STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KAMBHUPANI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.8.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1990, wherein he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. C.J.M. -cum -Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Sessions Trial Case No.109/28 of 89.

(2.) THE fact of the case, as unfolded by the prosecution in nub is that the Respondent led Nalini Pradhan to the altar on 6.2.1988. The couple led a happy conjugal life for about one month and thereafter skirmishes errupted between them as the demand of the Respondent for a motor cycle from the father of Nalini Pradhan could not be complied with. It is alleged that when the torture on Nalini Pradhan became unbearable, she took poison on 16.3.1988 and was admitted to I.G.H., Rourkela, but as good luck would have it, she could survive and was discharged from the hospital on the same day. Still then, cruelty and torture on Nalini Pradhan in the hand of Respondent continued unabated for which she drenched herself with kerosene and set fire on her. Immediately, she was shifted to I.G.H., Rourkela again, where she succumbed to the injuries on the next day. On the very day on receipt of a casualty memo from the attending physician, A.S.I. R. N. Sahu of Sector -3 Rourkela P.S. (P.W.18) registered U.D. Case No.11 of 1988, in absence of the I.I.C. or any other senior Police Officer and enquired into the matter. In course of enquiry, he visited the spot, held inquest over the body and on the same date handed over charge of the enquiry to Sri Pradipta Kumar Sahani, S.I. of Police (P.W.11). While the enquiry was in progress, on the report of P.W.6 dated 25.6.1988, the I.I.C., Sector -3, Rourkela P.S. registered P.S. case No.44 of 1988, under Section 498 -A of I.P.C. and directed P.W.11 to investigate the case. In course of investigation P.W.11 examined the informant, whereafter on the same date he made over charge of investigation of the case to the D.S.P. (P.W.17) who after conclusion of the investigation submitted Charge Sheet under Sections 498 -A/304 -B/306/201 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The case having been committed to the Court of Session was transferred to the Court of the C.J.M. -cum -Asst. Sessions Judge, Rourkela who framed charge against the Respondent under Sections 498 -A/304 -B/306/201 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act. The Respondent denied the allegation and specifically pleaded that the deceased died as her synthetic saree caught fire from the heater, while she was preparing tea and that four to five days after her death P.W.10, her father gave a proposal to him to marry Sukanti, daughter of his brother and when he did not agree to it, the case was falsely foisted against him.

(3.) BEING aggrieved with said order of conviction and sentence, Respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1990 before the Court for Sessions Judge, Sundargarh who after going through the trial Court judgment and the evidence on record, held that the deceased died as her saree caught fire in coming in contact with the radiant wire of the heater, while she was preparing tea and that prosecution failed to prove the allegation that the Respondent subjected the deceased to 'cruelty for non -fulfillment of his demand of a motor cycle towards dowry and as such, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal.