The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove harassment or coercion for unlawful demands under Section 498A of the IPC, and the importance of corroborative evidence and reliable testimony in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Mutum B.K. Singh, J.

1. The judgment dated 23rd March, 2002 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, passed in Case No. S.T. 100 (ST/S) of 2001, convicting the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant No. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment, to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months and the appellant No. 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, is under challenge in this appeal.

2. That, the prosecution case which originated from a complaint filed before the Court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur is that in 1991 one Kajal Majumder (since deceased) married with the appellant No. 1. From the very next day of the marriage she started living at the house of her husband but she was tortured and subjected to harassment by the appellants and their family members continuously demanding more money and gold ornaments from her parental house. In 1992 she gave birth to a pre-mature baby and suffered from acute illness with profuse bleeding but no medical treatment was given to her. The requests for taking her to her parental house for treatment were turned down by the appellant No. 1. In 1995, on her refusal/failure to meet the demand of the appellant, she was assaulted/slapped in presence of the complainant. She sent many letters to her father through a messenger namely, Rakhal Nam, narrating about her miserable life and asking either to pay Rs. 10,000/- or to take her back to her parental house and that the last letter was on 18.03.1996. On 21.04.1996, when the complainant visited the house of his sister she was found lying seriously ill but no medical treatment was afforded to her by the family members of the appellants. On 23.04.1996 the complainant again visited the house of his sister on learning that his sister (Kajal Majumdar) died on the previous day and the dead body was cremated without giving information to the family members of the complainant. Thereafter, he lodged a written complaint to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur on 27.04.1996, who endorsed the same to the Sabroom Police Station for investigation. Accordingly, Sabroom PS. Case No. 34/1996 under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC was registered and investigated.

3. That, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased for committing offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court, being satisfied with the materials on record, framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC against all the accused persons, to which all pleaded not guilty and thus, stood trial.

That, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses and also exhibited 9 documents. One defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused persons. The learned trial court, after a full-dressed trial, convicted the appellants under Section 498A of IPC and acquitted the other two accused persons. The learned trial court exonerated all the accused persons from the charge levelled against them for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC for want of evidence against which no appeal has been filed by the prosecution.

4. That, the defence case before the learned Trial Court was the total denial of the charges levelled against them. According to them, late Kajal Majumdar was not in good health and suffering from illness, she was provided with all medical treatment as available in the locality but she died ultimately. She was never subjected to any cruelty by the appellants and their family members. The complainant was present at the time of her death but he left the house of the appellants with the assurance that he would come back in the afternoo