JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-In this appeal the order of acquittal in favour of the accused Kuntala Mishra, by the judgment dated October 1, 1986 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1984, setting aside the conviction of the said accused under Section 302 I.P.C. by the judgment dated December 17, 1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1984 and consequential sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the accused is under challenge.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Geeta was the daughter-in-law of the accused Kuntala Mishra. The accused was a midwife (Dhai) in the Maternity Hospital at Sambalpur. When negotiation of marriage of the deceased with Subhas, son of the accused, had taken place, a sum of Rs. 8000/- was demanded as dowry by the accused, her brother Satyaprasad. Though the father and brother of Geeta initially did not agree to pay the said sum because of their financial hardship, they, however, agreed to pay the said amount on the date of marriage i.e. on May 24, 1981. The parents, however, could not pay the said sum at the time of marriage and the party accompanying the bridegroom i.e. husband of Geeta on protest did not participate in the dinner hosted on the occasion of marriage and they returned unhappy. For such non payment of the said dowry, Geeta was harassed by the accused and her son and was physically assaulted. The accused did not allow Geeta to come to her parents place despite repeated requests by the parents to sent their daughter. The father of Geeta ultimately borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and came to Sambalpur where Geeta was living in the quarter alloted to the accused close to the Maternity Hospital with her husband and the mother-in-law and paid the sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the accused in the presence of the husband of the deceased Geeta. The accused had accepted sub part payment with reluctance but even then she did not accede to the request of the father of Geeta to send her daughter with him and the father had to go back alone.

3. During the temporary absence of Subhas, the accused on January 11, 1983 took Geeta to the said Maternity Hospital for D and C operation as Geeta was not having conception. After the operation, Geeta was brought to the quarter of the accused at about 11.30 A.M. on the said day. It is the prosecution that while the deceased was still in drowsy condition because of high sedation, she was strangulated to death by the accused with the help of the string of a petticoat of the deceased. The accused, however, pleaded innocence and in her statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. She stated that Geeta had committed suicide with the string of her petticoat (saya). It may be stated here that the accused herself lodged a diary at 3.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence in the Sambalpur Town Police Station that after the said D and C operation, both Geeta and the accused had been taking rest in the quarter of the accused and when the accused woke up from sleep at 2.30 p.m, she noticed that Geeta had committed suicide by self strangulation with the aid of the string of her petticoat.

4. The Officer-in-charge of Sambalpur Town Police Station registered a case and directed police Sub-Inspector (PW 12) to enquire into the said incident of death. Later on, PW 13 Circle Inspector of Police took charge of the investigation and finding that it was a case of murder, an F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. was drawn up (Ext. 27). After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused faced trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In the said Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police who first conducted investigation came to the place of occurrence at 3.55 p.w, and prepared a site plan (Ext. 9) and seized the string of petticoat (M.O.I.) and a silver necklace (M.O.11) lying on the floor near a leg of the cot below the