RAMAKANTA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, by filing this appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.1993 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.291 of 1991. By the said judgment, the appellant (accused) has been convicted for committing offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, 'the D.P.Act') and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the daughter of the informant (P.W.7) had married this accused-Ramakanta, who was then working as a Forester in the Social Forestry Department. It is said that the informant had given all such articles in the said marriage as per his wish, desire and capacity. However, on the marriage altar, during performance of different rituals, accused Ramakanta demanded that a colour television; in lieu of the same, he asked for payment a sum of Rs.15,000/- be paid. The financial condition of P.W.7, being not so sound at that point of time, he promised to give that later. It is stated that accused many a time demanded the amount and for its non-payment, tortured his wife. On 28.7.1990, the informant (P.W.7) had gone to his daughter's house when her daughter told him about the torture for non-providing the TV set or cash in lieu of it, as demanded. On 29.7.1990, P.W.7 received the news of illness of his daughter. So, he went to their house and on his arrival, was told by the father and mother of this accused that his daughter met a natural death. The dead body was then cremated. The informant (P.W.7) having suspected some foul play, lodged an FIR at Badamba Police Station. On receipt of the same, Badamba P.S. Case No.99 of 1990 came to be registered and investigation began.

(3.) Heard Mr.D.Panda, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. I have perused the judgment of the trial court and have carefully travelled through the depositions of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and defence having given a side by side look at the documents admitted in evidence from the side of the prosecution.