S SIMANCHAL PATRO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant having been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 304 -B/498 -A of the Indian Penal Code, (in short, 'I.P.C') and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, DP. Act') by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2001/Sessions Case No. 54 of 2001 G.D.C., has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. For offence under Section 304 -B of I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for conviction under Section 498 -A of I.P.C, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for three years and for conviction under Section 4 of D.P. Act, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the record is that the deceased -P. Bhagyabati was working as an Anganwadi Worker in Tikabali in the district of Phulbani and she was given in marriage to the appellant on 7.12.1995. At the time of marriage cash. of Rs. 50,000/ -, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - towards furniture and 5 tolas of gold ornaments were given to the deceased and one tola of gold ornament was given to the mother of the appellant. It was agreed that the deceased would continue in her service and the appellant would start a business at Tikagbali. For about two years after the marriage, the deceased continued at Tikabali and the appellant was joining with her. Thereafter, it is alleged that the appellant started putting pressure on the deceased for getting the house at Tikabali registered in her name and also started ill -treating her. As promised at the time of marriage, preliminary arrangements were made for opening a shop at Tikabali and the appellant was asked to invest a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. The appellant, on the other hand, insisted that the deceased should leave her job and join him at his own place at Chikitipentha after selling the house at Tikabali. For this dispute, the caste members called a meeting on 1.8.1999 at the instance of the appellant. It was decided in the caste meeting that the deceased would proceed on leave and join the appellant in his village and the document transferring the house in the name of the deceased would be registered and the same would not be sold without permission of the caste members. Accordingly, the deceased joined the appellant in his house on 18.8.1999. A gift deed was executed in favour of the deceased in respect of the house at Tikabali. After the normal relationship was restored, the appellant again insisted upon the deceased to sell the house at Tikabali. But the deceased was unwilling to do so. Ultimately, both of them went to Tikabali and sold the house for a sum of Rs. 95,000/ - on 29.3.2000 to the daughter of P.W. 1. Suddenly on 20.5.2000 at 8.05 A.M., the deceased was admitted to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur by the appellant with 99% burn' injuries. P.W.9 after this occurrence lodged the F.I.R. at Manila Police Station, Berhampur, The Inspector -in -charge of the said Police Station visited the Hospital and found the deceased in a precarious condition. The deceased died on 26.5.2000 at about 9.40 A.M. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B of the I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) OUT of 12 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.9 is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.1 is the father of one Samita Panigrahi, who had purchased the house from the deceased. P.W.2 deposed about the decision taken in the caste meeting and the pressure put on the deceased by the appellant for selling the house. P.W.3 is a witness to seizure and P.W.4 is the Constable, who had accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination, P.W.5 is a witness to the inquest and P.W.6 is a witness to seizure of some gold and silver ornament and other materials. P.W.7 deposed about the conduct of the parties after marriage and P.W.8 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, P.W.10 is a witness to the seizure of the bed head ticket, P.W.11 is the brother -in -law of the deceased and P.W.12 is the I.O.