MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Accused acquitted for Dowry and Domestic violence case over Vague charges

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

CRREV No.663 of 1999
(In the matter of application under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

Raibu @ Rabindra Mahanta & Another …… Petitioners

Versus

State of Orissa & another …… Opposite Parties

For Petitioners :M/s. M. Chand, D.R. Parida.
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Dash (A.S.C.)

PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE AKSHAYA KUMAR MISHRA

Date of hearing and judgment: 24.01.2019

Dr. A. K. Mishra, J.

In this revision, the petitioners have challenged the concurrent verdict passed in CRLA No.5/93 of 1999/1998 dated 13.10.1999 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 21.11.1998 passed by the learned SDJM, Rairangpur in G.R. Case No.531/93 (T.C. 933/93) holding the accused petitions guilty of offence under Section 498(A) and 34 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentencing each to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/ in default to undergo R.I. for one month for offence under Section 498(A)/34 of IPC and R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ in default to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

2. Opposite party no.2Champabati Mohanta had filed an affidavit in pursuance of the order dated 5.5.2004 stating that she was staying with her husband and both of them was blessed with two female children.

2(a). Learned State counsel was directed to verify the correctness of the affidavit through O.I.C., Bisoi Police Station. In course of hearing, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. S. Dash, showing the copy of official information received from O.I.C, Bisoi P.S. submits that Champabati MohantaO.P. No.2 was living happy conjugal life with the petitioner no.1 since 1997 and out of their wedlock two daughters and one son blessed with them. In the meantime, Champabati Mohanta has since been expired on 23.10.2017. All the children are living with their father peacefully and one of their daughters has already given marriage and two are prosecuting their studies. The same be kept on record.

See also  Whether the party can file a review application on the ground that the court has not taken into consideration his written submission if his counsel has not relied on it?

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the restoration of peace in the family and for the future of the children, the conviction of sentence of both the petitioners be set aside. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vrs. The State of Gujarat and another reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641.

3(a). He further submits that the material in convicting the accused persons is so scanty that the learned court should not have convicted the accused persons.

4. Champabati married Rabindra on 25.07.1993 and after some days of marriage, the accused persons demanded cash, T.V., Cycle and for the inability to give those articles, Champabati returned to her father’s house and lodged written F.I.R. which was ultimately ended in filing of chargesheet.

5. Learned lower court took cognizance and trial was ensured, the plea of defence was denial simplicitor. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. Defence examined one witness. Basing upon the testimony of the victim, the demand was found to have been proved.

6. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, I find no clinching evidence to hold guilty both the accused persons for the reason that the allegation of torture was not specific and demand of dowry was not commensurate to the common man life.

6(a). Tested in the above touchstone and keeping the above settlement between the parties, I am satisfied that the accused persons therein who are the petitioners herein in this revision are entitled to be acquitted.

See also  Shared Parenting - 'Child Isn't An Appendage Of Parents

7. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of petitioners in G.R. Case No.531/93 (T.C. 933/93) vide judgment dated 21.11.1998 passed by the learned SDJM, Rairangpur which was confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in Criminal Appeal No.5/93 of 1999/1998 vide judgment dated 13.10.1999 are hereby set aside.

In the result, both the accused persons are acquitted there from and they be set at liberty.

Accordingly, the CRREV is allowed.

Dr. A.K. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,Dated the 24th January, 2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Whether the party can file a review application on the ground that the court has not taken into consideration his written submission if his counsel has not relied on it?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation