The court emphasized the need for strict construction of penal provisions and the requirement of extraordinary reasons to award life imprisonment under Section 304B of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Satyawan Sao (A-1) has independently preferred Cr.A.No.44/2017, whereas Jageshwar Sao (A-2), Satyanand Sao (A-3) & Kanti Bai Sao (A-4) have jointly preferred Cr.A.No.369/2016 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment & order dated 19-2-2016 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.215/2014, by which they have been convicted for offences under Sections 304B read with Section 34 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for five months and rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

2. Since both the criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 19-2-2016 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.215/2014 and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of deceased Siddhi was solemnized with accused/appellant Satyawan Sao (A-1) on 7-5-2013 and thereafter, they started living with accused/appellants Jageshwar Sao (A-2) & Kanti Bai Sao (A-4) being father-in-law & mother-in-law of deceased Siddhi, respectively, and also with Satyanand Sao (A-3) being brother of Satyawan Sao (A-1). The accused/appellants started treating the deceased with cruelty for demand of dowry and on that account, on 2-8-2014 at about 10 a.m. at Village Tarda, Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, they are said to have strangulated the deceased and in order to kill her, they poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze.

4. The matter was reported to the police pursuant to which inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-11. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-7 and morgue intimation was registered vide Ex.P-8. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. A.K. Bhagat (PW-10) vide postmortem report Ex.P-17 in which cause of death was stated to be asphyxia due to throttling and death was homicidal in nature. Articles were seized and seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record.

5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused/appellants were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 304B read with Section 34 & 201 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, received the case on transfer for conducting the trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents Exs.P-1 to P-17. The appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence. They have examined none, but exhibited five documents namely, Exs.D-1 to D-5 i.e. the statements of Jitendra Kumar Sao, Naresh Chandra Sahu, Smt. Kheermati, Ghasiya Ram Sao & Panku Sao recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC at their instance in support of their case. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the guilt.

7. The trial Court after considering ocular, oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused/appellants only under Sections 304B read with Section 34 & 201 of the IPC against which these appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

8. Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that at the time of