DHODIA ALIAS GOPAL CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from the jail has been preferred by the appellant-Dhadia @ Gopal Chandra Mishra challenging the judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 39/324 of 1994 convicting the appellant and the co-accused under Sections 498-A/ 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304-B of the IPC and R.1. for one year under Section 498-A of the IPC and S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, while acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case as revealed from the FIR lodged by one Golekha Ch. Praharaj is that on 30.11.1993 he came to the house of his sister, Kalpana, the wife of appellant to see her and her young son in village-Parajapada, but he found his sister, nephew and the appellant absent in the house. The appellant's father, who was available in the house on being asked, could not say their whereabouts. Thereafter, he learnt from some co-villagers of the appellant that the appellant along with some of his family members and the co-accused, Rajendra Mishra have killed the informant's sister and nephew and concealed the dead bodies. It was further alleged that four years before the informant's sister was given her marriage to the present appellant and that the appellant and the co-accused, who happens to be the husband of the sister of the appellant, were demanding dowry and torturing the deceased lady on that ground. It is alleged that during course of investigation the appellant confessed to have killed his wife and child and concealed the dead bodies before the police and gave recovery of the said bodies. On the basis of the FIR the police registered the case under Sections 498-A/ 304-B/ 201/ 34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. On completion of investigation, the police however did not find a case under Sections 498-A/ 304-B of the IPC and instead filed charge-sheet against the appellant and the co-accused under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the IPC for which charges were framed and trial proceeded against the accused persons.

(2.) The defence plea was a complete denial of the complicity of the accused persons. The further plea of the present appellant was that his wife, Kalpana had some education and she was older to the appellant and that the appellant himself was completely illiterate and deaf and therefore she could not pull on well with him and they were in quarrelling terms. The deceased used to leave the house of the accused very often, even during night and that on one such occasion the body of the deceased lady and the child were found in different places and he was in no way connected with their death.

(3.) Altogether, eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges and the defence examined none. On consideration of evidence, the Trial Court found the accused persons not guilty of the charges under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the IPC. But the judgment reveals that the Trial Court being satisfied that offences under Sections 498-A/ 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act were established, added those charges. The order sheet of the date of the judgment, i.e., 18.12.1996 in the Sessions case record however reveals that the Trial Court found both the accused persons including the appellant guilty under Sections 498-A/ 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and thereafter framed charges for those offences and read over and explained the charges to them, who pleaded not guilty and therefore sentenced them.