Persistent dowry demands and cruel treatment resulted in the presumption of guilt for murder; circumstantial evidence and statutory presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applied.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No.24 of 1999 and S.C. No.30 of 1999, whereby the present Appellants i.e. Appellant No.1-Panu Swain, Appellant No.2-Sarojini Swain, and Appellant No.3- Rankanidhi @ Santosh Kumar Swain were convicted for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further convicted under Section 304-B/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; under Section 4 98-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted under Section 201 /34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, with all sentences directed to run concurrently.

It is noted that the co-accused Bijay Swain had preferred a separate appeal in CRA No.207 of 2001; however, the said appeal stood abated, due to his death, by order dated 25.07.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased-Pratima Swain (hereinafter “the Deceased”), had been married to Appellant No.3-Rankanidhi @ Santosh Kumar Swain for a short period prior to the incident, during which her matrimonial life was allegedly marred by persistent demands for additional dowry and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. It is alleged that despite substantial dowry having been given at the time of marriage, the accused persons continued to press for further payments and subjected the deceased to harassment and assault. On 12.10.1997, the parents of the Deceased received information through relatives that the Deceased had been killed in her matrimonial home during the previous night and that her body had already been cremated without any intimation to her family. Upon rushing to the village, her family members learnt that the Appellants were claiming that the Deceased had died after falling into a well situated in their backyard. The Informant, P.W.12, disbelieving this explanation and suspecting foul play, lodged a written report vide Ext.6 on 14.10.1997 at the Bhanjanagar P.S., on the basis of which the FIR No. 215 of 1997 was registered vide Ext.6/4.

3. In course of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14) visited the cremation site, seized half-burnt bones, ashes, and charcoal, and thereafter proceeded to the house of Appellant No.1-Panu Swain, where suspected blood-stained articles, broken bangles, and other incriminating materials were recovered. The bedrooms were examined with the assistance of the forensic team, which collected suspected blood scrapings, a blood-stained saree, a pillow cover, and other articles for chemical analysis. Dowry articles produced by witnesses were seized under zimanamas, and blood as well as nail samples of the Appellants were collected and forwarded for forensic examination. Several witnesses from the village and the family of the deceased were examined; the Appellants were arrested at different stages; site maps of both the cremation ground and the house were prepared; and the seized articles, photographs, and forensic reports were placed on record. Upon completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the Appellants to face trial.

4. The plea of the defence is that there was no demand for dowry at any point