The court established the necessity of circumstantial evidence in dowry death cases, affirming convictions for dowry-related offenses but reversing a murder conviction due to insufficient direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 20.11.2018, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No. 53 of 2014 (arising out of G.R. Case No.1481/2013 corresponding to Rasagobindpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2013) convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /201 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- i.d. to undergo further R.I. for six months for under Section 302 I.P.C. and further to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- only and i.d. to undergo R.I. for three months for under Section 201 of the I.P.C.

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of the prosecution is that Ramani Mohanta (“the deceased”) married Jagdish Mohanta (“Accused No. 1”) as per custom and rites of their community in 2009. After six months of the marriage, Jagdish and his in-laws (“accused persons”) started to physically and mentally abuse her to get her to bring more valuable belongings as dowry. On the night of 16.09.2013, Jagdish and his family members killed Ramani and jettisoned her dead body in the pond of one Pradhan Babu.

3. Shyamsundar Mohanta, who happened to be the mediator of their pre-nuptial arrangement, heard the quarrel in the house of the accused persons. Next morning, Shyamsundar approached Jagdish and his family and asked them about the wellbeing and whereabouts of Ramani. However, Jagdish and his mother informed that Ramani had gone somewhere. Later, Shyamasundar apprised Umesh Mohanta, father of Ramani, of the situation. They proceeded to the village of Jagdish and found the dead body of his daughter floating in the aforementioned pond.

4. Thereafter, Umesh Mohanta (“the informant”) reported the matter to Rasagobindpur P.S. and tendered a written report. The complaint was registered by Amit Kumar Biswal, IIC Rasagobindpur, and the investigation began.

5. During the investigation, the police examined the complainant, other witnesses, visited the spot, and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination after holding inquest over the dead body. They also seized the wearing apparel of the deceased after post mortem examination. The apparel, nail clippings and sample of blood of the accused persons were also sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against Jadgish Mohanta and his parents, namely, Banshidhar Mohanta and Smt. Sulochana Mohanta under Section 4 98A/304B/302/201/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. The appellant and the other accused persons took the plea of complete denial and pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.

7. The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses and led evidence with several documents and material objects. The Defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness.

II. TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT

8. The Court noted that even though the prosecution claims that the nature of death suffered by the deceased, Ramani Mohanta, is homicidal; there are no ocular witnesses to the purported act and the case of the prosecution solely hinges on circumstantial evidence.

9. The trial Court began the analysis of the case by with the examination of the testimonials of the P.Ws.

10. Umesh Mohanta, (“Informant and P.W.11”) stated that the marriage of his deceased