The prosecution must provide clear and convincing evidence establishing the direct connection between the accused's conduct and the victim's suicide; mere allegations of cruelty or abuse without solid proof do not constitute abetment.

Judgment :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

The appellant no.1 Prahallad Behera is the husband, appellant no.2 Gobinda Behera is the elder brother in-law (husband’s elder brother), appellant no.3 Draupadi Behera is the mother-in-law, appellant no.4 Parameswar Behera is the uncle-in-law and appellant no.5 Kati @ Bharati Behera is the aunt-in- law of Laxmipriya Behera (hereafter ‘the deceased’) respectively. All the appellants faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Baripada in S.T. Case No.50/214 of 2002 for offences punishable under sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that appellant no.1 being the husband and other appellants being the relatives of her husband, subjected her to cruelty by willful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide by demanding more dowry and that the cause of death of the deceased was on account of burn injuries within seven years of marriage and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by them in connection with demand for dowry in furtherance of their common intention.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 14^th May 2003 held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, however, it found all the appellants guilty under sections 498-A/306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months each for the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months each for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report presented by Markand Behera (P.W.3), the father of the deceased Laxmipriya Behera before Inspector-in-charge, Baripada Town police station on 22.04.2000 is that the deceased was his third daughter and she had married to the appellant no.1 on 13.10.1999 in Khirachora Gopinath Temple, Remuna. There was a demand of Rs.70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand) towards dowry from the side of the bridegroom and the appellant no.4 was the mediator in the marriage. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that on account of non- fulfillment of some dowry articles, particularly, gold ornaments, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the appellants. It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that on 21.04.2000 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased informed her father (P.W.3) that her life was in danger and requested her father to take her back. Immediately, P.W.3 and his nephew Nakula Chandra Behera (P.W.7) came to the in-laws’ house of the deceased and there, they found that the deceased had been assaulted and her bangles being broken and there was no vermilion on her forehead. When they asked the deceased about her condition, she told that since the further demand of dowry could not be fulfilled, she had been assaulted by the appellants. Looking at the condition of the deceased, when P.W.3 and P.W.7 wanted to take the deceased with them, the appellant no.2 and appellant no.4 assured them that they would leave the d