Satyabati Mishra & Others vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 8721 Ori

Orissa High Court

Satyabati Mishra & Others vs State Of Orissa on 25 September, 2025

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRA No.147 of 1998

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

Satyabati Mishra & others      .......                   Appellants
                                -Versus-
State of Orissa                .......                   Respondent

For the Appellants : Mrs. Shuvra Mohapatra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 24.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 25.09.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants

under Section 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment

and order dated 24.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Rayagada in Sessions Case No.9 of 1997, whereby the learned

trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants for the offences

punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for eight years each for the offence under Section

304-B/34 of the IPC. No separate sentence is called for in respect of the

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

2. Heard Mrs. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing

Counsel appearing for the State.

3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the deceased was the

daughter of Haribandhu Mishra of Gunupur married to accused

Laxmikanta Misra on 23.05.1993. The marriage was held in the

residence of Haribandhu Misra at Gunupur and prior to that, there was a

negotiation for the marriage between two parties. During the marriage,

as per the terms of pre-engagement, utensils, gold ornaments, cash and

other articles were given by the parents of the deceased to Laxmikanta

Misra. She came to the house of her husband situated at Rayagada and

lived there in the company of other accused persons in the same house.

Krushna Prasad Mishra was the brother of the deceased and he suddenly

got the information of death of his sister (the deceased) on 24.09.1995 at

about 5 P.M. He along with his family members arrived at Rayagada by

hearing such sad news and came to know that his sister died by receiving

burn injuries on account of certain accident. They opined that her death

was not accidental, but it was a pre-planned murder. Her dead body was

not completely burnt. The head and palms were not affected by fire. The

tongue was pressed by both the jaws and some liquid came out from the

mouth of the deceased. Her bangles were not broken. She never cried for

help on account of any accident. So, he thought that she was murdered

by committing suffocation. Then kerosene was poured on her body and

fire was set to burn her. Previously, she was subjected to cruelty and

harassment on account of demand of more dowry. She was also

complaining before her parents and other family members against

demand of more dowry by her in-laws even after marriage. Her parents

also fulfilled certain demands of the accused persons by paying cash and

other articles in kind. The deceased gave birth to a female child during

the last month of January. After that, the accused persons subjected her

to cruelty and harassment when they demanded Rs.30,000/- and a gas

stove and had also given threatening to face with dire consequences, if

that demand was not fulfilled. Hence, the F.I.R.

4. The prosecution, in order to bring home charges examined total 15

witnesses to prove its case whereas the defence examined six witnesses.

P.W.1 was the informant and the brother of the deceased Sunita Mishra.

P.W.2 Ramakrushna Padhy was the resident of the same locality where

the rented house of the accused persons was situated. He also found

some persons standing in front of the house of the accused persons on

24.09.1995 at about 4.30 P.M. He came to know that the deceased Sunita

died being on flame. He also found the lady burning inside the house in a

sleeping condition. He collected the information regarding the cause of

the burning and death of Sunita. P.W.3 was Sagadia Durja, who does not

know anything about the case and she has been cross-examined by the

prosecution. P.W.4 was Subash Chandra Ratha, who says about the

marriage between Laxmikanta Mishra and Sunita. He also says about

demand of the accused persons and payment of Rs.23,000/- towards

purchase of a Scooter by the parents of the deceased. Accused Umakanta

Mishra received such amount at the time of negotiation in his presence.

P.W.5 was Iswar Ganta, who was present, when the Constable produced

the belongings of the deceased at the Police Station after the post-

mortem examination. P.W.6 was Purna Chandra Rath, who was present

on 25.09.1995, when the police held inquest over the dead body of

Sunita and prepared the report-Ext.2. He has signed on the seizure list

and certain other papers. P.W.7 was Kunjabihari Mishra, who says about

the marriage and about the demand of the accused persons for dowry. He

also says about the payment of cash of Rs.23,000/- and five tolas of gold

ornaments at the time of negotiation. Certain gold ornaments were also

given to the accused persons. He says about the demand of Rs.30,000/-

by the accused persons for construction of a house on the vacant site

belonging to them. He has also stated about the payment of Rs.5,000/- by

the father of the deceased to the accused persons. P.W.8 was Saroj

Kumar Mishra being the Additional Tahasildar, Rayagada, who attended

the inquest proceeding held inside a small size store room. P.W.9 was

Kailash Pujari was the Constable, who guarded the dead body during the

night of 24.09.1995. He produced the wearing clothes of the deceased at

the Police Station after the post-mortem examination. P.W.10 was Dr.

