SURENDRA PATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th May, 2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No.95/48 of 2009, convicting the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various terms.

(2.) Gist of the proseciation case is that Ukiabati @ Dahita Patra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') had married the appellant - Surendra Patra on 28.03.2007. Her parents are resident of village- Lakhana under Nuapada Police Station. Appellant's parents reside in village- Mayabarha under Bolangir Sadar Police Station. The incident giving rise to the criminal case took place on 06.09.2008 around 11 a.m. when the deceased is alleged to have committed suicide by setting fire to herself in her father-in-law's house at Mayabarha. It is incorporated in the F.I.R. that at the time of marriage, there was demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- in cash, one gold necklace and one Sambalpuri saree by the appellant. The father of the deceased had paid Rs. 10,000/- in cash and assured to pay the balance amount, gold chain and Sambalpuri saree at an early date. After marriage, members of the family of the in-laws of the deceased, particularly her husband were not satisfied with Rs. 10,000/- provided as dowry and wanted the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-, gold chain and Sambalpuri saree to be given. The said demand having not been satisfied by Basudev Sahu, the father of the deceased (P.W.4), the appellant find his parents continuously harassed and tortured the deceased. She was also physically assaulted by the appellant. Due to such continuous torture, the victim was terribly frightened and often intimated her parents to fulfill the demand raised without further delay. In the meantime around one and half years after marriage, she gave birth to a male child. The deceased's mother - Banita Sahu (P.W.5) stayed with her daughter in her marital home for around two and half months to take care of the new born. Notwithstanding her presence, the appellant being dissatisfied with non-payment of dowry, used to assault the deceased despite of assurance of P.W.5 to provide the dowry articles including money at an early date. Matter stood thus, on 06.09.2008 around 11 a.m. P.W.4 received intimation from one Khirod Parua (P.W.3) through Angan Sahu (not examined) about the death of the deceased by burn. On arrival, P.Ws.4 and 5 found the deceased lying dead by burning. Suspecting foul play, P.W.4 reported the matter at Bolangir Sadar Police Station whereafter investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the police examined witnesses, prepared inquest report, sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination, seized the remnants of her wearing apparels and other incriminating materials. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid under the Sections noted earlier. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and completely denied the allegations made by the prosecution. His plea was that the deceased died a natural death and the case has been fabricated against him with oblique motive.

(3.) Analyzing the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there being no iota of evidence that "soon before the death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry, and otherwise there being gross discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.4 and inter-se discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 as to the nature of allegation of demand of dowry, the conclusion of guilt recorded by the trial court is unsustainable either in law or in fact.