The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (From the judgment and order dated 06.10.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No.24 of 1999 and S.C. No.30 of 1999) CRA No.249 of 2001 Panu Swain and Ors. …. Appellants Mr. M. K. Panda, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date of Judgment: 17.12.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in Sessions Case No.24 of 1999 and S.C. No.30 of 1999, whereby the present Appellants i.e. Appellant No.1-Panu Swain, Appellant No.2-Sarojini Swain, and Appellant No.3- Rankanidhi @ Santosh Kumar Swain were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further convicted under Section 304-B/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; under Section 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous CRA No. 249 of 2001 Page 1 of 35 imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, with all sentences directed to run concurrently. It is noted that the co-accused Bijay Swain had preferred a separate appeal in CRA No.207 of 2001; however, the said appeal stood abated, due to his death, by order dated 25.07.2024. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased-Pratima Swain (hereinafter “the Deceased”), had been married to Appellant No.3-Rankanidhi @ Santosh Kumar Swain for a short period prior to the incident, during which her matrimonial life was allegedly marred by persistent demands for additional dowry and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. It is alleged that despite substantial dowry having been given at the time of marriage, the accused persons continued to press for further payments and subjected the deceased to harassment and assault. On 12.10.1997, the parents of the Deceased received information through relatives that the Deceased had been killed in her matrimonial home during the previous night and that her body had already been cremated without any intimation to her family. Upon rushing to the village, her family members learnt that the Appellants were claiming that the Deceased had died after falling into a well situated in their backyard. The Informant, P.W.12, disbelieving this explanation and suspecting foul play, lodged a written report vide Ext.6 on CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 2 of 35 14.10.1997 at the Bhanjanagar P.S., on the basis of which the FIR No. 215 of 1997 was registered vide Ext.6/4. 3. In course of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.14) visited the cremation site, seized half-burnt bones, ashes, and charcoal, and thereafter proceeded to the house of Appellant No.1-Panu Swain, where suspected blood-stained articles, broken bangles, and other incriminating materials were recovered. The bedrooms were examined with the assistance of the forensic team, which collected suspected blood scrapings, a blood-stained saree, a pillow cover, and other articles for chemical analysis. Dowry articles produced by witnesses were seized under zimanamas, and blood as well as nail samples of the Appellants were collected and forwarded for forensic examination. Several witnesses from the village and the family of the deceased were examined; the Appellants were arrested at different stages; site maps of both the cremation ground and the house were prepared; and the seized articles, photographs, and forensic reports were placed on record. Upon completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the Appellants to face trial. 4. The plea of the defence is that there was no demand for dowry at any point of time, either at the time of marriage or thereafter, and that the allegations of torture or harassment for additional dowry are false and motivated. According to the Appellants, the deceased-Pratima had been suffering from stomach pain on the night of the incident, and in a state of acute discomfort, she allegedly went out to the backyard and jumped into the well, resulting in her death. CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 3 of 35 5. To prove the culpability of the Appellants, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. P.W.1 is the distant relative of the
Facts
Deceased, who first informed the family of the Deceased regarding her death; P.W.2 is the goldsmith; P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the seizure witnesses who denied to have anything seized in their presence; P.W.5 is the Medical Officer of Jail hospital, Bhanjanagar; P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 9 expressed ignorance about the entire incidence; P.W.10 is the Head Warden, Bhanjanagar Jail; P.W.11 is the village elderly of village Mandara; P.W.12 is the Informant, so also the father of the Deceased; P.W.13 is the mother of the Deceased; P.W.14 is the I.O.; and P.W.15 is the Scientific Officer, D.F.S.L., Chhatrapur. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the Deceased died an unnatural death within a short period of her marriage with Appellant No.3-Ranka and believed the evidence of her parents and relatives established consistent demands for additional dowry and cruelty by Appellant No.1-Panu, Appellant No.2-Sarojini, Appellant No.3-Ranka and her brother-in-law co-accused Bijay Swain. The learned court found that the hasty cremation of the body by Appellant No.1-Panu and AppellantNo.3-Ranka, without informing the deceased’s family, indicated an attempt to conceal the circumstances of death. The defence plea that the deceased jumped into a well due to stomach pain was rejected for want of material or corroboration. Holding that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act stood unrebutted, the Trial Court convicted all three Appellants for the offences charged. 7.
