Decided on November 09,2020

Nakula Rout Appellant


S.K.Mishra,J. - (1.) In this CRA, the convicts-appellants assail the conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No.249/34 of 1999 as per the judgment dated 26.09.2000 whereby they were found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC' for brevity) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. During pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1-Uchhab Rout, appellant no.3-Gokula Rout and appellant no.6-Pathani Rout have died. This fact has been intimated to us by Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. The documents received by him from the I.I.C., Dharmasala Police Station have been sent through E-mail of the Court and the same forms part of the record. So, the appeal is taken up on behalf of the surviving appellant nos.2-Nakula, appellant no.4-Pitabas Rout and appellant no.5-Gobinda Rout.
(2.) The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows: The prosecution allegation is that deceased Sailabala @ Rukmini got married to accused-Uchhab Rout on 4.5.1996. At the time of marriage, there was demand of Rs.30,000/-, 5 tolas of gold and 10 tolas of silver besides other articles. The demand was fulfilled. After four months of her marriage, accused Uchhab Rout raised a further demand of Rs.30,000/- towards dowry and it was supported by his brothers. Accused Uchhab Rout left Saila @ Rukmini in the house of her parents. The deceased stayed in the house of her parents for 5 to 6 months. Thereafter, accused Uchhab Rout took her to join a Sudhi ceremony. After the Sudhi ceremony was over, again accused-Uchhab Rout left Saila in her parents' house. At that time the deceased had given birth to a female child. This time, accused Uchhab Rout threatened Saila @ Rukmini to bring money if she would return to her father-in-law's house. Thereafter, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, arranged money and apprehending the conduct of accused Uchhab Rout, wanted to execute a receipt after making payment. Accordingly, P.W.1 along with other villagers went to the house of the accused persons and wanted to effect a settlement. It was decided that the father of the deceased would pay Rs.13,000/- and, accordingly, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, was ready to make payment. While making payment, P.W.1 and the gentlemen of the village wanted to execute a receipt by the accused persons, but accused Uchhab Rout declined to execute the same. Therefore, P.W.1 returned back home without making payment. P.W.1 got information after 6 to 7 days that somebody was lying dead in the paddy field of village-Bharatpur. Hearing this news and apprehending the conduct of accused Uchhab, he along with his father and others rushed to the spot and found that the dead body of Saila @ Rukmini was lying in a paddy field. Having seen this, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, lodged a written report before the O.I.C., Jenapur Police Out-Post. Ext.1 is the F.I.R. After F.I.R. was lodged, the police and the Magistrate came to the spot and held inquest over the dead body. P.W.1 signed on the inquest report. The deceased had been killed by strangulation by means of a rope. Ext.2 is the inquest report. While the deceased was staying at her parents' house she had complained that she was tortured and beaten at times by accused Uchhab Rout for additional dowry demand of money. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation placed charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 498- A, 304-B/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Act.
(3.) The defence took the plea of complete denial and false implication in the crime.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.