MANORAMA MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, by filing this appeal, have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir in S.C. No.50-B of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order, these appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for committing offence under section 498-A IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused Kartika having also been convicted for offence under section 4 D.P. Act, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for two months with further stipulation that the substantive sentence as against him would run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused and P.W.3 had married on 22.06.2002. After marriage, they stayed in the house of said accused Kartika situated at Ainthapali, Sambalpur. The sister of P.W.3 i.e. P.W. 5 also stayed with them for three days. The allegation is that P.W.3 found her husband-accused Kartika to be keeping illicit relationship with the other accused who is the co- appellant. So it is said that there was no conjugal relationship between the accused Kartika and P.W. 3. It is next stated that accused Kartika and accused Monorama used to frequently ask P.W. 3 to bring cash of Rs.5.00 lakh from her father imposing that as the condition for establishment of conjugal relationship. Accused Bikram (since acquitted) who happens to be the brother of Kartika was also insisting P.W.3 to bring that amount. It is further stated that though P.W. 3 was suffering from no such disease, the two accused persons, who have been convicted used to give her injections and medicines; when the foster father of the accused (since acquitted) used to give her chanted water. It is further stated that P.W. 3 was not allowed to visit her father's place. In that situation finally on 18.10.2002, her uncle brought her back. So P.W.3 lodged a written report at Bolangir Town Police Station vide Ext. 4. This led to registration of Bolangir Town P.S. Case No. 190 of 2002 and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, charge sheet having been submitted, these two accused persons (appellants) along with two others faced the trial. There accused persons stood charged for offence under section 307/498-A IPC and section 4 of the D.P. Act. During the trial, the accused persons have taken the plea of denial and false implication. It is further stated by the defence that since the daughter of accused Monarama was prosecuting her study by staying in the house of accused Kartika, wife of Kartika i.e. P.W. 3 was very much opposed to it and as her, objection was not paid any heed to, dissention arose and for that finally P.W. 3 went to her father's place.

(3.) In the trial, the prosecution has examined in total fifteen witnesses, out of whom as already stated P.W.3 is the complainant and P.W. 5 is her sister. P.Ws.1, 4 to 6 and 8 are the relations of P.W. 3. The priest who had performed the marriage is P.W.7. P.W. 11 is the doctor who had treated P.W. 3 when she was with her husband and P.Ws.12 and 13 are the doctors who had examined P.W.3 at Bolangir and P.W.14 is the Professor, Psychiatry who had examined P.W. 3. The Investigating Officer of the case has come to be examined at last as P.W. 15. Besides leading the oral evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has proved the FIR as Ext.4, discharge certificate of P.W. 3 as Ext.7, injury report of P.W. 3 as Ext.9, the answer given by the doctor to be query made by the Investigating Officer has been admitted in evidence as Ext. 11.