For a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, credible evidence of cruelty or unlawful demand must be established, otherwise the charge is unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9^th May, 1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.128 of 1996 wherein the learned court holding the prosecution to have failed to prove the charges against the Appellants in the offences U/s. 304-B/201/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, found to have proved the offence U/s. 498-A beyond reasonable doubt and held the Appellants guilty therein, convicted them and sentenced the Appellants to undergo RI for two years with a direction to serve the sentence after the pre conviction detention is set off under Section 4 28 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case as reveals from the case record and evidence are that the Appellants Janardan Sahu tied the nuptial knot with Kajali (hereinafter called the deceased) on 10^th May 1992 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage articles were given to the bride as per the rituals and after the marriage the couple consummated the marriage in the matrimonial home in village Pandri under Sasan P.S. in the district of Sambalpur. It is also alleged that after the marriage the bride and the bridegroom paid visit to the parental house of the bride on many occasions. During her visit the bride used to complain to her parents about the demand of a scooter by the in laws and for its non-fulfillment she was subjected to ill treatment. About three years after the marriage one day sometime in the month of July, 1995 it is informed to the parents of the bride about her ill health. Having heard such information the father and brother of the deceased went to the hospital but they did not find her and returned to the matrimonial home where they found their daughter lying dead. It is also alleged that the dead body instead of being cremated was buried. Subsequently, on the next day the father of the deceased lodged a report with the Police in Sasan Police Station. As the report revealed cognizable offence, the Police treated the same as FIR and registered it vide Sasan P.S. Case No.46 of 1995 and the investigation commenced.

3. In course of investigation, the police exhumed the dead body in presence of the Executive Magistrate and witnesses which was buried, inquest was held over the dead body and the same was sent for post mortem. The I.O examined the witnesses, seized the dowry articles, left the dowry articles on the zimma of the parental side of the bride, seized other incriminating articles, obtained the post mortem report, arrested the accused persons and forwarded them to the court., obtained the chemical examination report of the viscera sent to ascertain the nature of poison consumed by the deceased and after completion of the investigation submitted the Final Form.

4. The case of the Appellants before the learned court below was one of complete denial and false implication.

5. Upon denial of the prosecution case the learned court framed the charges and proceeded with the trial.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all and proved the documents taken to the evidence on record vide Exts. 1 to 15 besides the material objects proved vide MOs. (i), (ii) and (iii). The Appellants in support of the defence examined two witnesses as DWs 1 and 2.

7. The learned court below having assessed the evidence found the prosecution to have failed to bring home the charges for the offence under Sections 304 -B/201 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. However, found the prosecution to have successfully proved the sole charge under Section 4 98 -A and ha