SUBHADRA DEBATA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants have filed the aforesaid criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No. 10 of 1990/52 of 1990. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment while acquitting the Appellants of the charge Under Section 306/34 I.P.C. found them guilty of charge Under Section 498 -A/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year on the said count. The criminal revision has been filed by the informant against the order of acquittal of the Appellants of the charge Under Section 306/34, IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case of the prosecution against the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") is that Sandhyarani Panda, the daughter of Arjuna Charan Panda (P.W.4) was given in marriage to one Laxmikanta, who happens to be the son of accused Umakanta Pati. At the time of marriage a demand of five tolas of gold was made by Umakanta Pati. But the informant could give only four tolas of gold at the time of marriage and agreed to give the rest one tola of gold later, which he could not give for paucity of funds. For non -fulfillment of such demand, Sandhayarani was subjected to torture by the accused persons who happen to be respectively, her husband's grandmother, father and brother. It is the further case of the prosecution that Sandhyarani was ill -treated by the accused persons with a common intention to coerce her to fulfill their illegal demand and they subjected her to cruelty, mental as well as physical for which Sandhyarani was compelled to commit suicide in the night intervening 20/21.11.1988.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned judgment of conviction of the Appellants for offence under Sections 498 -A/34, I.P.C, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellants that in this case there being no credible evidence worth on record to sustain such a charge, the trial Court committed gross illegality in holding the Appellants guilty of the said charge. When the conviction Under Section 498 -A/34 I.P.C. is unsustainable, acquittal of the Appellants from the charge Under Section 306/34 I.P.C, can not be said to be perverse warranting an interference in exercise of the power of revision, submits counsel for the Appellants. Hence, it is submitted by him to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and dismiss the revision at the instance of the informant, as the same is devoid of any merit.