MAHENDRA DAS AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS assail the judgment and order dated 23.8.1997 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 48/449 of 1996 convicting both of them of the offence under Sections 176/201/302 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the D.P. Act and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Sections 176/201 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the D.P. Act. However, it was ordered that in case the order of conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C. is set aside, each of them would be deemed to have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years together with a fine of Rs. 15,000/ - in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 3 of the D.P. Act. Further, they would be deemed to have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and two years for the offences under Sections 176 and 201 respectively.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, prosecution case is that accused Mohendra Das led Hilli Das to the altar in the year 1992 in Dhabaleswar Temple of village Dhuanla. As per the demand of the accused -Appellants who are father and son, a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -, two gold rings and other household articles were given at the time of marriage towards dowry. The couple led happy conjugal life till the birth of a female child i.e. two years after their marriage. Then skirmishes erupted between the accused persons in one hand and Hilli on the other. They tortured her in many a way and even did not provide her food. On 13.4.1996 at about 8 A.M. accused -Appellant Laxmidhar Das went to the parental house of Hilli and informed her parents that as Hilli was suffering from diarrhea she was admitted to Balugaon hospital. Without delay, father of Hilli (P.W.6) and accused Laxmidhar went to the nearest bus stand and boarded a bus. While both of them were going to Balugaon alighting at Chandeswar bus stand, accused -Appellant Laxmidhar stealthily went away. So P.W. 6 alone went to the house of the accused -Appellants only to be informed that Hilli expired on the previous day and that her dead body had already been cremated. Doubting foul play, P.W.6 lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Tangi P.S. (P.W.8). As the allegation contained in the report i.e. the F.I.R., revealed a cognizable case under Sections 498(A)/302/304 -B/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., P.W.8 registered P.S. Case No. 57 of 1996 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, visited the cremation ground, seized some ashes and half burnt bones, he also seized the dowry articles and prepared seizure lists in respect thereof, arrested the accused persons, forward them to Court and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case submitted charge sheet against them. The case having been committed to the Court of Sessions, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda who framed charge against accused Laxmidhar Das and Narayan Das for the offence under Sections 498 -A/302/304 -B/201/176/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act all read with Section 34 of I.P.C. He also charged accused Mahendra Das for the offence under Sections 498 -A/302/304 -B/201/176 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Since the accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried, the trial Court conducted the trial.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants submits that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The trial Court convicted the Appellants solely basing on the circumstantial evidence, which do not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the Appellants. So, the order of conviction under Section 302/201 of I.P.C. deserves to be quashed.