Insufficient specific evidence to sustain conviction for cruelty under IPC 498-A; general allegations are inadequate for liability.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 r/w Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2011 (Crl. Appeal No.27/10-GDC), whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Digapahandi, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.195/1996 (T.R. No.451/1997) has been confirmed.

2. The petitioners were subjected to prosecution in Nuagaon P.S. Case No.69 of 1996 which was registered under Sections 498 (A)/406/34 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, namely Manjula Badatia, married to the elder brother of the petitioners, namely Panchanan Badatia on 11.09.1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. It was her case that she and Panchanan had a love affair prior to the marriage. Out of such a relationship, she became pregnant and when the villagers came to know that fact, a meeting was convened and there Panchanan Badatia agreed to marry her. After her marriage, she spent one year of conjugal life with said Panchanan in a rented house along with her in- laws. It is further alleged that her husband’s family members were exerting physical and mental torture on her to bring more dowry.

On 15.08.1995 she was assaulted by her husband’s family and was forced to bring Rs.20,000/-, they also took her husband from the rented house. Subsequently, on 28.06.1996 her husband married another girl named Shanti. By that time, the victim was also blessed with a male child namely Jogendra. After the marriage of the victim’s husband with Shanti, their family members tortured the victim further and drove her away from their house.

On the basis of such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged at Nuagaon Police Station, which was registered under Sections 498 (A)/406/34 of IPC . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for alleged offences under (A)/406/34 of read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned trial court framed charges against them and they were put to trial.

4. To bring home charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents. Out of them, the informant, who was the victim, was examined as P.W.1 and the rest were the occurrence witnesses. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. In proof of their defence, no witness had been examined.

5. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found that the petitioners were not guilty of the offences under Sections 406 /34 of I.P.C read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted them from the said charges according to the provision under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. But they were found guilty for the offence under Sections 498 (A)/34 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- only each, in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days.

6. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.04.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Digapahandi, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.195/1996 (T.R. No.451/1997) was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2011 (Crl. Appeal No.27/10-GDC) before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, by the petitioners. The said appeal of the petitioner has failed.

7. The petitioners have challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in the present Revision Petition.

8. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Additional Governmen