1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. S.E. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta in C.R. No. 1961/2008 whereby acquitting the respondents from the charges under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. I have gone through the matters on record as well as the LCR and the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2014.

4. It is the plea of the appellant that there is a specific allegation of the appellant regarding torture and cruelty on the demand of dowry on the part of the private respondents which was proved by her supporting evidence but the learned Court below has not accepted the case of the appellant on the two basic ground that there is delay in filing the complaint, and that, there is no evidence of independent witness so examined by the complainant so as to prove her case and ultimately acquitted the accused persons under charge of holding that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly to the appellant, the Judgment and Order is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence on record which has not been appreciated by the learned Court below and also the Court went on wrong motion while appreciating the evidence of the complainant side on the point of delay and of having of no independent witness. It is also contended that the Court lost sight of the corroborating evidence of the complainant side and the other vital aspect that there can be hardly any independent witness in such matrimonial affairs.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents has support the Judgment and order of Trial Court on the ground that the case of the complainant is not proved by any sort of independent witness and the complainant herself went to her parental house for delivery of the child and she has not returned at her own volition. It has also be alleged that there is no ground for appeal.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and also gone through the evidence on record. It is to be noted that complainant was filed basically on the ground that the accused persons by demanding dowry inflicted mental and physical torture upon the complainant and to save the marriage, the family members of the complainant used to pay some money against such demand. The evidence on record reveals that the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on demand and as against the said demand, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given in two instalments by the father of the complainant, i.e., the PW 2 and has been corroborated by the other witnesses.

7. It is a matter of common practice that such demand of dowry and also payment remains within the family itself without disclosing others. In the Indian Society, Indian women generally tried to adjust with the adverse situation in her in-laws family only for the interest to save the marital tie and the children having no other alternative, before the helpless women. Here the witness of the witness has amply put that there was a mental torture upon the complainant on the demand of such dowry and same amount has also paid to the respondents against such dowry demand.

8. It also appears that the complainant was compelled to reside in her parental house while she was 8 months pregnancy and thereafter also the respondent side neither take her back nor provide any maintenance to the complainant for that she has filed the maintenance petition praying for maintenance of the child as well as the complainant. All these aspects indicating mental and physical tortures. There is no explanation on the part of the defence as to why they did not adhere to take back the complainant and the child from her pa