Kamina v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the appeal under Section 374 CrPC, setting aside the conviction. The court held that insisting a wife to file a civil suit to claim inherited property does not amount to a demand of dowry or harassment under Section 498-A IPC.
What did the court decide?
The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside; the appellant is entitled to acquittal on all charges; bail bond discharged.
What the court decided
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 181 of 1995
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code)
Kamina Parida ……. Appellant -VersusState of Orissa ……. Respondent
……. Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Apat, AGA
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026 : Date of Judgment: 26.02.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has assailed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.06.1995 passed by the learned
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the insistence by the appellant on filing a civil suit to claim property rights in the wife's name constitutes demand of dowry under Section 498-A IPC.
Whether the prosecution has established the ingredients of abduction from dowry house under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the conviction under Section 498-A IPC can stand when the demand of dowry was not proved, triggering acquittal on the remaining charge.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kamina Parida
- respondent
State of Orissa
Coram
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court