Crl.A./78/2004 of JUNALI GOGOI Vs GIRIN BURAGOHAIN on 23 December 2011

Crl.A. 78/2004BEFORETHE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY.JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

This is an appeal against acquittal in the judgment and order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh in Case No.99C/2002, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under Section 494/420/406 I.P.C.

2. I have heard Mr. P. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel representing the accused-respondent. 3.The fact leading to filing of this appeal be stated in brief as follows:-The appellant as complainant filed a complaint case before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh stating, inter alia, that she was married with the accused-opposite party on 20.2.1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. However, after the marriage, as alleged by the appellant, the accused-respondent and his familymembers demanded dowry and ultimately, on 28.5.1995, the complainant-appellant was driven out from the house of the accused-respondent by retaining all such articles given in gift to the appellant complainant as dowry. The appellant-complainant lodged an F.I.R. in the local police station. The F.I.R. was registered under Section 498(A) I.P.C by registering G.R. Case No.132 of 1998 and the investigation was launched.

4. In the meantime, the accused-respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Dibrugarh seeking a decree of dissolution of his marriage withthe complainant-appellant, which was registered as Title Suit (D) No.37/1996. The aforesaid suit, however, was dismissed on 29.1.1998.

5. The complainant-appellant alleged in the complaint that the accused-respondent re-married with Smti. Bondita Chetia and started living together as husband and wife. The complainant-appellant also stated that those articles given with her as dowry were kept by the accused-respondent. On the basis of the complaint lodged before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 494/420/406 I.P.C.and issued process against the accused respondent. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 406/494 I.P.C. against the accused respondent. In orderto establish the charges aforesaid, the prosecution side examined altogether 6 (six) witnesses. However, the accused respondent while giving his statement under Section 313 CrPC declined to adduce defence evidence. The learned trial Courttook the following point for determination for just decision of the case :-i.Whether the accused person committed criminal breach of trust in respectof the dowry goods kept in his house by the complainant.ii.Whether the accused person having a wife (complainant) living married Smti. Bondita Chetia which marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life time of the complainant. 6.The learned trial Court, after careful scrutiny of the materials on record, acquitted the accused person from the charges under Section 406/494 I.P.C.

7. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant- appellant against theorder of acquittal of the learned trial Court. Admittedly, the matrimonial discord between the parties got triggered, immediately after lapse of one year from the date of marriage in 1994. During this period, the complainant-appellant as well as the accused respondent carried on several rounds of litigations in different forums. Both the complainant-appellant as well as the accused- respondent happened to be teachers by profession. Upon scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1,it appears that on 28.5.1995, the accused opposite party by wiping vermilion fr

om the forehead of the complainant-appellant (P.W.1) expressed his desire to re-marry another girl and forced P.W.1 to leave his house. Allegedly, while doing so, P.W.1 was beaten by the accused respondent. Accordingly, on 1.9.2000 P.W.1 came to know about the re-marriage of the accused respondent. P.W.1 approached the Principal of the school, in which the accused respondent was teaching as subject teacher for clarification and on 14.9.2001, the accused opposite party executed one document Ext.1 in presence of the witnesses declaring that he remarried one Smti. Bondita Chetia in 1998 and one girl child was born out of the second wedlock. P.W.1 also stated that she had seen the accused living with the second wife in the rented house.

8. P.W.2 Sri Manik Rajkonwar, Principal of Gorchariali Higher Secondary School also stated in his evidence that on 14.9.2001, the accused opposite party had written Ext.1 declaring that he remarried Smti. Bondita Chetia in 1998 and one girl child was born in August, 1999. P.W.2 also proved the signature of the accused opposite party and his signature as attesting witness.

9. P.W.3 Sri Deba Kanta Gogoi, the elder brother of P.W.1, who also stated that he saw the accused person living with his second wife Smti. Bondita Chetiaat Moran.

10. P.W. 4 Sri Nobin Dowrah has stated that he is the owner of the rented house, in which, the accused opposite party lived with his second wife, for 3 years and P.W.5 Sri Ram Chandra Gogoi and P.W.6 Anil Gogoi are the employees of Gorchariali Higher Secondary School and both of them had stated that the accused person had written Ext.1 declaring his second marriage with Smti. Bondita Chetia, in which they signed as witnesses. However, the accused opposite party, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC denied the accusation of second marriage with Smti. Bondita Chetia. In order to establish the charge under Section 494 I.P.C., the prosecution is required to establish that the husband/accused opposite during the life time of his wife, had legally remarried Smti. Bondita Chetia.

