Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 522 (ORI)

Ramakanta Dash v. State Of Orissa

2019-08-13

D.DASH

body2019
JUDGMENT D.Dash, J. - 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 daughters 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. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against fifteen persons arraigning them as accused. They are present appellant-Ramakanta, the husband of the deceased, father-in-law and mother-in-law and other relations of the deceased from the side of her husband and few villagers for commission of offence under section 498-A/304-B/306/201 of the IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act. The defence case is that of denial of false implication. They are present appellant-Ramakanta, the husband of the deceased, father-in-law and mother-in-law and other relations of the deceased from the side of her husband and few villagers for commission of offence under section 498-A/304-B/306/201 of the IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act. The defence case is that of denial of false implication. In the trial, this accused with his father stood charged for the offence under section 498-A/304-B/306/201 of the IPC and section 4 of the D.P. Act. The mother of the present accused stood charged for the offence under section 498- A/304/306/201 of the IPC. Rest twelve accused persons faced the trial for commission of offence under section 201 of the IPC. In the trial, prosecution, in total, examined 17 witnesses against three from the side of the defence. From the side of the prosecution, the FIR (Ext.3), seizure lists (Ext.1 and 2) and other documents have been admitted in the evidence. The defence has proved the death certificate, the tour diary etc. of this accused. The trial court, on examination of evidence on record and upon their evaluation, while acquitting all the accused persons; has convicted this accused Ramakanta only for commission of offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act. 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. 4. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that this accused along with his father and mother stood charged for commission of offence under section 498- A/304-B/306/201 of the IPC. They have been acquitted of those charges. This accused with his father having stood charged for offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act, the trial court has found the evidence to be insufficient to hold the father of this acused guilty for commission of offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act. However, finding the evidence to the satisfactory for establishment of offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act as against this accused, he has been convicted thereunder and sentenced as aforestated. 5. However, finding the evidence to the satisfactory for establishment of offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act as against this accused, he has been convicted thereunder and sentenced as aforestated. 5. The trial court as at paragraph-17 of the judgment has found the evidence of P.W.7 to 10, P.W.12 and P.W.13 to be positive on the score that this accused Ramakanta demanded a colour TV or cash of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of that at the marriage altar and that this P.W.7 having assured to provide the same or else to pay the money and thereafter the performance of marriage got completed. The evidence of P.W.7 to 10 have been accepted by the trial court in further saying that accused Ramakanta had demanded and on one occasion after the marriage, he did not talk till he was assured by P.W.7 as regards the fulfilment of said demand of dowry. The trial court has held the evidence to be wholly insufficient in so far as the demand said to have been made by the father of this accused. The case of the prosecution has been disbelieved on the score that there was any such demand from the side of the father of this accused whereas it has been believed in so far as the demand made by this accused is concerned. P.W.4 has been examined from the side of the prosecution by stating that he was a member of the bridegroom party. He has clearly stated that there was no demand of any colour TV during the marriage function and it is P.W.7, who volunteered to give one colour TV and then this accused and his father had said that they have already two. He has further stated that P.W.7 had never told near the marriage altar that he would be giving a colour TV. This witness claims to have been present near the marriage altar. Coming to the evidence of P.W.7, the informant, it is seen that he has stated that father of this accused had demanded Rs.30,000/- as dowry in the marriage and that had been paid. On the date of marriage, this accused demanded the colour TV and in the alternative, a sum of Rs.15,000/-. This P.W.7 has stated that this was told to him to by one Laxmikanta Mishra and then he discussed the matter with said Laxmikanta, the father of this accused and Dasarathi. On the date of marriage, this accused demanded the colour TV and in the alternative, a sum of Rs.15,000/-. This P.W.7 has stated that this was told to him to by one Laxmikanta Mishra and then he discussed the matter with said Laxmikanta, the father of this accused and Dasarathi. When the father of this accused insisted, this P.W.7 ultimately agreed. The FIR narration, however, stands to the effect that from the side of this accused said demand had been advanced. P.W.7 says that accused Gopal had also insisted for the demand which has been disbelieved by the trial court. P.W.8 has stated that at the time of Hastaganthi, this accused Ramakanta and his father demanded a colour TV or in the alternative, cash of Rs.15,000/-. This is completely different from the evidence of P.W.7. His evidence is that he had not heard all the talks going on between the parties in this marriage ceremony, but has heard these matters. According to him, first this accused Ramakanta demanded the TV and then one Bula Mishra called for P.W.7 and Dasarathi. It is his evidence that when P.W.,7 arrived he told that he would meet it later. P.W.9 has stated that when Hastaganthi was about to be performed, this accused Ramakanta demanded a colour TV and then all sat for discussion and finally, P.W.7, the husband of this P.W.9 agreed to provide a colour TV. Therefore, P.W.7 says that P.W.9 had never gone near the marriage altar. He has also not stated as to the demand of accused Ramakanta in his earlier statement in course of investigation which has been proved. The evidence of P.W.11 is that accused Ramakanta demanded a colour TV when the marriage function was going on. He has further stated that father of this accused told that he cannot do anything as because it is a demand from the side of his son. It is the evidence of P.W.17 that this accused had demanded that colour TV on the marriage altar. None of these witnesses are saying that P.W.7 agreed to give the same within what period. The other incident cited is that during the first return of the daughter of P.W.7 and this accused, i.e, Jwain Dakara, this accused went before the date fixed and first did not take food and only after assurance of P.W.7 to meet the demand, everything got set. The other incident cited is that during the first return of the daughter of P.W.7 and this accused, i.e, Jwain Dakara, this accused went before the date fixed and first did not take food and only after assurance of P.W.7 to meet the demand, everything got set. This from the beginning appears to be unappealing to normal human conduct that this accused, instead of refusing, the investigation would go and ventilate the demand in the manner as suggested. For all the aforesaid, in my considered view, the evidence on the score of demand of dowry in the shape of colour TV or in lieu of it, a sum of Rs.15,000/- does not inspire confidence to record the finding that the prosecution has established its case against this accused Ramakanta for commission of offence under section 4 of D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt. 6. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The conviction and order of sentence are set aside. The bail bonds executed by the appellant (accused person) shall stand discharged. The LCR be returned back immediately.