ORDER :

Petitioner has suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.P.Act’, for short).

2. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider the contradictions brought out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the conviction has been recorded based on the evidence of interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined to establish the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused No.1’). It is further contended that no evidence was produced in proof of demand and acceptance of dowry and therefore the trial Court has erred in convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. Further, the learned counsel would submit that based on the very same evidence, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court having acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4, by the same yardstick, the petitioner also should have been acquitted of the above charges.

3. These submissions are seriously contested by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and by referring to the evidence of complainant-PW1, which is duly corroborated by the evidence of her father-PW5 and two independent witnesses namely PW3 and PW4 would submit that the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC as well as the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt and moreover, the Courts below having recorded concurrent findings of fact after analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no scope for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or to differ with the view taken by the Courts below as long as the view taken by the Trial Court is based on the evidence let in by the prosecution.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and have carefully scrutinized the impugned judgments and the material on record.

5. Insofar as the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, prosecution has rested its case mainly on the evidence of PW1, namely the wife of accused No.1. I have gone through her evidence. A plain reading of the evidence of PW1 goes to show that except making general statements that after marriage she resided with accused Nos.1 to 4 for a period of three months and thereafter shifted to different rented houses and police quarters and thereafter, she resided in the house of her parents, she has not mentioned any specific instance of cruelty meted out to her. It is trite law that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, the cruelty alleged against the accused should be of such nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or any harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Such evidence is conspicuously absent in the instant case. There are only general allegations that when she was residing in a rented house and in her parents’ house, accused No.1 used to assault her by making a demand for site and to get further money from her parents. These allegations are not substantiated with any cogent evidence. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that prosecution has failed to substantiate the alleged demand for site subsequent to marriage between the petitioner/accused No.1 and complainant/PW1. Eventhough PW2 and PW3, the witnesses examined by the pro