The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence to establish dowry death under Section 304-B IPC resulted in acquittal, upheld convictions for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and dowry demand under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.1995 passed by the learned 2nd - Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.206/35 of 1994. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under U/s.4 of the D.P. Act, U/s.498-A & U/s.304-B of the I.P.C. (herein after IPC for brevity) and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence U/s.4 of D.P. Act, further R.I. of two years and ten years respectively for offence U/s 498-A and 304-B of IPC. However, the court below directed the sentences to run concurrently.

During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant no.2 Ragunath Swain expired. Therefore, vide order dated 10.03.2023, the appeal qua the appellant no.2 stood abated in absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by his LRs or next friend. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to the appellant nos.1 and 3.

2. Heard Mr. Pratik Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Accused Raghunath Swain and Kanchan Swain are the father and mother, respectively, of accused persons Pabitra Mohan Swain, Mamata Swain (also known as Mami), and Manorama Swain (also known as Rama). On 9th July 1991, the marriage of accused Pabitra Mohan Swain was solemnized with the deceased, Kuni, who was the daughter of P.W.2.

During the marriage negotiation, accused Raghunath Swain demanded several articles as dowry, including a T.V. set, wristwatch, wall clock, fan, gold jewellery, bell-metal utensils, wooden furniture, and a cash amount of Rs. 20,000/-. P.W.2 managed to pay Rs. 9,000/- in two instalments along with the articles demanded but was unable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 11,000/- due to financial constraints.

After the marriage, Kuni was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons in connection with the demand for the remaining amount. On 22nd November 1993, Kuni died in her matrimonial home due to manual strangulation, which was homicidal in nature.

On the same day at about 5:30 P.M., P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report (Ext.1) at Athagarh Police Station, setting the criminal law into motion. Subsequently, the police conducted the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons. Upon denial of the charges, the accused faced trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined six witnesses. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and the informant of the case. P.W.2 is another brother of the deceased. P.W.3, is the father of the deceased. P.W.4, Ramakanta Tripathy, was the priest, who solemnized the marriage ceremony of the deceased with accused Pabitra Mohan Swain. P.W.5 was the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station and the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.6 was the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The defence examined none.

JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

5. The learned Trial Court, after taking into account the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence and upon a detailed analysis of the materials available on record, arrived at the following findings:

“18. The D.W.1 has stated that on the request of accused Pabitra Mohan he brought his (Pabitra's) dec