Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 793 (ORI)

Suna Bewa v. Bauribandhu Behera

2002-12-11

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — None appears for the respondents. On the request of the Court, Mr. S. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel agrees to address the Court as amicus curiae and for that he was provided with the paper books for perusal. After going through the same he states that he is ready to argue. Heard learned counsel for appellant and Mr. S. Pradhan. 2. This appeal is against the order of acquittal in I.C.C. No. 95 of 1985 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Khurda as per the im¬pugned judgment dated 10.2.1987. Appellant filed I.C.C.No. 95 of 1985 against the respondents alleging offence under Sections 342/403, I.P.C. with the assertion that she is the daughter-in-law in the family of the respondents being the widow of late Sauri Behera, who is the brother of respondent No. 1 and son of respondent No. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively son and wife of respondent No. 1. The allegation in substance is that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 2.7.1985 at about 5 P.M. when the appellant returned to the house of the respondents from the house of her father, respondents did not permit her to enter into the house and even did not allow her to take her belongings which she had got as presentations at the time of her marriage. Such articles are movables including utensils and ornaments. Respond¬ents took the plea of denial to the aforesaid allegations besides denying to the appellant’s status as the widow of late Sauri Behera. 3. In support of her case appellant examined herself as P.W.1 whereas three co-villagers as P.Ws. 2 to 4 and relied on two voter lists of the year 1975 and 1980 respectively marked as Exts. 1 and 2. Respondents examined one co-villager as D.W.1 and relied on the voter list of the year 1983 marked as Ext.A in support of their defence plea. Perused the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court. 2 to 4 and relied on two voter lists of the year 1975 and 1980 respectively marked as Exts. 1 and 2. Respondents examined one co-villager as D.W.1 and relied on the voter list of the year 1983 marked as Ext.A in support of their defence plea. Perused the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court. Though learned counsel for the appellant argues that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 should not have been discarded on the ground of contradictions, but after going through such evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with such findings inasmuch as the trial Court, on due and proper apprecia¬tion of evidence, discarded the evidence adduced by the prosecu¬tion relating to proof of marital status of the appellant with late Sauri Behera. Of course, the aforesaid appreciation of evidence remains confined to disposal of the criminal trial and does not finally decide or adjudicate the status of the appellant. The trial Court rightly took into consideration the contradic¬tions relating to the manner and the year in which the marriage was said to have been performed, the conflicting evidentiary value emerging from the voter lists vide Exts.1 and 2 vis-a-vis Ext. R. Besides that, it also emerges from the evidence on record that appellant has neither proved entrustment nor converting the alleged articles to the use of the respondents or any act of misappropriation by any of them. Under such circumstances, the appellant having failed to prove her right to entry into that house and entrustment of the properties on the basis of her status as the married wife of late Sauri Behera, the order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Send back the L.C.R. The Court records appreciation of necessary assistance rendered by the counsel for the appellants well as Mr. S. Prad¬han, learned standing counsel who appeared as amicus curiae. Appeal dismissed.