GATI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1994 have been convicted under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both of them are further convicted under Section 498-A, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; under Section 201, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The appellants in the other two appeals have been convicted under Section 201, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants in the latter two appeals had filed appeals before the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. Since those appeals arise out of the very same judgment, the records were called for and have been re-numbered in this Court. All the three criminal appeals are being disposed of by one common judgment.

(2.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1994 are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Jyotsna who married their son, P.W. 4, in June, 1990. P.W. 18, the eldest brother of the deceased, had paid a cash of Rs. 1,000/- to accused Gati towards travelling expenses, but according to accused Gati the same was inadequate. He had also promised to pay a further cash of Rs. 2,000/- after solemnization of the marriage. Deceased Jyotsna came to the house of accused Gati, but he and his wife were not satisfied with the property brought by the deceased and were always quarrelling with her, and the deceased was being harassed. After some days, the deceased could not tolerate the ill-treatment and went away to the house of her father. P.W. 4 went to bring her back and on being persuaded by P.W. 18, the deceased came to the house of accused Gati with her younger sister (P.W. 6) and younger brother (P.W. 7). The deceased was kicked and abused by her mother-in-law, accused Padma, as the balance amount had not been brought. Few days after, her brother and sister went back to their house. On 16-2-1992, the brother-in-law of the deceased (sister's husband) received information that the deceased was seriously ill and he deputed his son, the informant, who reached the house of accused Gati at about 7 A.M. and found that her aunt (the deceased) was lying dead in her bed-room and preparation was being made for cremation of the dead body. In spite of his advice not to cremate the dead body, the other appellants took away the dead body and cremated it even before any information could be lodged before the police. Subsequently, the informant went to Deogarh Police Station and lodged F.I.R. at about 9.30 A.M. indicating that he suspected foulplay. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 201, IPC, against all the eight accused persons including the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

(3.) The plea of the accused persons was one of denial.