W.18 also examined the witnesses, made query to the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination seeking his opinion as to whether the injuries sustained by the deceased on her spleen and kidney could be possible by kicks and fist blows. He received the query report and after supervision P.W.18 submitted charge sheet against the appellant and three of his relatives (since acquitted) for the offences punishable under Ss. 498 -A/304 -B/302/201 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The plea of the appellant was complete denial.

(3.) The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as 19 witnesses, exhibited 19 documents and produced the wearing apparels of the deceased and her photographs, which have been marked as M.O.I to M.O.IV.P. Ws.1, 3 and 17 are the seizure witnesses. P.W.2 was a Deputy Chief Yard Master, Bandhamunda, working under railways submitted a written report vide Ext. 12 to P.W.19 about lying of the dead body on the railway track. P.Ws.4 and 7 are witnesses to the inquest. P.W.5 is a post occurrence witness, who had been to the spot and marked injuries on the body of the deceased. He also spoke about P.W.9 taking money from him to help his deceased daughter. P.W.6 is a neighbour of P.W.9, who had attended the marriage between appellant and deceased. P.W.8 is a neighbour, who heard about the occurrence from the brother of the deceased. P.W.9 is the father of the deceased and is the informant and the F.I.R. was marked as Exhibit -7 at his instance. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy and submitted his report vide Ext. 10. P.W.11 is the Scientific Officer of D.F.S.L., Rourkela, who visited the house of the deceased and collected some sample earth from the bed room. P.W.12 is the O.I.C., Bandhmunda G.R.P.S., who on receipt of information from P.W.2, registered U.D. Case No. 1 of 2005, made inquest over the dead body, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and on receipt of written report from P.W.9 (informant), sent the report to Plant Site Police Station for registration. P.W.13 is the mother of the deceased and wife of P.W.9. P.Ws.14 and 15 are the witnesses, who turned hostile during their examination in the court. P.W.16 is the house owner in whose house the deceased was last staying with the appellant before her death. She is also the mediator of the marriage between the appellant and deceased. P.W.18 is the I.O., who took charge of investigation from P.W.19 and partly investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. P.W.19 is the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, who investigated into the case. In the examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant except admitting his marriage to the deceased and factum of staying together with other three accused persons, who have since been acquitted and factum of dead body of the deceased lying at the spot near railway track and the factum of deceased Sudharani remaining depressed, denied rest of the questions put to him. From the side of the defence, one Mamata Barik was examined as D.W.1. But the defence did not exhibit any documents. As indicated earlier on completion of trial while three family members of the appellant were acquitted of all the charges, appellant was found guilty only for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. As indicated earlier, the appellant was also acquitted of the charges under Ss. 498 -A/304 -B/201 read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act.