C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-Respondent.

2. By this criminal revision, filed under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, me convict-Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order, dated 30.01.2004, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Hojai, in C.A. No. 53(N)2003, thereby upholding the judgment and order, dated 04.11.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hojai, Sankardevnagar, in GR. Case No. 466/2001, under Section 498A IPC.

By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge, under Section 498A IPC and modified the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as rigorous imprisonment for three months, without interfering with the sentence of fine thereof. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the Appellant, as Petitioner, has come up with this revision petition.

3. The facts, that is necessary for disposal of this revision petition, may, in brief, be stated as follows:

Smti. Namita Singha was married by the Petitioner, namely, Sri Dilip Singha and after her marriage, the Petitioner and other members of his family used to torture her, demanding dowry. Being unable to bear the said torture, said Smti. Namita Singha left her marital home and took shelter in her parents' house. Subsequently, she delivered a girl child and, thereafter, her husband took her back to her marital home. Again, on 30.06.2001, her husband and other members of her husband's family assaulted her, for which she left her marital home and took shelter in her elder sister's house. Thereafter, she lodged an FIR with the O/C Lanka Police Station. Police registered a case being Lanka P.S. Case No. 75/2001, under Sections 498A/34 IPC and submitted charge sheet against the husband, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the victim woman.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges, against all the accused persons aforesaid, under Section 498A IPC. The charge being explained and read over to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer, who examined the victim woman.

At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations, brought against them, and declined to adduce any defence evidence.

6. The learned Magistrate, considering the evidence on record, convicted the present Petitioner under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment as indicated above. The other accused persons were acquitted for want of evidence. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present Petitioner, as Appellant has preferred an appeal, being C.A. No. 53(N)2003.

7. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, considering the evidence on record, while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence, thereby directing the convict-Petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months instead of one year. However, the learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the sentence of fine. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the Appellant, as Petitioner, has come up with this revision petition, on the ground that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed error by upholding the conviction, without sufficient evidence on record.

8. Mr. M. Singh, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, referring to the provisions of Section 498A IPC, has submitted that, no case under Section 498A IPC has been made out against the present Petitioner and that the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, committed error by recording the c