A lack of corroborated evidence can undermine a dowry-related conviction under IPC Section 304-B.

1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated 24-1-2001 delivered by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1999 whereby he convicted all the three accused for having committed offence punishable under S.304 - B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC' ) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Admitted facts are that deceased - Lalitabai was married to of accused - Krishna. The allegations against the accused are that they used to ill - treat the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry and due to the cruelty and harassment meted out to her, she died an unnatural death by hanging on 29-10-1998 at about 5:00 p.m., i.e., within seven years of her marriage and thus the accused had committed an offence punishable under S.304 - B, IPC. The learned trial Court has convicted all the three accused. Hence, this appeal.

3. It is not disputed that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. The main issues relevant for disposal of this appeal are, whether there was any demand of dowry and whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and tortured due to non - bringing of dowry and lastly, whether the deceased died an unnatural death. In this case, the deceased died on 29-10-1998, but the report (Exhibit P / 9) was lodged with the police after six months on 29-03-1999.

4. PW - 1, Shaukilal is the father of the deceased. He states that the deceased was married seven months prior to her death. He also states that accused - Punitram, father of accused - Krishna had made a demand for 1/2 tola gold, one TV and bed etc. at the time of marriage. When this demand was made, Alag Ram, Natthu, Sonsai, Sagun, Awadhram and Ramadhar were present. He further states that since his father was unwell he could not provide the aforesaid articles but gave other items in the dowry. He also states that he had told accused - Punitram that he works in a Company in Delhi and after he gets some mony, he may give the remaining dowry items. He also states that whenever his daughter used to come to her parental home, she used to tell that her mother - in - law, father - in - law, husband and other family members were troubling her for not bringing sufficient dowry. He states that after leaving his daughter at her in - laws house, he went to Delhi two - three days later. His mother sent (sic) laws. He then came back from Delhi to his village Kapisda. Then he states what was narrated by his mother Ramabai and that part of statement was hearsay and not admissible in evidence. In cross - examination, he states that his statement was recorded by the police two - three months after the date of occurrence. At the time of Faldan (engagement ceremony), talk about dowry had taken place. Some talk had also taken place at the time of wedding. He admits that the marriage of accused - Punitram' s daughter also took place one day prior to marriage of his daughter. He also admits that accused - Punitram was not alone at the time of Faldan (engagement ceremony) and there were 10-12 more persons of his village in addition to ladies and children. The engagement ceremony took place in his village Kapisda. When a specific question was put to this witness, whether talk about dowry took place at the time of wedding, he replied that this talk took place at the time of Faldan. He further stated that after the marriage, his daughter came to her parental house on three occasions. He stated that first time. she stayed for 10-15 days and on the next two occasions, she stayed for 15 days each. For the first two times, his daughter did not complain about any ill - treatment, but when she came third time, she told that her - i