Point of Law: Criminal Law - Cruelty and Murder - Conviction modified - Court is led to affirm finding of guilt of accused for commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No.84 of 1998.

The Appellant having faced the Trial for the offence punishable under section 498-A/302/201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘the IPC’) has been convicted for commission of offence under section 498-A of the IPC. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the Appellant had married Annapurna in the year 1981 and it is said that during said marriage, cash, gold ornament, brass and bell metal utensils and other household articles had been given as dowry. It is the further case of the prosecution that six to seven months after the marriage, the accused demanded more dowry and compelled Annapurna to bring one TV from her parents and in order to fulfill that mission, left Annapurna at her father’s place. After some time, Annapurna returned to her matrimonial house when she found that all her gold ornaments etc. had been sold by the accused. It is also stated that Annapurna was tortured thereafter being not provided with food. She then returned to her father’s house being not able to tolerate the situation any more in the house of the accused.

It is next alleged that this accused, without bringing Annapurna back or making any attempt in that regard, accepted another wife and kept her in his house and through her, he begot two children. For that, Annapurna had initiated a proceeding claiming maintenance. After that, accused Dhuleswar brought Annapurna with her son back, which was objected to by the second wife. On 22.1.1993, parents of Annapurna were informed that their daughter had died. So, they rushed to the house of the accused. The explanation with regard to the death as offered by family members was that having taken tea, Annapurna met her death. The dead body, however, by that time had been cremated. Being suspicious of said death of Annapurna, information was lodged at Balipatna Police Stations. Police having received the information, registered Balipatna P.S. Case No.9 of 1993 and took up investigation., On completion of investigation, this accused with five others, which include the family member of the accused were placed for Trial by submission of charge sheet for commission of offence under section 498-A/302/201 read with section 34 IPC.

3. In the Trial, the prosecution has examined in total five witnesses. From the side of the defence, one witness has also been examined. Besides the above, the prosecution has proved the FIR (Ext.1), seizure list (Ext.2) and forwarding letter (Ext.3)

The Trial Court, on examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and upon their evaluation at its level, has held this accused guilty of commission of offence under section 498-Aof the IPC. He has been acquitted of other charges. All other accused person stood acquitted of the charges. Hence, the present Appeal is at the instance of the Appellant.

4. Mr.G.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court in recording the finding of guilt as against this accused for commission of offence under section 498A IPC is perverse. He submits that the Trial Court ought not to have accepted the omnibus nature of evidence in coming to a conclusion that the accused has subjected his wife Annapurna to cruelty. According to him, the evidence to establish the factum of cruelty said to have been meted out at Annapurna are highly discrepant and that aspect being stated by all the witnesses in a general manner without citing any specific instance, attributing the role of the accused therein; the Trial Court erred in accepting the same to fasten the guilt upon the accused for commission of offence under section 498-A of IPC. He, therefore, urges for setting aside the finding of