Legal Reasoning
the position of law with regard to the existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned, as follows: CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 18 of 35 “15. The import of the aforesaid provisions has been explained in several decisions of this Court. In Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana1, it has been held that: “17. While considering the case under Section 498-A (Sic. Section 304-B), cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment, physical or mental, by the accused should make life of the deceased miserable which may force her to commit suicide.” 16. In Maya Devi and Anr. vs. State of Haryana2, it was held that: “23. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that “soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty or harassment “for, or in connection with for dowry”. The the demand expression “soon before her death” used in Section 304-IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no proximity for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment. With regard to the said claim, we shall advert to while considering the evidence led in by the prosecution. Though the language used is “soon before her death”, no definite period has been enacted and the expression “soon before her death” has not been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before her death” is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and
Arguments
Mr. M. K. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the Trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 4 of 35 evidence on record and had proceeded on assumptions unsupported by reliable material. He contended that there was no credible proof of any demand for dowry either at the time of marriage or thereafter, and that the allegations of cruelty were based entirely on interested testimonies of the deceased’s relatives, without any independent corroboration. He argued that the prosecution witnesses had made material improvements before the Court, and several were hostile, thereby weakening the prosecution case. Mr. Panda further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, particularly the requirement of cruelty “soon before death,” and that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not have been invoked in the absence of foundational facts. He further argued that the defence explanation that the deceased, suffering from stomach pain on the night of the occurrence, accidentally or impulsively jumped into the backyard well was a plausible version that the Trial Court failed to consider. According to him, the mere fact that the cremation took place early in the morning could not be treated as incriminating, especially when the death had occurred during the night and the family acted in a state of confusion. It was emphasised that the prosecution failed to prove that the death was homicidal and that the medical and forensic evidence did not support any theory of violence. On these grounds, Mr. Panda submitted that the conviction was unsustainable and the Appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt. 8. Mr. S. C. Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, supported the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 5 of 35 that the prosecution had clearly established all essential ingredients of the offences charged. He argued that the evidence of the parents and close relatives of the deceased consistently demonstrated that Appellant-Ranka, Appellant-Panu, and Appellant-Sarojini had been demanding further dowry and subjecting the deceased to sustained cruelty soon before her death. According to him, the testimonies of these witnesses were natural, cogent, and remained unshaken in material particulars, and the minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence did not affect the core of the prosecution case. Learned ASC further contended that the conduct of the Appellants in hurriedly cremating the deceased without informing her parents was a highly incriminating circumstance, clearly indicative of an attempt to suppress the true nature of her death. He submitted that the defence plea of the deceased jumping into a well due to stomach pain was not only unsupported by any evidence but also contrary to the physical circumstances found during investigation, including the recovery of suspected bloodstains and broken bangles from the bedroom. He argued that once the prosecution proved that the death was unnatural and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry soon before her death, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was rightly drawn. On these premises, he urged that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court warranted no interference. 9. Before examining the rival submissions, it is necessary to briefly note the evidence of the relevant prosecution witnesses. A concise summary of their depositions is accordingly set out below. CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 6 of 35 P.W.1, Adikanda Naik is stated to be the brother of Accused-Sarojini. About three years back the deceased Pratima had married the son of Sarojini, and a year ago he heard from someone that Pratima has been killed by her in-laws at Mandara. When he reached Mandara he found Accused-Panu, Accused-Rankanidhi, Accused-Sarojini and Accused-Bijay in their house. Accused- Sarojini told him that the Deceased died by falling in the well. He protested about cremating her without informing the family since they resided at a little distance. When the police came Accused- Bijay took them to the cremation ground where the dead body of the Deceased was still burning. Accused-Bijay poured two buckets of water to extinguish the fire. Thereafter, the police seized some burnt flesh, bones and ash. Accused-Bipra, Accused-Rankanidhi and Accused-Sarojini brought out the dowry articles given during the wedding, which was seized by the police in P.W.1’s presence. In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that the Deceased is the near relative. He denied the suggestions of not informing the police regarding the statement made by him in the examination-in- chief. P.W.2, Bulu Acharya, stated to have weighed some gold and silver ornaments on the request of the