Kulamani Bag vs Ganeshram Suhula

P.K. Tripathy, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal in I.C.C. No. 88 of 1985 (Trial No. 35 of 1986) of the Court of J.M.F.C. Sambalpur. Complainant is the Appellant and the accused is the Respondent.

Respondent faced the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 497, Indian Penal Code The accusation against the Respondent is that he enticed away P.W. 3 who is the wife of P.W. 1 (the complainant) and that on his inducement she committed theft of a cash of Rs 1,000/- and some brass utensils from the house and during the period of elopment he made sexual intercourse with P.W. No. 3 and there by committed the offence of adultery punishable u/s 497 Indian Penal Code It is the further case of the complainant that matter was reported to the Police and when no action was taken by the Police he filed a complaint vide I.C.C. Case No. 76 of 1983 against P.W. No. 3 and the present accused for the offence u/s 379 Indian Penal Code In that case the Respondent was discharged and thereafter the complainant case was filed by the complainant against the Respondent which was registered as I.C.C. No. 88 of 1983. In that case (I.C.C. No. 76 of 1983) charge for the offence u/s 379, Indian Penal Code was framed against P.W. 3 and she was found guilty and convicted for that offence but she was released on Probation after due admonition in accordance with the provision in Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Complainant''s complaint against accused/respondent is for enticing away his wife with cash and utensils and cohabiting with her knowing fully well that she is the legally married wife of the complainant. In that respect, but complainant though examined five witnesses, but direct evidence in that respect is that of P.W. No. 3 alone. Learned Counsel for the Appellant reads the entire evidence of all the witnesses and after going through such evidence and the findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal inasmuch as for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment the evidence of P.W. 3 was not at all found reliable and creditworthy. After careful perusal of such evidence, this Court agrees with the view expressed relating to non-reliableness of the evidence of P.W. No. 3. In the absence of that evidence the other evidence on record are not sufficient to prove the charge u/s 497, Indian Penal Code Under such circumstance, this Court does not interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.