Jaydev, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased

Sunita Mishra on 25.09.1995 at 2.45 P.M. Ext.10 was his report.

According to him, Sunita had 70 to 80 % burn injuries and those were

the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. P.W.11 was Dr.

Hemanta Kumar Sahu, who was the Head of the Department of F.M. &

T, who examined certain articles produced by the I.O. and opined that it

was not a case of accidental burn. The injuries were ante-mortem in

nature and kerosene was poured to the body before setting fire. Ext.11

was his report and Ext.11/1 was his signature. P.W.12 was Rajendra

Prasad Ratha Sharma, the Priest, who was present during the marriage

and he said about the payment of dowry consisting of cash, and five tolas

of gold to the accused persons. P.W.13 was Kali Prasad Mishra, who

said that he was present at the time of negotiation. He says that cash of

Rs.23,000/- was paid towards purchase of a Scooter. Accused Umakanta

Mishra received the same from Haribandhu Mishra. He said that

Haribandhu Mishra also gave cash of Rs.5,000/- towards purchase of

sofa set, dressing table and godrej almirah. He also stated that the

accused persons demanded Rs.30,000/- from the father of the deceased

for construction of a house over a vacant site. P.W.14 Parsuram Sahu

was the S.I. of Police, who registered the case and visited the spot. He

found various burnt articles inside the room and sent the dead body for

post-mortem examination. P.W.15 D. Krishna Rao, who was the

Inspector, conducted the investigation.

5. The learned Trial Court, by heavily relying upon the testimonies

of P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 8, 12 and 13, recorded the findings highlighting the

complicity of the three appellants. For the sake of convenience, the same

are reproduced under:

"ACCUSED SATYABATI MISRA:

17. This accused is the widow mother of rest of the accused persons and mother in law of deceased Sunita. The marriage took place on her consent, Laxmikanta Misra, her elder son married to Sunita on 23.5.93. This is clear from the invitation card Ext.1 seized in this case by the I.O. Accused Laxmikanta was serving as a Clerk in C.C.D. High School Rayagada. All the accused persons are staying in a rented house at Brahmin Street, Rayagada. Sunita used to stay with them after marriage and a female child was born though her wedlock. On 27.1.93 there was a premarriage negotiation when there was a demand of dowry from the side of the accused persons, Five tolas of gold, cash of Rs, 20,000/-

utensils and clothings were given as demanded by them. The cash of Rs. 23,000/- was also paid for the purchase of a Scooter. P.W. 1 says that after one year of his sister's marriage, accused Satyabati demanded a sofa-set, Godrej almirah and a dressing table from them, His father came to their house and gave them Rs. 5,000/- towards purchase of aforesaid articles. P.W.1 has stated that she was not allowed to come to the house though they called her. She (Sunita) also complained against her mother in law at the house of her father. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment without

