The court affirmed a conviction for dowry-related cruelty under IPC Section 498-A, establishing that previous undertakings by the husband substantiate ongoing abuse, despite evidential inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This revisional application is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 31^st January, 2006 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Arambagh in criminal appeal No. 2 of 2004 arising out of judgement and order dated 12.10.2004 passed by Learned Sub DivisionalJudicial Magistrate presently Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, Hooghly in G.R. case No. 113 of 1996 whereby an order of conviction has been passed under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code thereby sentencing the petitioner to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

Facts of the case

2. A petition of complaint was filed by the De-facto complainant before the Court of Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh on 6.3. 1996 against 6 accused persons alleging inter alia that the father of the de-facto complainant gave Rs. 35,000/- to the present petitioner at the time of marriage and after few years she was subjected to physical and mental torture in various ways. The present petitioner along with other in-laws demanded further sum Rs. 50,000/- for re-construction of one storied building from the present petitioner and on their inability to pay provoked the de-facto complainant to commit suicide. It was further alleged that on 31^st May, 1995 the present petitioner assaulted the de-facto complainant with fists and blows and threw her out from the house of de-facto complainant with two minor children. Furthermore on previous two occasions the husband gave assurances of taking all responsibility to protect her from any torture or harassment either by him or by the mother in-law and the sister of the husband by way of affidavit but she was again assaulted and driven away on 31.5.1996. On the basis of such complaint Arambagh P.S. case started pursuant to the direction by the learned Magistrate under Section 498 -A//323/326/307/506 of IPC .

3. The Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (as it was then) Arambagh, Hooghly passed the order of conviction against the petitioner for guilty of offence punishable under Section 498 -A and other accused persons were acquitted . Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed under Section 374 (3) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure before the Court of Learned District and Sessions Judge at Hooghly which was registered as criminal appeal no 2 of 2004. After hearing both the Learned Advocates the Learned Court passed an order of acquittal in favour of Kumari Gouri Roy but affirmed the order of conviction so far the present petitioner is concerned.Hence this revisional application has been filed before this Court

Submissions

4. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the appeal was filed on the on the ground inter alia that the Learned Judge failed to assess the evidence of the prosecution witnesses specially P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. None of those witnesses could give the names of accused persons or the role attributed by them. Furthermore, the Court did not consider that no description of assault or the date on which such assault was inflicted upon the de-facto complainant. That apart the marriage took place in the year 1990 and they were blessed with two daughters from such wedlock and the complaint was lodged under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the year 1996.

5. The Learned Advocate in course of argument draws the attention of the Court to the Judgement passed by the Learned Court where the Learned Court did not consider the evidence adduced by P.W. 7 Dr. Gurudas Banerjee (P.W. 7) on 3.9.93 for the injury on her nose and ears as the certificate w