police. P.W.5, B.K. Khandei, is the Medical Officer, Jail Hospital, Bhanjanagar. On 25.10.1997, he took blood samples and nail clippings of Accused-Panu, Accused-Sarojini, Accused-Rankanidhi and Accused-Bijay, and handed over to the S.I. who seized them vide Ext.4 on the orders by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar. CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 7 of 35 P.W.6, Narsu Nayak, stated to have known all the accused persons, and that he heard about the death of the Deceased from the villagers. He was declared hostile after this. In his cross-examination by the A.P.P., he stated to have stated before the police regarding many articles and cash given by the Deceased family at the time of the wedding. P.W.11, Madhusudan Panda is the president of Jubaka Sanghha of Mandara stated to have known all the accused persons. After two to three months after the wedding, Accused-Panu complained to him regarding his Daughter-in-law (the Deceased) misbehaving with the entire family and hence requested P.W.11’s interference. Upon visiting the house of Accused-Panu, the Deceased instead complained to him of being tortured by her in- laws, who were demanding to fulfil the balance dowry amount, for which she wanted to go back to her parental house, which the in- laws did not permit. On the evening of ashtami or dashami puja, the Deceased had gone to Durga Mandap of the village and returned with some Prasad. After sometime P.W.11, heard shouting noises coming from the house of Accused-Panu. Some of the villagers including P.W.11 proceeded to the house to ascertain what had happened. Upon reaching, the Deceased complained that the Prasad brought by her was thrown out and she was assaulted by her parents-in-law (Accused-Panu and Accused-Sarojini), the husband (Accused-Rankanidhi) and brother-in-law (Accused-Bijay). The villagers advised the family to not make a scene and to go to sleep. Early in the morning P.W.11 received the information of a body being cremated. Upon reaching the cremating ground, he found CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 8 of 35 Accused-Panu, Accused-Bijay and some other people. Upon asking he was told by Accused-Panu and Accused-Bijay that the Deceased died in the night due to stomach problems and henceforth they were cremating her. P.W.11 went back to the village to call others. The police came at about 10:00 a.m. and seized ash, kerosene bottle, some burnt bones, earth from the place where the Deceased was being cremated. P.W.11 and Accused-Panu went back to the Accused’s house with the police, and found some broken glass bangles, lying scattered outside the room and there were blood stains on the walls of the bed room, and its floor was washed, which was also seized by the police vide Ext.-5. In his cross-examination, he explained about his up- bringing and life in Mandara. He denied the suggestions of not informing the police regarding the statement made by him in the examination-in-chief. P.W.12, Mala Rout, is the father of the Deceased. He stated that his daughter was married to Accused-Rankanidhi on 18.05.1997. Before the marriage, Accused-Panu and his family had demanded ₹80,000 as dowry. He paid ₹60,000 at the time of marriage and agreed to pay the remaining ₹20,000 within six months. He also gave household articles, cot, quilts, gold ornaments worth over ₹2 lakhs, and two term-deposit certificates of ₹10,000 and ₹50,000 in his daughter’s name. About one and a half months after marriage, his daughter informed him that her husband had an illicit relationship elsewhere and that the accused family members were demanding more dowry and assaulting her. She stayed with him at Rourkela for two months, during which Accused-Panu came CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 9 of 35 to collect the remaining dowry amount. P.W.12 borrowed money from his elder brother and handed ₹10,000 to Accused- Panu in the presence of others, who gave him a receipt (later seized by police). Accused-Panu was assured that his daughter would not be tortured further. On 12.10.1997 at about 10:30 p.m. when he returned to his house after his duty, his wife and children informed to have received a telephonic information for P.W.1 that his daughter has been killed by her in-laws and her body is being cremated. On 14.10.1997, P.W.12 came to his village Jiruli and found out from P.W.1 that the cremation took place without anybody’s knowledge. P.W.12 lodged a written report vide Ext.6 on the same day. P.W.12 went with the police to the village padar, where burnt bones, half- burnt flesh, and charcoal were seized. He then visited the house of the accused and asked them about his daughter’s death. They claimed that Pratima had committed suicide by jumping into the backyard well. He expressed disbelief, stating that the well was too small for such an act. Police later released to him, in zimanama, the ornaments given to Pratima except a two-tola necklace and some costly sarees. In his cross-examination, he explained with regard to the family of his daughter’s in-laws and the construction of their house. He further stated that the written report vide Ext.6 was scribed by his son Dhruba Raut. He stated to have given the list of dowry articles given to his daughter at the time of wedding. He also explained about whoever were engaged in different works at the time of the wedding but he could not name everyone. He too was the witness to the seizure of ash, kerosene bottle, some burnt bones, CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 10 of 35 earth from the place where the Deceased was being cremated. He denied the suggestions of not informing the police regarding the statement made by him in the examination-in-chief. P.W.13, Sarojini Rout, is the mother of the Deceased. she stated that at the time of marriage, she had given ten tolas of gold, two tolas of gold ornaments for the groom, T.V., furniture, cash of ₹60,000, and other household items as dowry. She further stated that after a few months of marriage, when the Deceased visited her at Jiruli and was later taken to Rourkela, she often cried. On being asked, she informed her that she was being assaulted by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law due to their demand