GANGADHAR BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional standing Counsel on the petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 23. 7. 2007 passed, by the learned s. D. J. M. , Bhadrak in G. R. Case No. 1491 of 2006, wherein he took cognizance of the offence under Section 498a/302, 304b/34 i. P. C. read with Section 4 of the D. P. Act so far as they are concerned. The petitioners are father and son. The deceased kanakalata Barik married Mohan Barik, another son of petitioner No. 1 on 3. 6. 2005. It is alleged that she was tortured by the relatives of her husband and the husband himself for non-fulfilment of their demand of dowry. Ultimately, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed her murder. On this allegation, the F. I. R. was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 493a/302/ 304b/34 of I. P. C. read with Section 4 of the d. P. Act against the petitioners, the husband of the deceased and her mother-in-law. On going through the case diary and the charge sheet the learned S. D. J. M. , Bhadrak took cognizance of the aforesaid offences vide order dated 25. 7. 2007, which is under challenge as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly, the deceased died within seven years of her marriage on burn injuries. As found from the case diary, the deceased stated in her statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. that her husband and mother-in-law tortured her in many a ways. There is no whisper against the petitioners. It is also found from the dying declaration of the deceased that on the date of occurrence, as her husband and mother-in-law scolded her, she herself poured kerosene over her, just to threaten them. In the meantime, her husband set her ablaze. So, there is no prima facie material against the petitioners that they had any role in commission of murder of the deceased. The statement of the deceased is also silent with regard to torture for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry by the present petitioners. So, the offence under Section 498a/302 of I. P. C. and section 4 of the D. P. Act cannot be attracted against the petitioners. Even if it is presumed that the deceased committed suicide by burning herself, still then since there is no prima facie material to hold that soon before her death the deceased was tortured by the petitioners, they cannot be liable for the offence under Section 304b of I. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, who faced trial before the Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak have been acquitted honourably.