JUDGMENT

Conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. (wrongly mentioned as 302/34, I.P.C.) and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed against the appellant is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.

2. According to the case of the prosecution on 16.11.1999 morning deceased Rita was found dead in her matrimonial house. Accused appellant is her husband and the two acquitted accused persons viz. Nanka Biswal and Pari Biswal are her parents-in-law. Her marriage with appellant took place in the year 1998 and the death occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage with the appellant. Udayanath Nahak is father of the deceased. While he was in his agricultural field, he got information about the death of the deceased and after reaching the house of the accused persons he found his daughter lying dead in the third room of the house and there was ligature mark around the neck. Accordingly, he lodged the F.I.R., Ext.7/1. The Officer In-charge, Kodala P.S. received the F.I.R. and arrived at the spot for investigation. On his requisition, P.W.11, the then Tahasil¬dar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kodala also arrived at the spot to be a witness to the inquest. In course of the spot visit, P.W.10 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized the rope, M.O.I. from the Attu of that room, examined the witnesses and forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination. At the time of inquest not only P.W.10 but also the witnesses to the inquest doubted it to be a case of homicidal death. On 16.11.1999 itself, P.W. 10 arrested parents-in-law of the deceased and on 19.11.1999, he arrested the appellant. The Asst. Professor, F.M.T. Department of M.K.C.G. Medical College, P.W.1 conducted the postmortem examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his parents for various offences i.e. under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/406, (for misappropriation of ornaments of the deceased and for Dowry Acts)/34, I.P.C. besides for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused persons denied to the charge and claimed for trial as against the charge framed for the aforesaid offences by the trial Court.

4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on documents marked Exts.1 to 12, besides a document marked for identification as ‘X’ and the negative and positive photographs of the deceased marked ‘Y’ for identifica¬tion. Prosecution tendered in evidence some material objects such as, the rope, M.O.I. and the wearing apparels of the deceased M.Os. II to V. Accused persons did not adduce any defence evi¬dence.

5. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.5 is father of the deceased and P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the wit¬nesses to ill-treatment, cruelty and demand of dowry and finding the body of the deceased in dead condition in the occurrence house. P.W.9 is the scribe of the F.I.R., Ext.7/1. P.W.11 is the Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, who participated in the inquest. P.W.2 is the Constable, who identified the dead body before the doctor, P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4 are two witnesses to the different seizure lists prepared in course of the investigation, P.W.8 is the Photographer and P.W. 10 is the Investigating Offi¬cer. Amongst the documents, Ext.9/3 is the inquest report and Ext.1 is the postmortem report, besides Ext.7/1 the F.I.R. The documents marked ‘X’ for identification was said to be the state¬ment of accused Nanka Biswal, stating therein about absence of himself and his wife in the house at the relevant time and presence of appellant with the deceased in the house.

6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that except P.Ws.1, 2, and 8 to 11, rest of the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution and that includes P.W. 5, father of the deceased. Under such circumstance, in the absence of any evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 406 read with Section 34,