supply of food and also by assault against her P.W.1 says that Satyabati demanded a Gas stove and cash of Rs. 30,000/- for construction of a house towards May or June, 1995. They could not fulfil the demand and on 24.9.95 his sister died. Accused Satyabati was found sitting on the next room when P.W.1 arrived to see the dead body of his Sister. P.W.1 also enquired the reason of death from accused Satyabati. She gave prevaricating statement telling that fire could have been touched her from the lamp and subsequently she denied to have any knowledge, regarding her death. Satyabati is the eldest adult person in the family and she was looking after all the affairs of the family. P.W.1 has stated that accused Laxmikanta took the plea that his mother had made a demand for sofa-set and other furnitures. Laxmikanta also told to P.W.1 and his family members that if his motherls demand would not be fulfilled, then his sister(Sunita) would be put into trouble. The accused persons have landed property near Arabinda Nagar, Rayagada, P.W.1 has stated that they felt sorry when Satyabati demanded cash and other articles after the marriage. The eye witness (P.W.2) says that by entering into the house he met first the female accused Satyabati, but she covered her face at his appearance. P.W2 has stated that when he enquired, from the child (D.W4) she stated that her uncle had already assaulted the victim lady and the old mother set fire to the lady by pouring kerosene on her body. There is no reason to discard the evidence this independent witness (P. W. 2). P.W.4 has stated that the female accused was found inside the house on a cot. The female accused was found crying at that time and mother of Tukuli was giving consolation to the female accused. P. W.7 says that after some days the accused persons demanded Rs. 30,000/- for construction of their house. He has stated that Sunita complained that her husband and mother-in-law used to assault her many a time. Heavy work was also allotted to her and her hands were affected with fongus. When P.W. 7 visited the room, he house kerosene stove (M.O.I) inside the room. There were injuries on the back portion of her head. P.W.12 says that female accused was also present at the time of Nirabandha and when cash of Rs. 23,000/- was paid by the father of the deceased. P.W.13 says that the female accused also demanded the articles like sofa-set, dressing table and

Godrej Almirah after the marriage, Haribandhu Misra gave cash of Rs. 5000/- towards purchase of these articles. Accused persons were in need of Rs. 30,000/- for construction of a house. He has also stated it before the I. O. during investigation. The mother in law of the deceased demanded sofa-set, dressing table and Godrej Almirah. Thus, presumption U/s 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted against this female accused."

This accused is the widow mother of rest of the accused persons

and mother-in-law of the deceased Sunita. The marriage took place on

her consent. Laxmikanta Misra, her elder son married to Sunita on

23.05.1993. This is clear from the invitation card Ext.1 seized in this

case by the I.O. Accused Laxmikanta was serving as a Clerk in C.C.D.

High School, Rayagada. All the accused persons were staying in a

rented house at Brahmin Street, Rayagada. Sunita used to stay with them

after the marriage and a female child was born through her wedlock. On

27.01.1993, there was a pre-marriage negotiation when there was a

demand of dowry from the side of the accused persons. Five tolas of

gold, cash of Rs.20,000/-, utensils and clothing were given at the time of

marriage as demanded by them. The cash of Rs.23,000/- was also paid

for purchase of a scooter. P.W.1 says that after one year of his sister's

marriage, accused Satyabati demanded a sofa-set, Godrej Almirah and a

dressing table from them.

"ACCUSED LAXMIKANTA MISRA:

18. He is the husband of the deceased. Cash and valuables were given to him during the marriage and even after the marriage. A cash of the Rs.23,000/- was received by his bother on his behalf for purchase of the Scooter. P.W.4 found all these accused persons by reaching the house of the deceased. He could not give proper answer to P.W.1 regarding the reason of death. Accused Laxmikanta Produced all the dowry articles before the Police and P.W.1 received the same in zima under Exts. 4 and 5. P.W.2 enquired from the child (D.W.4) and came to know that her uncle assaulted the victim lady. Accused laxmikanta also demanded cash in the name of his mother towards purchase of furnitures. He also demanded cash of Rs.30,000/- for construction of a house.

Police seized the dowry articles from this accused under Ext.9. P.W.7 has stated about demand of Rs. 30,000/- by this accused. P.W.15 has stated in his cross-examination that Namita Misra (D.W.4) was examined during investigation, She remained silent. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.15 that this accused Laxmikanta was absent at the time of occurrence. Everything was paid and further demand was made on account of his marriage with the deceased. So presumption U/s. 113-B Evidence Act is also fully applicable to this accused.

ACCUSED UMAKANTA MISHRA.

19. Now this accused is an Advocate of Rayagada Bar. It is not in the evidence as to what this accused was doing at the time of occurrence. P.Ws. 1, 4,7, 12 and 13 have categorically stated that on the Nirbandha day this accused Umakanta Mishra received cash of Rs 23,000/- from Haribandhu Misra towards purchase of Scooter for his elder brother Laxmikanta Misra. He also received the other articles like golden ornaments, T.V. and clothings during the marriage, He