for an additional ₹20,000 as dowry. She and P.W.12 refused to send her back with her father-in-law, but the relations of Accused-Panu from Rourkela convinced them. On their insistence, they borrowed ₹10,000 from P.W.12’s elder brother, Khali Raut, and handed it over to Accused-Panu, who then agreed to take Pratima back. About one month and ten days later, Accused-Panu left Rourkela with Pratima. On the night of her death, their neighbour received a phone call from P.W.1, who informed that Pratima had been killed in her in-laws’ house and her body had already been cremated. She informed P.W.12 of this on his return from duty. The next morning, they travelled towards their village and reached Jiruli, from where P.W.12 went to the police outpost with his son Dhruba to report the incident. In cross-examination, P.W.13 stated that he had heard about his daughter’s torture and death from P.W.1. She denied the CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 11 of 35 suggestions of not informing the police regarding the statement made by him in the examination-in-chief. P.W.15, Surath Bisoi is the Scientific Officer, DFSL, Chhatrapur. He stated that upon receiving a requisition from the Bhanjanagar police, he visited the house of Appellant-Ranka at village Mandara, accompanied by S.I. Niranjan Patro. In the southern bedroom of the house, he detected suspected bloodstains on the floor and wall, as well as on a saree kept in the southeastern corner and on a pillow-cover lying on the cot. He also noticed stool stains on the saree and broken glass bangles scattered in the north- western corner of the room. He collected scrappings of the suspected stains from the wall and floor, along with the broken bangles, the saree, and the pillow cover, packed them separately, and handed them over to the S.I. for chemical examination. He identified his report, signature, and the sketch map prepared during the visit, stating that a preliminary benzidine test indicated the presence of blood. He further deposed that the house was locked when he arrived and was opened by the Investigating Officer. He admitted not sealing the packets but denied suggestions of fabrication. Upon recall, he confirmed having taken photographs of the rooms, identified the enlarged photographs and negatives, and stated that he dispatched them to the Belaguntha Outpost by registered post, denying the suggestion that no photographs were taken. 10. Having regard to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the broad outline of the prosecution and defence cases, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased Pratima CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 12 of 35 occurred within a short span of her marriage with Appellant-Ranka and while she was residing in her matrimonial home. The defence itself does not assert a natural death but attributes the same to an alleged fall into a well, thereby acknowledging that the death was sudden and abnormal. The evidence of P.W.15, the Scientific Officer, assumes significance at this stage, as his testimony establishes the presence of suspected bloodstains on the floor and wall of the bedroom, on the saree and pillow cover found therein, along with broken glass bangles scattered inside the room. The preliminary benzidine test conducted at the spot indicated the presence of blood. These circumstances, taken together, do not support the defence version of an accidental fall into a well and, at the very least, render the cause and manner of death doubtful and inconclusive. Owing to the hurried cremation of the body, no medical evidence could be adduced to conclusively determine the cause of death; however, the surrounding circumstances clearly establish the corpus delicti, namely, that the deceased died an unnatural death within the confines of her matrimonial home. Once the factum of an unnatural death is established, even in the absence of direct medical evidence, the Court is legally justified in proceeding to examine the remaining evidence to ascertain the agency responsible for such death. In such circumstances, the case necessarily falls to be examined on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Reference may be made to Raveendran and Anr. vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1994 Cri LJ 3562, on proof of corpus delicti in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, as follows: “4. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the entire case of prosecution is rested on inferential CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 13 of 35 evidence which is otherwise called ‘circumstantial evidence. The matrix of the case is that the first accused murdered his wife Yeshoda and the deadbody was recovered from ravine after a period of about one month. It Was in a decomposed state when it was recovered and hence the identification of the deadbody was not immediately possible. Therefore, what is required primarily in the instant case is to find out the proof regarding ‘corpus delicti’ literally means the ‘body of the offence’, that is to say, the facts which constitute it. Until the proof regarding ‘corpus delicti’ is established, the question as to the identity of the culprit may not arise. Legally ‘corpus delicti’ means the crime apart from the criminal - the deed apart from the doer. In order to establish ‘corpus delicti’ the Court is bound to examine whether the dead body discovered in this case was that of Yeshoda. It was P.W. 1 who had happened to see the dead body first in the ravine near a place called Nedumpoyil. His evidence has higher degree of probative, value when compared to the evidence of other witnesses in as much as he is the first person who saw the dead body. His testimony bestows somewhat vivid picture of the dead body and the materials found on it. He said, it was a dead body of a woman having long hair. He had seen blouse (M.O. 2), skirt (M.O. 1), padasaram on the light leg (M.O. 4) and bangle on the right hand (M.O. 5). P.W. 35 Investigating Officer had of course recovered in addition to the above articles, M.O. 3 (brassiers), M.O. 6 (plastic cord) and M.O. 7 (match box). P.W. 1 being a stranger will not normally go very near the dead body and take note of all the articles found on