The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove entrustment and dishonest intention for the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC.

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.04.2011, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali in Criminal Appeal No.18(S-4)/2010, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 20.09.2010, in C.R. Case No.202/2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biswanath Chariali.

2. Briefly stated, the case of complainant Smti Uma Sarkar is that she filed a complaint petition before the SDJM, Biswanath Chariali on 31.12.2005, alleging inter alia that she got married with the petitioner on 08.12.2002, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs but due to the constant demand for dowry coupled with the torture on the part of her husband, their married life could not run properly. She was tortured for non-payment of money and dowry articles in the marriage. It is alleged that due to such torture, she was compelled to leave the house of her husband on 27.04.2005 and as thereafter the effort for compromise was failed, the family members of the complainant approached the accused for return of the stridhan articles that were given on marriage but the same was denied and refused by the husband and her family members and thus with an allegation that her husband has misappropriated her stridhan property, she filed the complaint which was registered as C.R. Case No.202/2005, under Section 406 of the IPC.

3. The accused person (petitioner herein) faced the trial and denied the charge. In support of the case, the complainant examined four witnesses and the defence also adduced three witnesses in support of plea of denial that in fact no such dowry article was given in marriage as contended by the complainant and hence there is no question of misappropriation. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court hold the accused guilt under Section 406 of the IPC and sentenced him to S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default S.I. for two months.

4. On the appeal so preferred by the accused/petitioner also failed. Hence the present Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid orders of the Courts below.

5. Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner but none appears for the respondents despite the name is shown in the cause list. As the matter is old pending one and listing of the case is known to the engaged counsel and he intentionally did not turn up before the Court, so the matter is taken up for hearing.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective of law and facts and have arrived at an erroneous findings as to the guilt of the accused/petitioner. It has also been submitted that the marriage between the parties survived only for about five months and the complainant herself returned to her parental home and filed two cases against her husband one after another, under Section 498A of the IPC and under Section 125 of the CrPC and subsequently the present one under Section 406 of the IPC. Both the cases filed by the respondent wife dismissed on contest but the present case ended at conviction of the present petitioner without their being any proper evidence.

7. Referring to the evidence on record it has been contended that there is absolutely no evidence on the part of the respondent side to establish as to what sort of articles were given in the marriage and about such entrustment to the accused person of the dowry articles given in the marriage. On the other hand, on the strength of the search warrant, the respondent wife has took the articles which were belonged to the petitioner and in fact no such articles were given in her marriage as claimed in her claim petition.

8. The evidence of complainant and all her witnesses are identical, who even could not say about the exact articles that were given in the marriage and no any documents which is execut