The court emphasized the mandatory duty to consider probation under the Probation of Offenders Act when conditions are met, which may lead to alternative sentencing over incarceration.

JUDGMENT :

Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellants under Sections 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order dated 06.08.1999 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Session Trial Case No. 3/134 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants U/s.498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 & Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years U/s.498A/34 and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years U/s.4 of the D.P. Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused Kali Charan Mishra married the deceased Manorama on 02.03.1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded Rs.12,000 along with gold ornaments and other articles, but the deceased’s father, P.W.13, could only provide Rs.10,000. Thereafter, the deceased was subjected to constant harassment and physical assault by the accused for the balance amount of Rs.2,000. During her second pregnancy, the demand was reiterated under the pretext of starting a grocery shop. The deceased also sent a letter (Ext.5) to her brother, P.W.11, alleging torture, denial of food, and a threat to her life if the amount was not paid. On 22.11.1997, her family received information about her delivery and serious illness, but upon reaching, they found that she had already been cremated. It was alleged that she died under suspicious circumstances due to ill-treatment and persistent dowry demands. With that, the accused persons were put to trial under Sections 4 98-A /304-B/201/34 I.P.C. and U/s.4 of the D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined 15 witnesses. The accused persons, in their defence, have completely denied the allegations of dowry demand and the consequent torture and ill- treatment of the deceased Manorama. However, the fact of marriage between the deceased Manorama and the accused Kali Charan Mishra in the year 1994 stands admitted.

4. The learned trial Court analysed the oral evidence and documents on record, and have held as under:

“8. Now it is to be seen how far the prosecution has been able to prove Section-498-A, I.P.C. and u/s. 4 of the D. P. Act. In this regard, the evidence of P. W.11, Umesh Chandra Dash who is the brother of the deceased, P. W. 12, Dillip Kumar Dash, an independent witness and P.W. 13; Kamadeb Dash, the father of the deceased are very important coupled with the letter written by the deceased, Ext. 5. On perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses, it is found that at the time of marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs. 12,000/- in cash, three Bharis of gold and other articles, but P.W. 13, Kamadeb Dash could give Rs.10,000/-, gold ornaments and promised to pay the rest of the demand of Rs. 2000/- later on. There is ample evidence on record that soon after the marriage, the accused persons started demanding the rest amount of Rs. 2000/- and due to non-giving of the same started torturing, ill-treating and assaulting the deceased Manorma which she narrated before her father several times whenever she was going to her house, The evidence of P.W.13 goes to show that on 28.1.96 his son-in-law (accused Kali Charan Mishra) went to their house and wanted to take his daughter back and assaulted her in his presence as she did not return back. The independent witness, P. W.12, Dillip Kumar Das has also stated about demand of dowry and also heard about torture of the deceased from P.W. 13, So far as Ext. 5, the letter written by the deceased is concerned, it is vital piece of evidence since it is not only stated by the father of the decease