ADIKANDA SAMAL Vs. MADHABANANDA NAIK
LAWS(ORI)-1973-4-24
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on April 17,1973

ADIKANDA SAMAL Appellant
VERSUS
Madhabananda Naik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.B.PANDA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Adikanda Samal has been convicted under Section 498, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - or in default to undergo S. I. for two months by Sri N. K. Patnaik, Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak which has been confirmed by shri S. N. Misra, Sessions Judge, Balasore.
(2.) THE complainant (P. W. 1) married Hemalata (C. W. 1) on 7.6.1969. At that time the complainant was about 22 years and Hemalata was 19 years old. The complainant is a student of Bhadrak College. He belongs to village Olakana which is about 3/4 miles from the village of his father -in -law Gopal Chandra Rout (D. W. 1). Complainant's grievance is that on 26.4.1970 the petitioner enticed his wife Hemalata and detained her with the purpose of having illicit intercourse with her. The defence of the petitioner in his examination under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code was a bare denial of the allegation with a suggestion that the witnesses were deposing against him due to party rivalry. However, various suggestions have been put to the prosecution witnesses, such as, there was no valid marriage between the complainant and Hemalata: that Hemalata had come away of her own accord from the protection of her father -in -law on behalf of her husband due to ill -treatment and that it is a false case started to avoid maintenance.
(3.) THERE are 7 witnesses for the prosecution of whom P. W. 1 is the husband, P. W. 6 Judumani Naik is the father -in -law and the rest are co -villagers of the complainant who found Hemalata on the morning of 27th with the petitioner in his outhouse. The learned Courts below relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the evidence of D. W. 1 and Hemalata convicted the petitioner as aforesaid. At the time of admission of this revision notice for enhancement of sentence was given as the punishment appeared to be manifestly inadequate.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.