The presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

In this appeal, the State assails the acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC for brevity and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'D.P. Act' in S.T. Case No. 26/ 181 of 1993 of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the deceased Jayanti Parida, who happens to be the sister of the informant Banchhanidhi Parida of village Raipur was given in marriage to the accused Sudarsan Parida, son of Ramchandra Parida of that village in the year 1986. At the time of marriage, dowry articles were given as per the demand of the accused persons, except one gold necklace, promised to be given later on. The deceased, after her marriage, whenever visited her father's house used to complaint of harassment and ill-treatment on her by the accused persons for not giving of gold necklace promised to be given at the time of marriage. She was reluctant to go in-law's house. One year previous to her death, the deceased came to her father's house and remained there for about a year. Her father-in-law, namely, accused Ramachandra subsequently came and took her to his house and with a word of promise to the deceased's parents not to assault her any more. The prosecution further alleges that, on 20.04.1993, the deceased committed suicide by hanging from the beam of her bed room in the house of the accused persons.

The informant getting news of the death of the deceased came to the house of the accused and saw the deceased hanging from the beam of her bed room by means of a rope. He informed about this incident to Benudhar Sahu and Padmanav Barik and went to Langaleswar market (to convey the news of the deceased to her father). Then, he lodged a report at the Singla Police Station. On the basis of which, Singla P.S. Case No. 27 of 1993 was initiated and investigation was conducted. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Thus, the accused persons stood trial for the aforesaid offences, wherein they took the plea that they have not tortured or ill-treated the deceased or demanded any dowry. They have also taken secondary plea that the marriage between the deceased and the accused Sudarsan Parida took place eight years prior to her death.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it examined as many as 7 witnesses during course of trial and the defence examined one witness. The defence tendered into evidence of a card purported to be the invitation card for the marriage between the appellant Sudarsan Parida and the deceased.

4. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence led on behalf of both the parties came to the conclusion that the marriage has been solemnized on 5.7.1984 and, therefore, the offence u/s 304-B of the IPC is not attracted. The learned Addl. Session judge has further came to the conclusion that the offence u/s 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are not made out in view of evidence available on record.

5. In course of hearing, the learned Addl. Government Advocate very emphatically submitted that the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and relied upon the invitation card, which is not proved in accordance with law. It is also submitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that there are clinching material against the appellants for securing a conviction u/s 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and further urged that the materials on record do not warrant a conviction on reversal of the acquittal order. Therefore, he prayed to dis