it. However, at present we are concerned with the articles noticed by P.W. 1 on the dead body namely,! M.O. 1, M.O. 2, M.O. 4 and M.O. 5. The probative value of rest of the articles recovered by P.W. 35 will be dealt with later, as we are not immediately concerned with those articles. P.W. 6 Sivaraman is the direct brother of the deceased and P.W. 16 is the mother. Both were brought by P.W. 35 to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tellicherry where the aforesaid articles, were kept. They easily identified the aforesaid articles noticed by CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 14 of 35 this P.W. 1 on the dead body as that of the deceased. They have also tendered evidence in the trial Court in this regard while they were examined. The inference that could be drawn from the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1,6 and 16 coupled with the recovery of M.Os. 1,2,4 and 5 is that the dead body recovered from ravine was that of deceased Yeshoda. Of course, is only an inferential evidence and not direct evidence. It is apposite to say here that the old rule enunciated by Sir Mathew Hale and Lord Coke js, to the effect that nothing short of direct evidence is sufficient to establish ‘corpus delicti’. Sir Mathew Hale held the view “I will never convict any person of murder or manslaughter unless the facts were proved to be done or at least the body found.” Lord Coke warns the danger of proceeding on ‘bare presumptions’. As against this rule of strictness, Sir John Stephen said: “If the circumstances are such as to make it morally certain that a crime has been committed, the inference that it was so committed is as safe as any other inference.” Straight, J. in Empress of India v. Bhagirath, (1881) 1 LR 3 All 383 departed from the rule of strictness and observed that such a rule once admitted would the administration of justice impossible. Therefore, the Court said ...it is not imperatively essential, in order to justify a conviction for murder, that the ‘corpus delicti’ should be forthcoming. The law as to the proof of “corpus delicti” has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, thus: in some instances render In a trial for murder, it is not absolute necessity or an essential ingredient to establish corpus’ delicti. The fact of death of the deceased must be established like any other fact,. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. The Apex Court further said that there should be reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence although the dead body may not be traced.” CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 15 of 35 11. In view of the above, this Court now proceeds to examine the evidence on record keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, in order to determine whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court warrant interference, bearing in mind that the case rests substantially on circumstantial evidence. “3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumant’s v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti. Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SCR 1091; Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1969] 3 SCC 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656; and Shivaji Sahabrao Babode & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 2 SCC 793 referred to. CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 16 of 35 3:4. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction.” 12. While addressing the circumstance relating to dowry demand and cruelty, it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the foundational facts so as to attract the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, particularly the close relatives of the deceased, assumes central importance in this regard. P.W.12, the informant and father of the deceased, categorically deposed that prior to the marriage, Appellant-Panu and other family members had demanded a substantial amount as dowry, a part of which was paid at the time of marriage with an assurance that the balance would be paid later. His testimony further reveals that within a short period after the marriage, the deceased complained of ill-treatment and renewed demands for dowry, which compelled him to arrange and pay an additional amount to Appellant-Panu in the presence of others. This evidence is not limited to a mere assertion of demand but also reflects compliance under pressure, lending assurance to its credibility. The evidence of P.W.13, the mother of the deceased, substantially corroborates the version of P.W.12. She spoke of the articles, ornaments, and cash given at the time of marriage and further stated that the deceased would often cry and complain of physical assault and harassment by Appellant-Ranka, Appellant- Panu, Appellant-Sarojini, and the brother-in-law on account of the balance dowry amount. Her testimony also brings out that the CRA No.249 of 2001 Page 17 of 35 deceased was initially reluctant to return to her matrimonial home due to such treatment and was persuaded only after further payment was made. The consistency between the depositions of P.W.12 and P.W.13, both natural witnesses with no apparent motive to falsely implicate the Appellants, strengthens the prosecution case on this aspect. P.W.11, an independent village witness and President of the local Juhaka Sangha, provides important corroboration from a non- interested source. He deposed that Appellant-Panu and his family members had approached him complaining about the conduct of the deceased, following which he intervened. During this intervention, the deceased herself disclosed to him that she was being tortured by her husband and in-laws due to dowry demands and was not even permitted to visit her parental home. His testimony further reveals that shortly thereafter, information was received about the sudden death of the deceased and her cremation, thereby connecting the cruelty complained of with the timing of the death. The evidence of this witness lends independent support to the allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demands. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvati Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/1280/2021, has clarified