NARASINGHA PUJARI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge Judge (FTC), Gunupur in Criminal Trial No. 2 of 2007 convicting all the appellants for offence under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 201 read with section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act and sentencing each them to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304 -B IPC; R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 498 -A/34 IPC; R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 201 IPC and R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/ - in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act with the stipulation that substantive sentence would run concurrently and to be followed by the usual benefit of set off.

(2.) Prosecution case is that Sulochana the deceased had married the appellant no.3 Rama Krishna Pujari. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of appellant no. 3 whereas appellant no. 4 is another son of appellant nos. 1 and 2 i.e. brother of appellant no. 3. So appellants here are the parents -in -laws, the husband and the brother -in -law of the deceased. It is stated that there was some demand of dowry from the side of the appellants for the said marriage and that had been met and fulfilled. However, later further demand of dowry was advanced that they be paid with a sum of Rs.20,000/ - more as also two tolas of gold. It is said that the deceased had informed about such demand to the members of her paternal house. On 14.7.2006 the appellant no.3 Rama Krishna brought the deceased back to their house and then the informant who is the father -in -law of the appellant no. 3 (P.W.8) had promised to fulfil the demand made on the second round. When the matter stood thus all of a sudden on 24.7.2006 P.W.8 got a telephonic massage as regards the death of his daughter after having suffered from fever. So he went to the house of the appellants. But then he was surprised to find his daughter lying dead being half burnt which gave rise to doubt that it was a foul play. FIR being lodged, police immediately registered the case and prior to that on 24.7.06 appellant no.3, the husband of the deceased had given a written report intimating the police about the unnatural death of Sulachana due to accidental fire. So there was earlier the registration of an unnatural death case and while that was being enquired into, the FIR from P.W.8 came to be lodged. Police thereafter closing the U.D. case and began to investigate the case registered on the strength of the FIR of the father of the deceased. In course of investigation, the informant and other witnesses were examined, post mortem examination was carried over the dead body of the deceased Inquest had already been held by the investigating officer. The incriminating materials were seized under seizure lists and sent for chemical examination. Report of the chemical examiner was received and finally on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellants. The case having been committed to the court of Session, the appellant finally came to be tried in the court of Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Gunupur.

(3.) During the trial, the prosecution examined in total 17 witnesses. Besides the officials and seizure witnesses, the parents of the deceased have been examined as P.Ws. 8 and 9. The brother of the informant P.W. 8 has been examined as P.W. 10 and so also aunt of the deceased as P.W. 15. Other witnesses are official witnesses which include the doctors and the I.O.