IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations under Section 498A must be substantiated by credible evidence, and mere claims of cruelty are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 20.07.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly, in S.T. Case No. 12 of 2006 (corresponding to S.C. Case No. 25 of 2006), convicting the appellants on the charges framed for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 months more.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated the de-facto complainant victim to have lodged a complaint Arambagh Police Station on 29.10.1999, inter alia, alleging on 29th Baisakh 1406 B.S. (corresponding to May 1999) the complainant got married to the appellant no. 1 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage the complainant was refused to pursue her education and forced to continue herself to domesticity. On her protest, the complainant was subjected to torture and Rs.50,000/- was demanded from her as dowry for the business of the appellant no. 1. On her refusal to comply to the same the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture.

Subsequently on 1.7.1999 the appellant no. 1 drove her to her parental home, wherefrom she attended her studies. On 10.9.1999, the appellant no. 2 and other matrimonial family members appeared at the parental home of the complainant and tried to throttle her father on the intervention of the parental aunt and cousin brother of the complainant, they too were tried to intervene they were also assaulted by the appellant no. 2 and other members of his family. Thereafter the appellant no. 2 forced the complainant to retract to his house and compelled her to work like a maid servant.

In between 10.9.1999 and 21.10.1999 complainant was subjected to severe torture at her matrimonial home tried to kill her by drowning. On one occasion she was slapped on head, cheeks and ear for which she became senseless. Her signatures were taken on a blank piece of paper by force. On 22.10.1999 complainant informed Sanatan Santra, a panchayat member, who took her to her parental home, however on the same day the appellants and other family members came to her parental home and tried to drag her away. This was resisted by the elder brother of the complainant who was also assaulted. Thereafter the father of complainant arranged for her medical treatment.

Consequently, the complainant resided at her maternal home and was treated by a physician at Arambagh. The matrimonial family members of complainant further threatened that they would kill the complainant whenever they found her.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Arambagh Police Station Case no. 181 dated 29.10.1999 under Sections 498A/323/448/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation against the present appellants, namely, Joydeb Das (the husband of the complainant), Lila Mohan Das (the father-in-law of the complainant), Arati Das (the mother-in-law of the complainant), Sasthi Charan Das and Biplab Bama Das (the brothers-in-law of the complainant) and Saraswati Das (the sister-in-law of the Complainant).

4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under sections 498A/323/448/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted by the investigating agency against the present appellants and other four accused persons (named hereinabove).

5. Charges were framed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/448/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants, Arati Das, Sasthi Charan Das, Biplab @ Bama Das and Saraswati Das. The appellants and their co-accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

7. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted as follows: –

i. It was a love marriage between the appellant No.1 and PW-1/victim, but their respective families did not appr