JUDGMENT DEBABRATA DASH, J. 1. The appellant from inside the jail has called in question the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed in S.C. No. 75/23 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuapada convicting the appellant for commission of offence under S. 307/498-A, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under S. 307, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years with payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under S. 498-A, I.P.C. with default stipulations to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months respectively with further direction that the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case is that on 13-9-2002 around at 4.30 p.m. the appellant came to his house after taking liquor. He then sprinkled kerosene over the victim, P.W. 2, who is none other than his wife while expressing his annoyance for non-payment of demand of dowry. It is next submitted that when the appellant was searching for the match box to further proceeded to set her ablaze, she could manage to escape. She reported the matter to the P.W. 3, the village Sarpanch, who kept her in the panchayat office for the night and sent information to her mother. On the next day morning, a meeting was convened, when it was attended by the appellant. In the said meeting, the appellant abused the panch members including the Sarpanch using the vulgar words. In view of that, P.W. 2 was directed to lodge FIR at the Police Station. So FIR being scribed by P.W. 9 was lodged at Jonk Police Station. The A.S.I. of Police, P.W. 13 present there in absence of the O.I.C., registered the case and took up the investigation. In course of the investigation, the victim, P.W. 2 was medically examined after recording of her statement and the statements of other witnesses. The spot was visited by the I.O. and on closure of the investigation, the appellant was called upon to face the trial for commission of offence under Ss. 307/498-A, I.P.C. and faced the same. 3. The case of defence is complete denial and false implication. When prosecution in this case has examined thirteen witnesses, the defence has examined none. From the side of the prosecution, FIR has been admitted in the evidence and marked as Ext. 307/498-A, I.P.C. and faced the same. 3. The case of defence is complete denial and false implication. When prosecution in this case has examined thirteen witnesses, the defence has examined none. From the side of the prosecution, FIR has been admitted in the evidence and marked as Ext. 2 and also the medical examination report Ext. 1. P.W. 1 is the doctor who has examined the wife of the appellant, i.e. P.W. 2. As already stated Sarpanch of the village before whom P.W. 2 first informed the incident has come to the dock as P.W. 3, whereas P.W. 4 is the elder brother of P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 2 is P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 is another brother. Two independent witnesses have been examined as P.Ws. 7 and 8. The scribe of the FIR has been examined as P.W. 9. P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. On evaluation of evidence as well as taking into consideration the medical examination report, the trial Court has found the prosecution to have established the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for commission of the offence with regard to complicity for offence under Ss. 307/498-A, I.P.C. against the appellant and accordingly he has been sentenced as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case conviction for offence under S. 307, I.P.C. on the basis of available evidence is not at all well founded. According to him, even taking the prosecution case as it is, it cannot be said that the appellant has any complicity for commission of said offence and even the facts on being accepted for a moment, no case is made out for offence under S. 307, I.P.C. He further submits that the trial Court has committed error by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to commission of offence under S. 498-A, I.P.C. and the glaring facts and circumstances of the case have not been taken into consideration in any manner. Therefore, he urges that it is a fit case for interference with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered against the appellant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution clearly establish the charges. Therefore, he urges that it is a fit case for interference with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered against the appellant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution clearly establish the charges. He further submits that there remains no reason to discard the version of the prosecution witnesses. So, he urges that the appeal bears no merit. 5. The prosecution case from very beginning right from narration in the FIR, Ext. 2 is that the appellant while expressing the annoyance for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, doused the informant, P.W. 2 with kerosene and he in order to lit it started to search for the match stick. At that time in order to save her life, the victim, P.W. 2 managed to escape and informed the village gentries and first directly went to Sarpanch, P.W. 3. Her evidence is to the effect that the appellant came, picked up quarrel and taking jerkin put kerosene on her body and then went for finding the match stick in order to set her ablaze. She has stated to have sustained injuries for said pouring of kerosene on her. One contusion, two blisters on left flank and two on right back of waist which are all simple in nature have been noticed by doctor, P.W. 1. This P.W. 2 when has stated that appellant searched for match stick after pouring kerosene, she is not stating that appellant was expressing openly about that factum of search or anything else in that direction. So for P.W. 2 to know that appellant was searching for match box is per se not believable. Furthermore, when she states that having picked up quarrel, the appellant poured kerosene, admittedly the appellant cannot be said to be having the intention from the beginning to set her ablaze. It is not stated that appellant from the time of entry was holding that jerkin. It has also been stated by P.W. 4 that such was the information that he had received and for that reason, they had gone to the meeting place whereafter FIR, Ext. 2 was lodged. P.W. 5 of course has stated slightly different that the appellant assaulted the P.W. 2 and went for searching the match box. P.Ws. It has also been stated by P.W. 4 that such was the information that he had received and for that reason, they had gone to the meeting place whereafter FIR, Ext. 2 was lodged. P.W. 5 of course has stated slightly different that the appellant assaulted the P.W. 2 and went for searching the match box. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 have deposed in the same vein. However, none of those witnesses including P.W. 2 are stating that appellant had thereafter chased. Thus it is seen that the prosecution evidence is acceptable on the score that it is the appellant who on the relevant date, time and place had doused P.W. 2 with kerosene. With such evidence on record, this Court find the conviction for offence under S. 307, I.P.C. to be vulnerable. 6. With regard to offence under S. 498-A, I.P.C. it is seen that P.W. 2 has stated that the appellant was picking up quarrel and was assaulting her after taking liquor accusing her to have not brought dowry from her mother. She has further stated that on account of assault, she had left the house and had gone to the house where her mother was residing. She has further stated that in the meeting convened in the village, the appellant gave an undertaking that he would not further torture P.W. 2. So she went back to her matrimonial home and settled there where on that day again said incident took place when appellant picked up quarrel and poured kerosene over her. P.W. 3 the village Sarpanch has also gone to state that the appellant was ill-treating P.W. 2 and was assaulting her, and the appellant was in the habit of picking up quarrel with her after taking liquor. It is also his evidence that several meetings were held in the village and appellant though was asked to change, he did not accept it. Both the witnesses though have been cross-examined, no such material have come out to discard their version with regard to cruelty to have been meted out at P.W. 2 by way of physical assault by the appellant besides mental torture. This fact also finds place in the FIR, Ext. 2 which provides due corroboration. P.W. 4 has also stated the same thing that the accused used to torture and ill-treat P.W. 2. This fact also finds place in the FIR, Ext. 2 which provides due corroboration. P.W. 4 has also stated the same thing that the accused used to torture and ill-treat P.W. 2. In this connection, he has proved the undertaking of the appellant giving out that he would not ill-treat P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 5 is also in the same line, and so also that of P.Ws.6 and 7. The above evidence with the evidence as regards the last incident giving rise to the initiation of the case as well as the evidence of P.W. 1 that she had noticed injuries on the person of P.W. 2 clearly attracts the liability of appellant for commission of offence under S. 498-A, I.P.C. Thus the conviction recorded against the appellant on this score is found to be a well merited one. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant for offence under S. 307, I.P.C. and the sentence imposed there under is hereby set aside. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under S. 498-A, I.P.C. and the sentence imposed there under is confirmed. Appeal partly allowed.