JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.21/49 of 1991 by the learned Addi¬tional Sessions Judge, Balasore convicting the three appellants under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A IPC only, is challenged in this appeal.

2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts necessary for appreciating the case are as follows :

An FIR was filed by P.W.1 on 31.5.1990 at Simulia Police Station alleging that his daughter Gayatyri alias Mami who had been given in marriage to appellant No.1 on 12.3.1990 expired on 28th May, 1990 and that he suspected that the death of his daugh¬ter was dowry torture. It was alleged in the FIR that at the time of marriage, as per the demand of the bridegroom party, a cash of Rs.8,000.00 was given to them towards marriage expenses along with other articles like a T.V., ornaments, etc. It was further alleged that deceased Gayatri was put to torture soon after the marriage on demand of further dowry such as a cash of Rs. 20,000.00 towards study expenses of appellant no.1 Benumadhab, a Rajdoot motor-cycle, a land at Balasore Town with a house stand¬ing thereon and also five acres of cultivable land. The father and mother of the deceased bride, namely, P.Ws.1 and 4, though agreed to fulfil the aforesaid demand, they sought for some time. But in spite of such promise, the bride was subjected to untold torture and ultimately she was done to death on 28th May, 1990.

3. The three appellants, being the bridegroom, his mother and father respectively, were arrested and they faced trial in S.T. No.21/49 of 1990 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/34 IPC along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. To substantiate their case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, including a doctor and the investigat¬ing officers. The FIR, seizure-lists, post-mortem reports were marked as Exts.‘ to 20. Some bottles and torn saree seized from the house of the accused-appellants were marked as M.Os. I to III. Out of the witnesses examined by prosecuting, P.W.1 was the informant who was the father of the deceased, P.W.2 was a doctor, P.W.3 was a Constable who had accompanied the dead body, P.W.4 was the mother of the deceased, P.W.5 was an independent witness and a co-villager, P.W.6 was another co-villager, P.W.7 was an advocate who was consulted by P.W.1, P.W.8 was the Headmaster of a school who proved the age of the deceased, P.W.9 was the inves¬tigating officer, P.W.11 was another investigating officer and P.W.12 was the Dy.S.P. who supervised the investigation.

5. The plea of defence was a clear denial. In their state¬ments recorded under Section 313 CrPC the accused persons also took the plea that the father of the deceased had married P.W.4, a scheduled caste lady. This fact was kept secret and after marriage of the deceased when this fact came to light, out of shame the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to her person after sprinkling kerosene. To substantiate such plea and to prove that there was absolutely no demand for dowry, defence examined seven witnesses and exhibited several letters besides the dying declaration of the deceased before the doctor.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after a thread-bare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the categorical finding that Gayatri, as admitted by her in her dying-declaration, committed suicide due to the negligence shown to her by her parents and expressed his inability to hold the accused persons guilty under Section 304-B/34 IPC. For the same reason also he did not find the accused persons guilty under Section 306 IPC. But then on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5. 6, and 8 as well as the letter Ext.4, the Court below held that the accused persons one and all demanded dowry and had acce