A conviction for cruelty is legally sustainable despite the absence of a specific charge if those findings are based on evidence presented during trial that covers the necessary ingredients. Furthermore, courts must consider the reformative purpose of probation laws, especially in cases involving long, unexplained appellate delays.

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant although stood charged for the alleged commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, but the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.1999 found the appellant not guilty of the offence charged, however, held him liable for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.1999 passed in S.T. Case No. 27/149 of 1997, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore, rejected the prayer of the appellant to treat him under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for a period of six months.

The appellant is aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and has filed the present appeal.

2. The appeal has been pending since 1999. When the matter was called for hearing, none had appeared for appellant continuously. Therefore on 03.07.2025, this Court while adjourning the matter indicated in the order that henceforth if none appeared for the appellant Amicus Curiae will be appointed to assist the Court. Again when the matter was taken up on 22.07.2025, none had appeared for the appellant. Therefore, Ms. Aurolina Pal, learned counsel, who was present in Court, was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, who has readily accepted the same and obtained the record of the case and assisted the Court very effectively in the capacity of Amicus Curiae.

3. Heard Ms. Aurolina Pal, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant married to Priyambada Das (deceased) on 29.05.1987. It is alleged that as per the demand, dowry articles were given but a colour T.V. was promised to be given later on. For non-fulfilment of said demand, the appellant was tortured and on some occasion attempt was made to kill her. Lastly, on 19.07.1995, information was given to the parents of the deceased that she is ill. Getting such information, when the informant (P.W.7) came to the house of the appellant and she found that her daughter was dead.

5. On the basis of the written report of the informant (P.W.7), police registered the case and investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed in the present case against the accused for the alleged commission of offence u/s.304-B of I.P.C. The accused took a stance of complete denial and claimed trial. Accordingly, he was put to trial on the charge, as mentioned above.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as fourteen witnesses and exhibited sixteen documents.

7. The learned trial court after analyzing the evidence on record and by taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law came to conclusion that the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 304-B of IPC in the present case is lacking, hence recorded an acquittal in favour of the appellant. The reasoning recorded by the learned trial court is reflecting in paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:-

“10. The Investigating Officer in Para 9 of his evidence admitted that the marriage was held on 29.5.87. By the date of incident more than 7 years from the date of marriage was completed still he submitted Charge Sheet U/s.304