The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence to support charges of cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry demands and the limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Ray, J. - The Appellants have filed the aforesaid criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No. 10 of 1990/52 of 1990. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment while acquitting the Appellants of the charge u/s 306/34 I.P.C. found them guilty of charge u/s 498-A/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year on the said count. The criminal revision has been filed by the informant against the order of acquittal of the Appellants of the charge u/s 306/34, IPC.

Both these matters having arisen out of the same judgment and order, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Briefly the case of the prosecution against the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") is that Sandhyarani Panda, the daughter of Arjuna Charan Panda (P.W.4) was given in marriage to one Laxmikanta, who happens to be the son of accused Umakanta Pati. At the time of marriage a demand of five tolas of gold was made by Umakanta Pati. But the informant could give only four tolas of gold at the time of marriage and agreed to give the rest one tola of gold later, which he could not give for paucity of funds. For non-fulfillment of such demand, Sandhayarani was subjected to torture by the accused persons who happen to be respectively, her husband's grandmother, father and brother. It is the further case of the prosecution that Sandhyarani was ill-treated by the accused persons with a common intention to coerce her to fulfill their illegal demand and they subjected her to cruelty, mental as well as physical for which Sandhyarani was compelled to commit suicide in the night intervening 20/21.11.1988.

3. The matter was reported to the Police in writing by filing an F.I.R. (Ext.1) by the informant, pursuant to which Bhandaripokhari P.S. Case No. 74 dated 21.11.1988 was registered and police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, Police placed charge sheet against the accused persons. The accused persons thereafter faced their trial before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhadrak being charged under Sections 498-A, 306 both read with Section 34, I.P.C. with a plea of complete denial and false implication. On conclusion of the trial, basically relying on the evidence of the relations of the deceased, such as P.Ws.1 to 4, the trial Court returned the impugned judgment and order of sentence as stated earlier.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction of the Appellants for offence under Sections 498-A/34, I.P.C, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellants that in this case there being no credible evidence worth on record to sustain such a charge, the trial Court committed gross illegality inholding the Appellants guilty of the said charge. When the conviction u/s 498-A/34 I.P.C. is unsustainable, acquittal of the Appellants from the charge u/s 306/34 I.P.C, can not be said to be perverse warranting an interference in exercise of the power of revision, submits counsel for the Appellants. Hence, it is submitted by him to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and dismiss the revision at the instance of the informant, as the same is devoid of any merit.

However, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that there is ample material to come to a conclusion that the Appellants are guilty of the charge under Sections 498-A/34, I.P.C. and hence no fault can be found with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner while defending the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, further submits that when the trial Court came to a conclusion that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry made by the Appellants, in view of the presumption u/s 113(A) of the Evidence Act, the trial Court ought not have with