Evidence of ongoing dowry demand and cruelty established sufficient grounds for conviction under IPC and D.P. Act, leading to the conclusion of an unnatural death within the statutory period.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appeal was originally filed by Sabari Dibya and Braja Kishore Panda (appellant Nos. 1 and 2) respectively. During pendency of the appeal Sabari Dibya having expired, the appeal is confined to appellant No.2, Braja Kishore Panda. Both the appellants had filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. No. 56/32/377 of 1995/94. The appellant No.2 was convicted for the offence under Section 304 -B of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and for one year respectively with both sentences being directed to run concurrently.

3. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the deceased Jayanti Panda had married Braja Kishore Panda during 1990. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded by his family members as dowry of which Rs. 6,000/- was paid with promise to pay the balance within a year, but because of financial stringency it could not be paid. As a result, Braja Kishore Panda and his mother and sister subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty continuously forcing her to take shelter in her father’s house. Her family members sent her back to her marital home with assurance to pay the balance amount. On 22.01.1993, the elder brother of the deceased had gone to her house and found the accused persons physically assaulting her and threatening her of murder unless she brought the balance amount from her parents. Her elder brother promised to pay the amount within a week’s time but he too was abused. On 23.01.1993, at about 8 P.M. the elder brother of the deceased received information that the deceased had been admitted to Banki Government Hospital and when he went there he found her lying dead. He, therefore, lodged an FIR before the Khordha Police Station on 24.01.1993, which led to registration of P.S. Case No. 16 of 1993 under Section 304 B/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforementioned offences.

4. The plea of the accused persons, apart from denial was that the case was foisted against them falsely as the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased had not been returned to her family members after her death.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. Prosecution also proved two material objects. Defence examined one witness from its side.

6. The Trial Court framed the following points of determination:

(i) Did the death of Jayanti, under circumstances other than normal, took place within 7 years of her marriage with accused No. 2 or beyond that statutory period engrafted under Section 304 -B of IPC .?

(ii) Did the accused persons demand dowry as alleged in connection with the marriage between the deceased and accused No.2?

(iii) Did the accused persons torture and harass the deceased to bring the balance dowry money and did it take place soon before her death?

(iv) Did the accused persons abet the commission of suicide by the deceased for whatever reason it may be?

7. The Trial Court first appreciated the evidence on record to hold that the marriage of the deceased took place with Braja Kishore Panda in the month of June 1989 and therefore the death of the deceased having occurred in the ye