The court affirmed that dowry death and cruelty must be established with evidence of harassment soon before death, shifting the burden to the accused under Section 113-B Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 13th August, 1991, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. No. 12/55 of 1991, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 4 98-A IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, directing that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Shyamananda Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

Brief Facts of the Case

3. The prosecution asserts that the present matter concerns an alleged incident of dowry death. The deceased, Gedi @ Kaikei, was the daughter of P.W.3 Gayadhar Das of village Orada under Tihidi Police Station and was married to accused Narahari Das of village Senabad, under the same police station, on the 20th day of Falguna, 1990, corresponding to 3rd March, 1990. Accused Pakeli, the mother of Narahari and mother-in-law of the deceased, and accused Ahalya, the wife of Narahari’s elder brother, were inmates of the deceased in the matrimonial home. According to the prosecution, soon after the marriage, the accused persons began subjecting the deceased to persistent harassment and cruelty on the allegation that she had not brought an almirah and a palanka as part of the dowry. It is alleged that such ill-treatment continued unabated, compelling the father, uncle and other relatives of the deceased to visit the matrimonial home on several occasions to pacify the situation and to request the accused persons not to torture her, assuring them that the aforesaid dowry articles would be provided at a later stage. The prosecution further states that on the night preceding the death of the deceased, her relatives again came to take her to her parental home but were persuaded not to do so and returned. On the following morning, they received information about her death, and upon reaching the house of the accused, found her lying dead in the courtyard with burn injuries. P.W.3, being unable to bear the sight, had to be taken away. He lodged the written report (Ext.1) on the next day, whereupon a police case was registered, investigated, and finding a prima facie case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Separately, on the report of D.W.1 (Ext.7), a U.D. case was also registered and an inquest was conducted over the dead body.

4. The defence, on the other hand, has denied all allegations of harassment or cruelty and has asserted that the accused persons are innocent. According to them, the deceased had been suffering from a medical condition locally known as “Akash Mari Bata,” a form of epileptic seizure. They contended that on the night of the occurrence, the deceased had gone outside to answer the call of nature carrying a lantern, and at that moment, she suffered a sudden seizure resulting in her collapse and death by burning, after which the lantern is stated to have fallen upon her body, causing burn injuries. The defence thus maintains that the death was accidental and unco