11. On perusal of the document Ext.1, which is addressed to the Principal ofthe school, the accused opposite party has stated that since 1998, he had been cohabiting with Smti. Bondita Chetia and one child was born in August, 1999, at Moran Nursing Home out of their cohabitation. The document does not reflect anywhere that the accused opposite party had ever married Smti. Bondita Chetia as per social customs.

12. When the parties are governed by Hindu Law, in order to attract ingredients of Section 494 I.P.C, a valid marriage with sacrament of religious rites hasto be established. A marriage, which is not accompanied by customary rites, cannot be said to be legally valid marriage. In the instant case, it appears that the prosecution did not come forward to prove the performance of a valid marriage by the accused opposite party with Smti. Bondita Chetia. The production of document Ext.1, ipso facto, cannot be accepted as a proven document of valid marriage between the accused opposite party and Smti. Bondita Chetia. Apparently, living together would not amount to valid marriage, unless religious rites are performed by the parties with an intention to marry each other.

13. Upon a careful scrutiny of the materials on record, it appears that there is no proof of marriage between the accused opposite party with Smti. Bondita Chetia, within the meaning of Section 494 I.P.C. and mere living together cannotbe interpreted as legally valid marriage between them. The ingredients of offence under Section 494 I.P.C. would be attracted only when a valid marriage is performed by a person having a spouse living at the time of marriage ceremony. The second marriage has to be performed while the first marriage was subsisting and both the marriage will have to be valid marriage strictly in accordance with lawgoverning the parties’ rights.

14. The decision of the Supreme Court in Sumitra Devi v. B. Choudhury reported in AIR 1985 SC 765, clearly depicts that in order to give sanctity of validmarriage, certain religious rites have to be performed attended by rites and rituals of the parties and without it, the sanction of marriage between the parties cannot be said to be valid marriage. Similarly, in P. Satyanarayan v. P. Mallaiah, SC 1997 Cr.L.J. 211, the Supreme Court held that even admission of livingtogether as husband and wife would not amount to marriage unless the second wife is taken by the husband after solemnizing the marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.

15. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Court has rightly held that even if the accused opposite party was living together with Smti. BonditaChetia, it would not attract the ingredients of offence of bigamy against the accused opposite party. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the accused opposite party committed the offence of bigamy within the meaning of Section 494 I.P.C.

16. The next question relates to accusation of criminal breach of trust committed by the accused opposite party by retaining the property of the appellant wife illegally and dishonestly. The complainant-appellant by adducing evidence inthe Court deposed that as many as 158 items of dowry goods were given at the time of their marriage and all those articles were taken to her matrimonial home. P.W.1 stated that at the time of living matrimonial abode, she left all those articles and the accused opposite party declined to return them, as demanded. The accusation of criminal breach of trust was supported by the brother of the complainant, P.W.3, Sri Deba Kanta Gogoi. However, the other prosecution witnesses did not state anything about the criminal breach of trust. According to P.W.3, at the time of marriage, many goods, such as, godrej, double bed, single bed, four V.I.Ps, steel case, five Aristocrats, five steel boxes three pressure cookers,two glasses, two racks, mischief, dressing table, two sofa sets, divan, stove, five wall clocks, gold ornaments weighing nine tolas described in the list were given as dowry goods and the accused opposite party had refused to return them when she demanded the items.

17. Very interestingly, as many as 158 different items including cash amountof Rs.11,000/- kept by P.W.1 were allegedly held back by the accused opposite party at the time of departure from the house of the accused-opposite party on 28.5.1995. Surprisingly, the complainant lodged the complaint, for recovery of goods on 28.1.2002. Meanwhile, the complainant-appellant admittedly lodged an F.I.R. on 28.1.1998, which was registered also as G.R. Case No.10/1998, against the accused person and on 30.12.2000, the accused was acquitted. In her cross examination, P.W.1 categorically admitted that she did not submit any document relating to purchase of the items kept in the house of the accused opposite party. According to P.W.1, those items were given in gift by her friends and relatives. She further admitted in her cross examination that a list containing detail description of names of the items given in gift to her was left by her inside the Godrej almirah, which was kept at the residence of the accused opposite party. In her cross examination, she further stated that she had submitted a list of 75 items as dowry items belonging to her. She admitted to have received the items mentioned in the list, except Item No.52. She had admitted to have received all those items in List-B. However, she generally denied not to have received some ofthe dowry items from her husband accused opposite party. In her cross examination, P.W.1 denied to have received certain items shown in the list as dowry items.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on the decision reported in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370 submitted that a Hindu marriedwoman to the husband is the absolute owner of the property given by her parentsand close relatives at the time of marriage and the husband has no right of int eraction. The right over the property is purely personal right of the married woman. She may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. The relevant extract of the decision reads as under :-

15. We are of the opinion that this view of the High Court is not legally sustainable because neither of the two Acts, referred to above, go to the extent of providing that the claim of a woman on the basis of stridhan is completely abolished. All that the two sections, mentioned above, provide is that if the husband refuses to return the stridhan property of his wife, it will be open to the wifeto recover the same by properly constituted suit. The sections nowhere provide that the concept of stridhan is abolished or that a remedy under the criminal law for breach of trust is taken away.

