JUDGMENT :

1. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners have been partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 414 of 2004, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been modified.

2. The learned appellate court in its judgment sustained the conviction of the petitioners so far as the offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, however, acquitted the petitioners from the charge under Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no valid marriage between the complainant and the petitioner no. 1, Rohidas Mahato @ Ruhidas. He further submits that the learned trial court has committed a gross error in holding the marriage on the basis of simple affidavit which cannot be considered as a right of the parties to live as husband and wife. He further submits that to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code the most important ingredient is that the accused persons must be either husband or his family members. He further draws attention of this Court towards the major contradictions among the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. Relying upon the depositions of prosecution witnesses, he submits that the learned trial court has committed an error in holding that there was valid marriage and on the principle of maintenance, he convicted the petitioners. The learned appellate court also did not take into consideration the specific defence of the petitioners that no marriage has ever been solemnized between the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant and as such, no case is made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. The peculiar facts of the case insisted this Court to look into the evidences which clearly transpires that none of the prosecution witnesses have said that there was a valid marriage. P.W. – 1, P.W. – 2 has admitted that the marriage was not solemnized according to the social customs and rites. Even P. W. – 3 has stated that there was no valid marriage. P. W. – 5 has also supported the contention of the accused persons by submitting in Paragraph – 5 of his deposition that marriage of petitioner no. 1 and the complainant was not solemnized according to their customs and rites. Even the father of the complainant who is P.W. – 6 also admits that the marriage was not performed in the house rather, it was done through affidavit. This witness has also admitted the fact that there was no demand of any amount. Even the complainant who is P.W. – 7 has admitted before the court in her cross-examination that no family members of her husband was present. She also admits that the marriage has been solemnized through an affidavit.

7. In criminal jurisprudence the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and no person can be convicted on mere surmises and conjuncture. In the instant case, there is an admitted position that none of the witnesses has deposed that there was a social marriage between the complainant and the petitioner no. 1. The only fact which has been proved by the prosecution is that an affidavit has been sworn by the husband to the effect that the complainant is his wife. It is settled law that to constitute a marriage in the eye of law it has first to be established that the same was valid marriage. The bare fact that a man