participated in the pre-marriage negotiation and received all the valuables and cash on behalf of other accused persons. He could not give proper answer to P.W.2 regarding cause of death of Sunita According to P.W.2, no male accused persons were present in the house at that time. P.W.4 says that accused Umakanta Mishra received such cash from Haribandhu. According to P.W.4, P.W.2 was on the road when he reached the spot. The other accused persons arrived subsequently. P.W.7 says that Umakanta Misra received the cash from Haribandhu Mishra. P.W.8, the Executive Magistrate says that the female accused and the male accused persons excepting accused Laxmikanta were Present in the house when inquest was held over the dead body. P.W.12 says that father of the deceased gave cash to Umakanta Misra on the day of Nirbandha. P.W.13 says that Umakanta Mishra received the cash from Haribandhu Misra in his presence. On the date of marriage also cash of Rs.20,000/-was paid by the father of the bride and Umakanta Mishra accepted the cash on behalf of the bride-groom. So this accused Umakanta Mishra had also implied consent to get cash of Rs.30,000/- towards the construction of the house. He is also liable for the dowry death in application of presumption U/s: 113-B of the Evidence Act."

6. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the learned trial

Court found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 304-B and

Section 498-A of the IPC. At the same time, the learned trial Court has

also acquitted the appellants for the alleged commission of offence under

Section 4 of the D.P. Act, arriving at a conclusion that there was no

demand of dowry.

7. The appellants are aggrieved because their plea of defence has not

been appreciated by the learned trial Court. They have asserted that there

was no demand of dowry at any point of time and that the appellants

were not present at the house when the incident occurred. It was also

pleaded by the appellants that the death of the deceased Sunita was

purely an accidental death and the allegation of harassment and dowry

demand are/were completely baseless and misconceived in nature.

8. The appellants are seriously aggrieved by the findings recorded by

the learned trial Court leading to their conviction under Section 304B

and Section 498-A of the IPC.

9. Mrs. Suvra Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants, by

taking me to the evidence of all the 15 prosecution witnesses and the 6

witnesses examined by the defence have pointed out the glaring

contradictions in the prosecution evidence and also tried to persuade this

Court that the case is falsely foisted upon the appellants.

10. While pointing out the contradictions, learned counsel for the

appellants has submitted that during the investigation of the U.D. Case,

P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 13 have not even whispered regarding any

demand of dowry or any type of mental or physical torture meted out to

Sunita. However, when they came to the witness box, they have

exaggerated the narratives. She has also pointed out that there is a delay

of four days in registration of the case which has gone unexplained.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has elaborately read out the

evidence of P.W.1 to say that the trustworthiness of the testimony of the

said witness is under serious cloud. P.W.1 has stated in his testimony

that the coal, firewood and other unusable articles were found in the

room where the dead body of the deceased was lying and he saw the

dead body was covered by a gunny bag, which indicates that there was

an attempt by someone to douse the fire. She has also deposed that the

father and brother-in-law of the appellant no.2 had arrived at a mutual

consensus in the marriage regarding the expenses, which was voluntarily

paid by his father. That cannot be termed as demand of dowry; rather it

was exhibition of love and affection by the father towards the daughter.

The testimony of the said witness, if compared with the F.I.R. version, it

is quite contradictory and non-corroborative, rather it was exaggerated

version.

12. Similarly, P.W.2 has deposed before the Court that none of the

male members were present in the house at the time of the occurrence of

the incident. He stated as under:

"None of the male accused persons were present in the house at that time. The smell of kerosene was coming and the drops of kerosene were also on the floor at that time. The kerosene which was on the floor was also in a burning condition. The lady who was on flame had no capacity for movement and she was unable to speak at that time. When I saw her the fire was found from the waist level to upwards. Neither chest portion nor the back portion were found burning at that time."

This version of P.W.2 is not only stood corroborated with the

statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C.

but also the evidence adduced by the defence through their witnesses.

P.W.3 was examined as an independent witness, but her evidence

has not added to the advantage of the prosecution version in any manner.

P.W.4 was examined by the prosecution to establish the demand of

dowry. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that there was no

disturbance on account of presentation from the side of the deceased and

that he was not aware of any demand of further cash of Rs.5,000/-. He

further stated that his cousin, who was staying in front of the accused

persons' house, had never informed him about any difficulty being faced

by the deceased.

