Conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC requires credible evidence including independent witnesses; mere death under suspicious circumstances is insufficient for conviction.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in S.T. Case No. 106/5 of 2010-11 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Rourkela. Vide the said Judgment while convicting the Appellant guilty of the offences under Sec. 498-A, 304-B of the I.P.C., the Appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years under Sec. 304-B I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- under Sec. 498-A of the I.P.C. and in default to undergo further R.I. for a period of two months and R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for one month under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also contended that all the sentences are to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the prosecution case was set into motion basing on the F.I.R. lodged by one Ranjit Suna-P.W. 6 in Sector-7 P.S. Case No. 34/2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 615/2010 in the file of learned SDJM, Panposh. After commitment of the matter, the present Appellant along with three (3) other accused persons stood charged under Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 306/34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act.

2.1. It is contended the prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 nos. of witnesses, which includes P.W. 6 the informant, P.W. 10 father of the victim, P.W. 13 the I.O. and P.W. 12, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem. It is contended that the prosecution in order to establish the case never examined any independent witnesses with regard to the allegation made regarding demand of dowry resulting the death of the deceased, who happens to the wife of the present Appellant.

2.2. It is contended that the marriage in between the Appellant and the deceased took place in the year 2005. Though initially basing on the F.I.R. lodged in the year 2006, a case was initiated against the present Appellant for the offence under Sec. 498-A, 326, 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act, but the same was quashed by this Court vide order dtd.11.04.2007 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 406/2007.

2.3. It is contended that thereafter alleging commission of offence under Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 of I.P.C. read with Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act, the F.I.R. was lodged resulting initiation of Sector-7 P.S. Case No. 34/2010. But after completion of investigation charge- sheet was submitted for the offences under Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 306/34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act. The present Appellant along with three (3) others after being charged for the offence under Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 306/34 I.P.C. and Sec. 4 of the D.P. Act faced the trial.

2.4. It is contended that the trial court when did not find any incriminating material against three of the accused persons, all of them were acquitted vide the impugned judgment dtd.22.08.2012. But the present Appellant was convicted for the offences under Sec. 498-A & 304-B of the I.P.C.. The present Appellant however was acquitted of the offence under Sec. 306 of the I.P.C..

2.5. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that since in order to prove the offence under Sec. 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. the prosecution never examined any independent witnesses and the statement of P.W. 6, 8 & 10 being contrary to each other, basing on the statement of such P.Ws. Appellant could not have been held guilty for the offence under Sec. 304-B/498-A of the I.P.C..

2.6. It is also contended that in view of the testimony of P.W. 12 who happens to be the doctor and conducted the post mortem, the Appellant could not have been