Sukanti Moharana vs State Of Orissa

3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it is necessary to set out brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal:

4. The Prosecution case is that at the time of Nirbandha of Benudhar and deceased Anjali, the appellant and Benudhar demanded dowry, a television, cash amounting to Rs. 8,000/- and gold ring etc. In response to the aforesaid demand made, PW-1 gave dowry of cash amounting to Rs. 8,000/-, a portable black and white T.V. and some gold ornaments at the time of marriage.

5. It is alleged that Benudhar and appellant demanded a bigger T.V. and subjected the deceased Anjali to torture in that connection after the marriage. It is also alleged by the prosecution that there was illicit relationship between the appellant and Benudhar. The deceased used to complain regarding torture and cruelty meted out towards her by both Benudhar and appellant as well as their illicit relationship before her parents and other relatives.

6. The deceased Anjali had also written a letter to PW-2 which was exhibited as Ext.2. disclosing her ordeal in the matrimonial home. On 08.02.2000, the parents of the deceased were informed that the deceased with burn injuries was admitted to Head Quarters Hospital, Dhenkanal. On receipt of the aforesaid information, the parents alongwith the brother of the deceased went there and found that the deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries. Deceased was thereafter shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital on the same day for treatment. On 09.02.2000, it is alleged that the deceased regained her senses and disclosed before PW-1 and other relatives that the appellant has poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick upon which the informant (PW-1) lodged a first information report (for short `the FIR) (Ext. 1) before the O.I.C., Sadar Police Station, Dhenkanal, who registered the case for commission of 3 offences under Sections 498A/307/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the appellant and Benudhar.

7. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the case was registered. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-

9. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant as also Benudhar filed an appeal in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack which was partly allowed by the High Court. The High Court while allowing the said appeal in part, set 5 aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304-B and Section 498A of IPC as well as under Section 4 of the D. P. Act, but conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC was maintained.

10. So far as Benudhar is concerned his conviction and sentence under Section 304B and 498A of IPC as well as Section 4 of the D. P. Act was set aside and he was acquitted. Consequently, the present appeal was filed by the present appellant on which initially a notice was issued.

15. The marriage between the deceased Anjali and Benudhar was solemnized on 15.07.1999 and Anjali received the burn injuries on 08.02.2000. Parents of the deceased were informed of the incident on the same day i.e. 08.02.2000 whereupon they immediately went to the hospital and found that the deceased was admitted to Head Quarters Hospital, Dhenkanal with extensive burn injuries. As the injuries were very extensive 7 and grievous in nature therefore she was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital on the same day for treatment. PW-1, the informant and father of the deceased and PW-3, the mother of the deceased stated that on 09.02.2000 the deceased regained her senses and then made a statement before PW-1 and others that appellant Sukanti poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. The Investigation Officer (PW-12) also sent a message to Mangalabag Police Station, Cuttack for recording dying declaration of the deceased whereupon her dying declaration was recorded by a Lecturer of the Surgery Department of the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 10.02.2000 in presence of other doctors.

34. Therefore, taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we find no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The present appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed which we hereby do. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant is therefore upheld.