P.W.7 deposed that there was no negotiation for payment of

dowry on the date of marriage and he was also unable to say when the

accused had demanded cash towards furniture from the father of the

deceased. His testimony thus does not support the allegation of demand

of dowry or cruelty.

P.W.10, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination,

stated in cross-examination that when a person falls down after receiving

burn injuries, he or she cannot cry out for survival, and in such cases the

palm would not normally come into contact with fire. He also opined

that the possibility of accidental death could not be ruled out.

P.W.12, the priest who had solemnised the marriage, admitted that

his knowledge regarding the exchange of articles was only based on

what he had heard from the father of the deceased. His evidence,

therefore, is purely hearsay and carries no weight against the accused.

P.W.13 clearly deposed that he had never dealt with appellant no.2

regarding any negotiations for dowry. His statement again rules out the

element of dowry demand.

P.W.14, in his cross-examination, admitted that P.W.1, who is the

brother of the deceased, had not stated before him about any demand of

dowry by the accused persons, including sofa set or cash of Rs.30,000/-.

This contradiction raises a serious doubt about the credibility of P.W.1

and his allegations.

P.W.15 testified that P.W.1 had stated before him about a demand

for scooter, T.V., and Rs.20,000/-. However, the same was never

deposed before P.W.14, making his version inconsistent and

contradictory.

On the side of defence, D.W.1 deposed that appellant no.2 was at

the G.O.D. High School, Rayagada, on the date of the occurrence,

working as a clerk during examinations, and had rushed home only after

receiving a telephonic message about the incident.

D.W.4, a minor witness, testified that appellant no.1 was moving

on the road with her at the relevant time, and that the deceased went to

apply alata when suddenly she caught fire. According to D.W.4, the

deceased called appellant no.1 at that time, and no other local persons

enquired about the incident. She denied all allegations put forth by the

prosecution in the cross-examination.

13. On the basis of the aforementioned analysis of the evidence

adduced by the prosecution, learned counsel for the appellants submitted

that this is a case of clear acquittal and invocation of the presumptive

clause under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act is misplaced in the

present case, as the essential ingredient of neither Section 304B or

Section 498A of the IPC is made out.

14. Learned counsel for the State also relied upon the portion of the

version of the P.Ws. which supports the prosecution narrative. It is

apparent on record that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the non-

availability of evidence in so far as the demand of dowry is concerned.

Hence, while concluding regarding the aspect of demand of dowry, the

learned trial Court arrived at the following conclusion:

"23. For bringing a case U/s. 4 D.P. Act, there must be a demand of dowry. This offence cannot be brought into operation as one party made the demand, but other party did not agree to pay that amount. It is clear in the evidence that the parents of the deceased did not agree to give Rs. 30,000/- and no demand was made for cash of Rs. 5,000/- though it was paid by the father of the deceased towards purchase of Godrej Almirah and dressing table The ratio decided in the case of Shankar. Rao Abasaheb Pawar and others vs. L.V. Jadav and another (1983 Cri.L.J. 269) has application to this case so far as section 4 D.P. Act is concerned. None of the accused persons are found liable for this offence and they are acquitted accordingly, from the charge."

15. In the absence of any challenge to the said finding by the State, I

completely agree and accept the said finding. In the light of the said

findings, the evidence on record is evaluated so as to arrive at a

conclusion whether the case under Section 498-A or 304B of the IPC is

made out or not.

16. Section 304B of the IPC reads as under:

304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Two essential ingredients are required to bring home the charge

under Section 304B of the IPC under the aid of Section 113 of the

Evidence Act.

(i) Soon before the death of the deceased, evidence should be

enough looming to show that victim was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives.

(ii) The harassment or cruelty meted out to her should be in

connection with the demand of dowry.

It is no more res integra that in absence of the satisfactory

evidence to establish the two aforementioned two ingredients, the

offence under Section 304B is not made out.

17. Relevant would be to rely upon the judgment in the case of Sunil

Bajaj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 417. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the offence under Section

304B of the IPC is related to dowry death. Therefore, from the evidence,

the demand of dowry is required to be established by the prosecution so

as to bring home the charge under Section 304B of IPC, if there is an

unnatural death occurs. In that regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad and others vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 73, is also relevant to be

relied upon, in which it was held that:

"16. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to allow the benefit of doubt to the appellants having particular regard to the fact that except for certain bald statements made by PWs 1 and 3 alleging that the victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence to be led in respect of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, in order to bring home the guilt against an accused under Section 304-B IPC.

17. As has been mentioned hereinbefore, in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-B IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Only then would such death be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of the woman concerned.

18. In this case, one other aspect has to be kept in mind, namely, that no charges were framed against the appellants under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the evidence led in order to prove the same for the purposes of Section 304-B IPC was related to a demand for a fan only.

19. The decision cited by Mr R.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, in Biswajit Halder case [(2008) 1 SCC 202 :

(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] was rendered in almost similar circumstances. In order to bring home a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry. In our view, the prosecution in this case has failed to fully satisfy the requirements of both Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 304-B of the Penal Code.

20. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the views expressed both by the trial court, as well as the High Court, and we are of the view that no case can be made out on the ground of insufficient evidence against the appellants for conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The decision cited by Ms Makhija in Anand Kumar case [(2009) 3 SCC 799 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 28] deals with the proposition of shifting of onus of the burden of proof relating to the presumption which the court is to draw under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and does not help the case of the State in a situation where there is no material to presume that an offence under Section 304-B IPC had been committed."

Similar was the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Biswajit Haldar @ Babu Haldar and another vs. State of West Bengal,

reported in (2008) 1 SCC 202. It would be further relevant to rely upon

the judgment in the case of Bholram vs. State of Punjab, reported in

(2013) 16 SCC 421 wherein it is held as under:

" 25. Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to bring about a conviction under Section 304-B IPC. As held in Kans Raj [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] a dowry death victim should also have been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband or a relative. In this case, even assuming the silent or conniving participation of Bhola Ram in the demands for dowry, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that he actively or passively treated Janki Devi with cruelty or harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry. The High Court has, unfortunately, not adverted to this ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC or even considered it."

18. In view of the settled position of law as discussed hereinabove,

when the findings of the learned trial Court in the present case are

examined with regard to the evidence relating to demand of dowry, it

becomes evident that the prosecution failed to establish such demand

beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial Court rightly

proceeded to acquit all the accused persons of the charge under Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence sustaining the conviction U/s.304B

of I.P.C. may not be safe.

19. It is trident law that main cruelty or harassment dehors demand

of dowry cannot satisfy the ingredient required to establish the offence

under Section 304B of the IPC. Hence, on the basis of the available

evidence on record and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court,

this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring

home the charge under Section 304 IPC, as the basic ingredient requires

to bring the case under the mischief of Section 304B IPC is missing.

Hence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and

accordingly acquitted of the said charge of Section 304B.

20. Coming to the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the findings

recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. Because the

evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, if read in unison and

conjunctively, there is no escape from the findings that the appellants

have subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment, which is apparent

from the factum of unhappy marriage between the appellant no.2 and the

deceased which is borne out from the record. Therefore, this Court

affirms the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in so far as the

recording of the guilt of the appellants under Section 498A of the IPC is

concerned.

21. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the appellants are

acquitted of the charge under Section 304B of the IPC. However, they

stand convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC.

On the question of sentence, considering the advanced age of

accused-appellant No.1, who is in her early seventies, a sentence of three

months' simple imprisonment is suffice to be awarded. Insofar as

accused-appellants No.2 and 3, being the husband and brother-in-law of

the deceased respectively, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a

sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentenced

undergone by the convicts be set off against the sentence of

imprisonment as per the provisions of Section-428 of Cr.P.C.

In addition, a fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on each of the

convicts, and in default of payment, they shall further undergo

imprisonment equivalent to half of their substantive sentence, i.e., one

and a half months for accused-appellant No.1 and three months for

accused-appellants No.2 and 3. The fine to be deposited shall be

compensated to the parents of the deceased as per Section 357 Cr.P.C.

22. The appellants have been directed to be released on bail by the

order of this Court dated 29.07.1998. The appellants shall surrender

within a period of four weeks from today to undergo the sentence, failing

which, they shall be taken into judicial custody.

23. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the of 25th of September, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:33:07