The prosecution must prove the demand for dowry beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.1997 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No.18 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused-appellant of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304(B)/302/34 of I.P.C., convicted him for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and on that count, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 1997. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Ragada.

3. Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the deceased, Pratima alias Menaka, daughter of the informant, namely Nrusingha Charan Ojha (P.W.5), was married to Adhikari, son of Damodar Moharana. At the time of marriage, the informant allegedly gave a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards the demand of dowry, besides wooden furniture, gold and silver ornaments, a wrist watch, one Philips radio, a table fan, bell-metal utensils and other customary articles. It is further alleged that after about two months of the marriage, when the informant visited the house of the accused persons to bring the deceased to her parental home, she was not permitted to accompany him unless one television (TV) set was provided as additional dowry, compelling the informant to return empty-handed. After about fifteen days, the younger brother-in-law of the deceased brought her to the informant’s house, where the deceased disclosed that she had been subjected to torture by the accused persons on account of dowry demand. After staying at her parental house for about eight to ten days, the deceased again returned to the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the informant once again brought her back, and after about fifteen to twenty days, one Indramani, another younger brother- in-law of the deceased, took her back to the house of the accused persons. About fifteen days thereafter, the informant sent certain customary articles to the house of the accused persons through his son, Niranjan. However, it is alleged that Minu, the sister-in-law of the deceased, threw away those articles, expressing dissatisfaction over non-fulfilment of the demand for dowry. Owing to such conduct, the informant and his family members allegedly stopped visiting the house of the accused persons. On 08.05.1996 at about 3.00 P.M., the informant received information that the deceased had been admitted to Athgarh Hospital with burn injuries. Immediately thereafter, he rushed to the hospital and found the deceased lying dead. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the accused persons had allegedly caused the death of the deceased by setting her on fire, whereupon he lodged the report before the police. On the stance of complete denial and claim for trial, the appellant was put to trial after the framing of charges.

5. The prosecu