16. In a later decision in Bhai Sher Singh and Anr. v. Smt. Virinder Kaur MANU/PH/0172/1978, it was very rightly pointed out by the same High Court that Section27 of the Marriage Act merely provides an alternate remedy to the wife to bringa properly constituted suit in respect of the stridhan property which the husband refused to return. Thus, it is clear that Section 27 merely provides for an alternate remedy and does not touch or affect in any way the Criminal liability of the husband in case it is proved that he has dishonestly misappropriated that stridhan of his wife. It cannot also be spelt out from any textbook or the sastric law of the Hindus that the two Acts mentioned above take away the stridhan right of a woman-at the most these Acts merely modify the concept of stridhan. It may be useful to refer to certain pertinent observations in the aforesaid case.The aforementioned passage shows that a female has an absolute right to use her stridhan in any way she likes and even if her husband can take this property at the time of distress, this right is personal to him, The allegations made in theinstant complaint are not that the husband of the respondent has placed her ornaments and jewellery etc. out of her way. What has been alleged therein is that the petitioners who are the parents-in-law of the respondent have converted the ornaments and clothes, etc. presented to the respondent at the time of her marriage to their own use.

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers a Court while deciding a matrimonial dispute to also pass a decree in respect of property which may jointly belongto both the husband and the wife. This section at best provides a civil remedy to an aggrieved wife and does not in any way take away her right to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband.

20. We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of them to commit a breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she will be liable for all the consequences of such breach. Criminal law and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in matrimonial home are as much punishable as anywhere else. In the case of stridhanproperty also, the title of which always remains with the wife though possession of the same may sometimes be with the husband or other members of his family, if the husband or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 406 IPC.

21. Afterall how could any reasonable person expect a newly married women livingin the same house and under the same roof to keep her personal property or belongings like jewellery, clothing, etc., under her own lock and key, thus showing a spirit of distrust to the husband at the very behest. We are surprised how could the High Court permit the husband to cast his covetous eyes on the absolute and personal property of his wife merely because it is kept in his custody, thereby reducing the custody to a legal farce. On the other hand, it seems to that useven if the personal property of the wife is jointly kept, it would be expressly or impliedly kept in the custody of the husband and if he dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return the same, he is certainly guilty of criminal breachof trust, and there can be no escape from this legal consequence. The observations of the High Court at other places regarding the inapplicability of Section 406 do not appeal to us and are in fact not in consonance with the spirit and tre nd of the criminal law. There are a large number of cases where criminal law andcivil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive butclearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property of the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong doer in cases likearson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy isavailable, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 I.P.C. or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law. —

19. In a large number of cases, the Apex Court has held that the basic foundation of the offence of criminal breach of trust is that a property must be entrusted, and the dominion of the property should be given to the trustee. In the present case, even P.W.1 could not specifically indicate, which were the items entrusted to the accused opposite party. There was confusion in the list of items. There has to be clear allegation of entrustment of specific items by the complainant against the accused.

20. In Avtar Singh v. Kirpal Kaur (Criminal Misc. No.2144-M of 1979 and Criminal Misc. No.2145 of 1979, decided on August 16, 1979) made the following observation :

In my opinion, where certain thing is lying in trust with a person, offence of dishonest misappropriation would be committed on a date the demand for return ofthe entrusted articles is made and the same is declined & According to the complaint, the first demand for the return of the articles was made on January 27, 1976 and it was that date when the demand was declined. Hence, the offence of misappropriation of the dowry articles lying in trust was committed on January 27,1976. —

21. In yet another decision reported in (1997) 2 SCC 397 Rashmi Kumar (Smt) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, the Supreme Court once again by giving a fresh look to the ratio of decision reported in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (supra) held that -

10. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at herown pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use itduring the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no titleor independent dominion over the property as owner thereof.13. Thus when the wife entrusts her stridhana property with the dominion over that property to her husband or any other member of the family and the husband or such other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or wilfully suffers any other person to do so, he commits criminal breach of trust. The essential ingredients for establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 and punishable under Section 406 IPC with sentence for a period upto three years or with fine or with both,are: [i] entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property; [ii] the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do so in violation of any direction of law

prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. The expression \entrustment\ carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implicationsin different contexts. In its most general significance, all its imports is handing over the possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferment of any proprietary right therein. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be hi some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it onaccount of some person or in some way for his benefit. In Pratibha Rani’s case,the majority has extensively considered the words \entrustment\ of and \dominion\ over the property. All the case law in that behalf was exhaustively considered obviating the necessity to tread once over the same. In order to establish entrustment of dominion over the property, both the majority and minority relied onin particular the judgment of this Court in Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0091/1964 : 1965CriLJ431 wherein it was held that in order to establish entrustment of dominion over the property to an accused person, mere existence of that person’s dominion over the property is not enough. It must be further shown that his dominion was the result of entrustment. The question therein pertained to the entrustment with the dominion over the partnership property by one partner to the other. It was held that the prosecution must establish that the dominion over the assets or particular assets of the partnership was by a special agreement between the parties. The property of the partnership being a partnership asset, every partner has a right to or a dominion over it. It was held that special agreement was necessary to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust defined under Section 405 IPC, In view of the finding that stridhanaproperty is the exclusive property of the wife on proof that she entrusted the property of dominion over the stridhana property to her husband of any other member of the family, there is no need to establish any further special agreement to establish that the property was given to the husband or other member of the family. It is always a question of fact in each case as to how property came to beentrusted to the husband or any other member of the family by the wife when sheleft the matrimonial home or was driven out therefrom. No absolute or fixed rule of universal application can be laid down in that behalf. It requires to be established by the complainant or the prosecution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, as to how and in what manner the entrustment of the stridhana property or dominion over her stridhana came to be made to the husband orany other member of the family or the accused person, as the case may be. We are in respectful agreement with the majority view in Pratibha Rani’s case and consequently requires no reconsideration.15.The next question that needs to be answered is: whether the complaint filed by the appellant in September 1990 is time barred? Section 468 of the Code prescribes period of limitation. Under Sub-section (3) thereof, the period of limitation shall be three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment fora term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Since the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent is punishable under Section 406, viz., criminal breach of trust, and the punishment of imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, the complaint is required to be filed within three years from date of the commission of the offence. It is seen that

the appellant has averred in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the complaint that she demanded from the respondent return of jewellery detailed in Annexure I and household goods mentioned in Annexure II on December 5, 1987 and the respondent flatly refused to return the stridhana of the complainant-wife. In paragraph 22 of the complaint, it is stated that the complainant was forced to leave the matrimonialhome in the manner described and the stridhana mentioned in Annexures I and II belonging to the complainant was entrusted to the respondent-accused which he refused to return to the complainant. Thus she has averred that the respondent \has illegally, dishonestly and mala fldely retained and converted it to his own use which is clearly a criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid proper ty\. The complaint was admittedly filed on September 10, 1990 meaning within three years from the date of the demand and refusal by the respondent. The learned Judge relied upon her evidence recorded under Section 200 of the Code. The learned Counsel for the respondent read out the text of the evidence to establish that the appellant had demanded in October 1986 for return of the jewellery and that the respondent refused to do the same. Thus it constitutes refusal from which date the limitation period began to run and the complaint having been filed in September 1990, is time barred, i.e., beyond three years. That view of the learned Judge is clearly based on the evidence torn of the context without reference to the specific averments made in the complaint and the evidence recorded under section 200 of the Code. As stated earlier, the sequence in which the averments came to be made was the voluntary promise of the respondent and his failure to abide by the promise. It is incongruous to comprehend the demand for return of jewellery etc. at the stage when she was persuading him to take her into matrimonial home. Accordingly, we hold that the complaint was filed within the limitation.

22. In reply to the above submission, Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused opposite party submitted that while considering the appeal against acquittal, though the High Court can review the evidence and come to its own conclusion but it should also examine the reasons for acquittal and should not interfere with the findings of the trial Court if the view of the learned trial Court, which recorded the order of acquittal, was reasonable and justified. Reference may be made to the decision reported in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, (1997) 7 SCC 677 reads as follows :-

8. Coming to the first question it may be stated that the power of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal has been discussed in a catena of cases by this Court and it has been indicated that there is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal isfounded. The different expressions used in different judgments of this Court tothe effect that there must be \sufficient and compelling reasons\ or \good and sufficiently cogent reasons\ for the appellate court to alter an order of acquittal to one of conviction, by no manner curtail the power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and come to its conclusion. But in doing so the appellate court should consider every matter on record and the reasons given by the trial court in support of the order of acquittal. The essence of several decisions of this Court is the rule that in deciding appeals against acquittal the court of appeal must examine the evidence in a particular case: must also examine the reasons on which the order of acquittal was based: and should interfere on being satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting judge is unreasonable. If two views are possible on a set of evidence then the appellate court need not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial court who has recorded an order of acquittal. In other words, if an order of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of evidence then the same cannot be reversed.

This Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr.MANU/SC/0506/1988 : 1989CriLJ288 observed that the principles relating to limitations of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal do not detract from the plenitude of the power of the appellate court to review and reappreciate the evidence if the order of acquittal on a review of the evidence is found to be grossly erroneous. There is, thus no immunity to an erroneous order from a strict appellate scrutiny but it must record reasons in support. To the same effect also is the observations of this Court in Hari Chand v. State of Delhi MANU/SC/0374/1996 : 1996CriLJ1701, Betal Singh v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0707/1996 : 1996CriLJ4006 and Tallurri Venkaiah Naidu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. MANU/SC/0096/1997 :1996CriLJ4432. —

23. In yet another decision in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 484, the Supreme Court outlying the principle to be followed by the appellate Courts in an appeal against acquittal held as follows :-

21. The principle to be followed by Appellate Courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are \compelling and substantial reasons\ for doing so. If the order is \clearly unreasonable\ it is a compelling reason for interference (See : Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973 : 1973CriLJ1783. The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat: MANU/SC/0504/1996 : 1996CriLJ2867 :While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the .trial court arepalpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal isnot to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only -reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. —

24. In Hari Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 136, the Supreme Court reiterated the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence, but, however, with a word of caution that while doing so, it cannot interfere with the acquittal, merely because it prefers another possible view.

25. In view of the above, having regard to the contentions made hereinabove by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant as well as the opposite party, keeping in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that the complainant -appellant was not sure about the dowry items left by her at in-laws residence vis- -vis the list given by her in Court, since she admittedly left the original list of items inside the almirah, which was left at the residence of her in laws. The accused opposite party categorically asserted that he never had any intention to dishonestly misappropriate the properties belonging to his wife. He ever wanted her to come and take away her properties. As a matter of fact, the expression ’entrustment’ carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily aterm of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general significance, with all its imports, is handing over the possession for some purpose, which may not imply the conferment of any proprietary right therein. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit. In any case, special agreement is appropriately not necessary to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust defined under Section 405 I.P.C to hold a person guilty entrustment in any manner with the property or otherwise with any dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation conversion to his own use that property or dishonest use or dispossession ofthat property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, is essential. The essential ingredients for establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 and punishable under Section 406 IPC are - (i) entrustment to any person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property, or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.

26. Complainant deserted accused husband, as far back as in the year 1995 (i.e. 28.5.1995). The complainant-appellant is not sure about the specific items,which were entrusted by her to her husband or which were left by her in the house of in-laws . There is no evidence of demand made by her, claiming the dowry items from the accused husband, ever since she left the residence of her in l

aws. The only allegation against the accused opposite party being that the items, which were given to the complainant wife, were left behind by her in the houseof in-laws when she left matrimonial abode on 28.5.1995. The evidence of P.W.1 and her very attitude of approaching the Court belatedly has raised a question mark on the truthfulness of the allegations .The facts alleged do not disclose ingredients of criminal breach of trust on the part of the accused opposite partyTechnically, the allegation of leaving behind the property by the complainant at the residence of her in-laws may attract definition of breach of trust within the meaning of Section 405 IPC. However, unless it can be established that the accused had misappropriated or converted any specific and identified property to his own use ,with dishonest intention, the offence under Section 406 IPC cannot be said to have been made out. The allegations of entrustment made against the accused opposite party are general in nature. No definite case of entrustment was made against the accused opposite party. The accused opposite party is stated to have given back all the items belonging to the complainant-appellant. Apparently and admittedly, no demand was made by the complainant-appellant for return of the dowry items.

27. On careful evaluation of the materials on record, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint and the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant do not sufficiently establish a case against the accused opposite party of having dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant-appellant. It is manifestly clear from the evidence of the complainant-appellant as also from the evidence of P.W.3 that the allegations of entrustment for specified property by the complainant-appellant could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. A vague allegation of misappropriation in respect of some of the items by holding them back of which admittedly, the complainant-appellant is not sure, would not constitute criminal breach of trust. Entrustment of such articles cannot be said to have been established by cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the very pre-requisites of entrustment of property and misappropriationof the accused opposite party are lacking in the instant case.28.In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the acquittal of the accused opposite party by the learned trial Court do notcall for any interference.

29. In view of the above, the appeal against acquittal preferred by the complainant-appellant stands dismissed.