The court affirmed that testimony from relatives regarding dowry demands can establish groundwork for cruelty; sentencing of the elderly defendant was mitigated under the Probation of Offenders Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 1/1996 [S.C. 421/95 (GDC)], whereby both the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 304 (B)/498-A of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in lieu of the said conviction, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC and each of them have also been sentenced to R.I. for two years for the offence under 98-A of IPC and one year for the offence under of the D.P. Act.

2. The appellant no.1 is the husband of the deceased, whereas appellant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. During pendency of the present appeal, on 08.12.2004, the appellant no.1 has died. Therefore, the present appeal qua him stood abated. There is no application moved by anyone under Section 394 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present appeal is only confined to appellant no.2.

3. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant no.2 and Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case tersely stated is that accused Niranjan (appellant no.1) is the son of Srimati (appellant no.2). The marriage between Niranjan and Mini Behera (deceased) was solemnized on 09.02.1995 in the temple of Lord Jagannath at Aga Sahi, Berhampur. After the marriage, the deceased went to the house of the accused persons and started living there as wife of Niranjan Behera. On 28.06.1995 around 10.30 A.M. the deceased while staying in the house of the accused persons received serious burn injuries and shortly thereafter succumbed to such injuries. It is alleged that prior to the finalization of the marriage the accused persons had demanded cash of Rs.25,000/-, a gold ring for the bride-groom and three tolas gold ornaments in addition to the other customary household articles as dowry. The father of the deceased had given cash of Rs.25,000/- and gold ornaments weighing one tola and he had not been able to give the balance two tolas of gold ornaments due to financial hardship. The deceased after going to the house of the accused persons was subjected to cruelty and harassment for not bringing the balance two tolas of gold ornaments as agreed upon earlier. Thereafter, the deceased was subjected to more and more cruelty and harassment in the house of her in-laws and ultimately she was forced to end her life on 28.06.1995 at 10.30 A.M.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the police investigated the allegations of the F.I.R. and filed the charge sheet against the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/304 (B)/34 I.P.C read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Both the appellants stood charged for the offences, as mentioned above and on their stance of denial, they were put to trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas the defence took a stand of complete denial of any demand of dowry or cruelty and claimed trial.

7. P.W.1, was the A.S.I. of Police attached to Bada Bazar P.S., who first enquired into the matter in a U.D. case and lodged the F.I.R., P.W.2 was the cousin of the deceased, who claims to be a witness to demand of dowry by the accused persons and payment of the same by the parents of the deceased, P.Ws.3 and 6 are the father and mother respectively of the de