ABHIMANYU MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.1990 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur. By the impugned order, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of rupees three thousand, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 306, IPC. It, however, imposed no separate sentence for the offence under Section 498A, IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.1982 the deceased married to co -accused Bhagabat Mohapatra (since acquitted), the son of the present appellant. There was a demand of cash of Rs. 10,000/ - and 7 tolas of gold at the time of marriage negotiation. But cash of Rs. 6,000/ - and 5 tolas of gold along with other moveable articles like utensils, etc., were given at the time of marriage by the informant. Six months after the marriage, the appellant went to the bank with the gold ornaments to fetch some loan but could not procure his intended loan for which he formed an opinion within himself that the gold ornaments were spurious. After returning from the bank, he started abusing the deceased and her father, the informant (P.W.1), for giving spurious gold ornaments and subjected the deceased to cruelty. On one occasion, in the year 1983, the informant had sent two 'SADABHARAS' anticipating the delivery of the deceased, according to the custom. But the present appellant did not accept the same inspite of request of the deceased; rather, on the other hand, the appellant told the deceased that if she so liked, she could go to her parent's house and his son would marry once again. The appellant also returned the gold ornaments of the deceased through the brother of the deceased with a direction to get the same re -made by pure gold and to make arrangements to give the balance cash amount settled at the marriage negotiation, failing which, the deceased would be affected. Deceased gave birth to a female child, the information of which was not communicated to the family of the informant immediately but was lately communicated by co -accused Bhagat. The deceased even was not allowed to go to her father's house to attend the obsequies of the informant's grandfather. In the year 1985, the marriage of the informant's sister was solemnized. The father of the informant had brought the deceased giving an undertaking to the appellant that the ornaments would be given along with the balance cash amount. The deceased was taken to Keonjhar where the informant was serving. There, the deceased delivered her 2nd issue, a son. The husband of the deceased went to Keonjhar, tested the ornaments there, took Rs. 2500/ - and proposed to take back the deceased to his house Accordingly, the deceased was taken from Keonjhar to her in -laws' house by her brother. The old ornaments along with some new ornaments like two chains, one for the deceased and the other for her son, were also given. But the appellant could not believe the quality of the gold, suspected some foul play by informant and expressed that the informant has relationship with the goldsmith. The living condition of the deceased at her matrimonial home did not improve. On 01.04.1987, the brother of the informant Pradip got the news of death of the deceased and rushed to the informant. The informant rushed from Keonjhar, saw the dead body of the deceased and suspected that she might have been killed for non -fulfilment of dowry. On 25.04.1987, he presented a written report before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Cuttack, who directed investigation into the case, on closure of which charge sheet was submitted under Sections 306/498A IPC.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. The defence examined two witnesses to substantiate its plea.