The importance of corroborated evidence and compliance with procedural requirements before convicting an accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.

1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner, Gopal Santra challenging the judgment and order dated 31.01.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000 affirming the order of conviction dated 15.11.2000 of the petitioner for the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code whereby the petitioner was sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Hooghly in G.R. Case No. 413 of 1993 (T.R.No.202/1994) to undergo one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple further imprisonment for 30 days for the said charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code whereas other accused person viz. Kanak Ghose was found not guilty and was acquitted from the charge.

2. Prosecution case leading to this revisional application is that the informant, Mamata Santra was married with the accused Gopal Santra, the petitioner herein, on 25.11.1987 according to Hindu religion, ceremonies and rites and she started living with her husband in her matrimonial home.

3. The moot allegation is that the accused persons being the husband, the present petitioner and other in-laws started torturing her for bringing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her father and elder brother and on refusal to such demand the accused persons jointly tortured her by refusing to provide her food and compelled her to work day-night. A daughter was born out of their wedlock on 10.02.1989 and the accused persons tortured the baby by not giving milk and medical treatment. In December, 1990 accused persons abused her with filthy language and drove her away from her matrimonial home by assaulting her in order to give again marriage of Gopal. On 22.12.1991 by the intervention of local Gram Panchayet the matter was settled and she came back to her husband's house but again on 04.11.1992 the accused persons including the petitioner drove her out from the house by taking all the ornaments along with her daughter. Later on the brother-in-law of the informant approached her in laws house to adopt her sister-in-law but the accused persons refused to accept her and threatened to kill her if she would enter their house. Accordingly being compelled by such situation the defacto complainant filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Investigation was started in connection with Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 85 dated 1.04.1993 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate. Charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the accused persons to which they abjured the guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the prosecution in order the substantiate the charge examined as many as 7 witnesses including the petitioner.

5. After going to trial the learned Judicial Magistrate on giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and the defence found the petitioner guilty of the offence charged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further 30 days simple imprisonment. However, the accused, Kanak Ghose was found not guilty and she was acquitted of the charge. It is to be noted that the mother-in-law of the petitioner, Uma Santra had died during the pendency of the trial so her case was filed for ever.

6. Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer and so also the Recording Officer of the case. So the defence had no opportunity to take vital contradiction appearing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness. It is also submitted that the offence as alleged and the evidence on record does not proof the cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. So the defence must be