JUDGMENT :

” The State in this appeal has called in question the judgment passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia in G.R. Case No. 335 of 1994 (T.C. No. 52 of 1995) acquitting in the respondent of the charge under Sections 498-A and 323 of the I.P.C.

2. The fact of the case of the prosecution is that the respondent had married P.W.3 daughter of Kunu Ghana who used to reside in the same hamlet of the village Kulundi under Jashipur Police Station in the district of Mayurbhanj where the respondent-” s permanent residence is situated. The marriage had taken place on 5-4-1994 in the Shiva temple situated at Jashipur. It is further stated that after the marriage, the Respondent began to ill-treat his wife and on 30-11-1994 during noon hours, she was assaulted by the Respondent, when she raised cry, inviting the attention of her elder father Ugrasen Ghana. He then arrived and protested to such assault by the Respondent and took Latika to his house. The villagers then wanted to have an amicable settlement of the matter but that failed. So, it was orally reported at the Police Station on 6-12-1994. That is how the case came to be registered and finally on completion of the investigation, the Respondent being placed to be tried in the said offences, the trial commenced and culminated as stated above.

3. The Respondent during the trial took the plea of complete denial and false implication while denying the factum of marriage and the status of this P.W.3 as his wife.

4. Prosecution in order to bring home, the charge against the Respondent during trial has examined 10 witnesses. The star witness for the prosecution is P.W.3 who is the informant of the case who claims to have been residing as the Respondent-” s wife having married him on 5-4-1994. P.Ws. 1 and 5 are the independent witnesses, when P.W.4 is the father of the informant, P.W.6 is the Medical Officer who had the occasion to examine P.W.3, P.W.7 is the elder father of P.W.3. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.10.

From the side of the prosecution, the F.I.R. lodged by the prosecution in the Police Station has been admitted in evidence and has been marked as Ext. 1. Ext. 2 is the injury report of P.W.3 and Ext. 3 is an Invitation Card.

5. Defence has examined none.

The trial Court upon consideration of the evidence has arrived at conclusion that there was no valid marriage between the Respondent and P.W.3. With this finding, the Respondent has not been found guilty for commission of offence under Sections 498-A/323 of I.P.C. has been acquitted. This judgment is now under challege in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the evidence let in by the prosecution, when being appreciated in their proper prospective clearly establish that the Respondent and the P.W.3 had married and stayed together under one roof in the very hamlet of the village where houses of both the families are situated as husband and wife and they had also been recognized as such in their society and by all concerned. Therefore, according to him, the trial court erred in law by not holding the Respondent guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. on the ground that no valid marriage between them has been proved. It is also his submission that for attraction of the provision of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. strict proof of the marriage is not required and it is enough if from the evidence it is found that parties were living together as husband and wife and were recognized as such in the society for sometime. It is further his submission that the decision referred to by the trial Court in case of Smt. Sabitri Patra v. State of Orissa and others (1994) 7 OCR 381 is no more reigning the field in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Reema Agrawal v. Anupam and others (2004) 27 OCR 519 : (2004 Cri LJ 892). Therefore, according to him, the trial court erring in law by acquitting the Respondent and thus it stands as fit case for interference with the order