KHETRAMOHAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge here in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S. T. Case No. 31 of 1995/ 176 of 1994 in the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Balasore. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and sentence passed, held the appellants guilty of the charge u/Ss. 498-A/304/B. IPC both read with Section 34. IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for 10 years and R. I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo for six months, respectively on the aforesaid counts. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge has further ordered that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellants is that one Manorama Panda, who happens to be the sister of the informant Pitambar Panda (P.W.1) was given in marriage to Sitikantha Panda in June 1991. At the time of marriage, the appellants made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and gold ornaments towards dowry, which was meted by the informant. But subsequent to the marriage they again demanded an Almirah and cash of Rs. 5,000/-, which the informant could not meet. After the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Sitikantha. the appellants tried to dispossess all the gold ornaments given to the deceased-Manorama to purchase a land, but the deceased did not agree to part with the same. For the said reason, they started torturing the deceased even though she was pregnant and thereafter they left her in her parental house. With much persuasion of the informant, the matter was compromised and the deceased was left in the house of the appellants on 24-6-1992. After 10 days, the informant came to know that Manorama died in the house of the appellants. The informant suspecting a foul play for non-fulfillment of the dowry of the appellants, made a report to the Officer-in- charge, Oupada Police Station, vide written report Ext. 1, pursuant to which, criminal case in question was registered against them by the police and investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was placed against the appellants alleging commission of offences u/Ss. 498-A/ 304-B/34, IPC to have been committed by them and the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. The appellants faced their trial being convicted u/Ss. 498-A/304-B/34 I. P. C. taking a plea of denial and false implication in the trial. It also appears that they have taken a plea that the death of the deceased was due to diseased process. The trial Court in the conclusion of the trial basically relying on the evidence of the P. W. 1 the informant, who is the brother of the deceased. P. W. 2, the mediator to the marriage and also one, P. W. 3 Gopinath Panda another relation of the deceased repelling the defence plea, returned the judgment of conviction and the sentence as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence, advancing a submission that when there is no credible materials on record to show that the death of the deceased was occurred due to any burn, bodily injuries or otherwise than the normal circumstances and also there is no demand for dowry, even though in this case there is ample material to show that the death of the deceased was within 7 years of her marriage with the appellant-Sitikantha, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the sentence passed are unsustainable.