AKSHYA PANDA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.5.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1997 convicting both the Appellants for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 201/498 -A of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to imprisonment for three years on each count, but the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 is the husband of deceased where as Appellant No. 2 is the mother -in -law of the deceased. The other co -accused persons, namely, Harekrishna Panda, Rajani Panda and Sarojini Panda, acquitted by the Trial Court, are also in -laws of the deceased. All the accused persons were charged for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. for having killed intentionally the deceased -Dhaneswari Panda, in furtherance of their common intention and also under Section 201 of the I.P.C. for causing disappearance of evidence. They were also charged under Section 498 -A of the I.P.C. for causing cruelty and harassment to the deceased before she was killed. Case of the prosecution is that on 21.4.1996 the deceased was given in marriage with Appellant No. 1 and at the time of marriage besides other articles, cash of Rs. 9000/ - was given as marriage presentation to the father of Appellant No. 1 as per his demand and the parents of the deceased also agreed to give a gold chain during Dusahara festival. After the marriage the couple visited the house of the informant twice and during the said visit the deceased complained of mental torture on account of non -fulfillment of dowry demand relating to gold chain. When the matter stood thus few days before Raja festival, father of the deceased approached the accused persons to leave the deceased to celebrate Raja festival with him and the family members. However, the accused persons refused to leave the deceased and two days later she was sent along with accused Sarojini with instruction to live in her father's house for two days, so that part of Raja festival can also be celebrated in the in -law's house. Similarly during Dusahara also the informant approached the accused persons to get the deceased to his house so that they can give her a gold chain of her choice, but the accused persons refused to send the deceased to her parents house. On 14.12.1996 early morning the informant got a message over phone about the death of his sister. Hearing this the informant and his mother proceeded to the house of the accused persons and they found the deceased lying dead with burn injuries on the back side of the house of the accused persons. Suspecting foul play the informant, who is the brother of the deceased, immediately proceeded to K. Balanga Police Station and presented a report (Ext. 1). On the basis of the report, a case was registered, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge -sheet was filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants assails the impugned judgment on the ground that undisputed the death of the deceased was within 7 years of her marriage but no charge was framed for commission of offence under Section 304 -8 of the I.P.C. Charge under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. having been framed on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 11, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that it is the Appellants who had committed murder of the deceased. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants is that except the evidence of P.W. 11 which indicates that the death of the deceased was homicidal, there is no other evidence to connect both the Appellants with the alleged offence and therefore they could not have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. It was also submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that so far as offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that both the Appellants tried to wipe out the evidence in order to screen themselves from legal consequence. So far as offence under Section 498 -A of I.P.C. is concerned, it was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the evidence in this regard is not consistent and therefore both the Appellants could not have been conviction for commission of offence under Section 498 -A of the I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that undisputedly on the date of occurrence the deceased was in the house of the Appellants and her dead body was found in the morning lying with burn injuries at the back side of the house of the Appellants. Since there was none else in the house, the Appellants alone could have committed murder of the deceased and therefore the Trial Court was justified in convicting them for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. It was also contended that from the evidence of P.W. 11, it appears that the deceased had been strangulated first and after her death, kerosene was poured and the dead body was set to fire. It is, therefore, clear that both the Appellants were responsible for commission of offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. Similarly there being demand of dowry and the deceased having been mentally tortured for non -fulfillment of dowry demand, their conviction under Section 498 -A is also justified.