IMPORTANT POINT
Concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one’s endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts.

JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J.—This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.1992 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Ganjam in Sessions Case No.13 of 1990 holding the appellant guilty under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months under Section 306 of IPC and R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of four months under Section 498-A of IPC.

2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 12.09.1988 the informant – Judhistir Patnaik of village-Bananaipur (P.W.12) lodged F.I.R. (Ext.16) at Hinjili Police Station wherein it has been stated that marriage of his daughter – Kaberi was solemnized with Chandra Sekhar Patnaik (appellant) of Kaithabeda under Hinjili Police Station. The informant gave articles in the marriage according to his capacity, but in-laws of his daughter used to demand agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.00 and cash of Rs.20,000/- and used to taunt and harass his daughter. It was further complained that due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, in the night of 10.09.1988 his daughter was compelled to commit suicide. On the basis of the F.I.R., Hinjili P.S. Case No.56 dated 14.09.1988 was registered against family members of deceased’s father-in-law under Section 304-B of IPC and the police seized incriminating materials, dead body was sent for postmortem examination where an abrasion on the back of left arm and ligature mark on the neck were found. According to the concerned doctor, cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Upon investigation, charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 498-A of IPC was submitted against the appellant alone before the competent Court who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellant having pleaded not guilty to the charge, to prove its case against the appellant, prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents and M.Os.I and II. In defence 3 documents were proved. Incriminating evidence was put to the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he submitted that he was falsely implicated in the case. On appreciation of the evidence and materials placed on record, the learned trial court held that the deceased committed suicide due to continuous cruelty caused to her in connection with demand of dowry and the appellant having abetted the commission of suicide held, guilty of the charge under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submitted that there being no iota of evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and there being nothing on record to support a case of abetment of suicide, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs interference.

4. Assailing such contention, the learned counsel for the State contended that there being overwhelming evidence in support of charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference.

5. Contentions raised at the Bar need careful evaluation of oral and documentary evidence to reach at a conclusion as to whether the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court is on the basis of evidence on record.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in essence was that the finding of the trial court holding the appellant guilty under the aforesaid provisions is based on surmises and conjectures. The other contention is that the trial court has misread and misinterpreted the averments emanating from Exts.1 to 4 and Exts.A and B and being swayed by the fact that the deceased committed suicide, reached to an erroneous conc