RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned JMFC, Rangia dated 30.4.2005 in GR case 553/1999 under section 498A/34 of the IPC acquitting the respondents.

2. Heard Mr ND Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner as also Ms S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Petitioner is the wife of respondent 1. Their marriage was solemnised socially on 16.5.1999. Marriage was registered on 1.10.1998 with the Sadar Kazi.

4. After 4 months of the marital life with respondent 1, petitioner lodged an ejahar with the Kamalpur police station on 27.9.1999 to the effect that after a few days of marriage respondent 1 started to torture her in presence of respondent 2 and 3 and finally drove her out of the matrimonial house by assaulting her and she took shelter in her parental house and later filed the FIR.

5. Based on the said ejahar, Kamalpur PS case 151/1999 under section 498A of the IPC is registered.

6. Respondents faced trial. They denied the charge levelled against them under section 498(A) of the IPC. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court finding the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the respondents acquitted them by order dated 30.4.2005 in GR case 553/1999. Aggrieved by the said order this revision is filed challenging its legality and validity, among others.

7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence of the victim given before the court, wherein she has implicated all the respondents for perpetrating cruelty and demanding dowry, and said that the finding given by the learned trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside.

8. Heard Ms S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and perused the LCR.

9. On careful examination of the evidence of the petitioner(PW1) and her mother Syeda Khadija Khatoon(PW2) it is found that they have given exactly the same evidence as in the ejahar "that after solemnisation of the marriage of the parties on 16.5.1999, the accused persons started to torture petitioner demanding more dowry and since she could not fulfill the demand she was ousted from their house on 16.9.1999 by respondent 1 demanding Rs 50,000 in cash, a scooter and a TV.

10. It is noted that the petitioner in her cross-examination stated that she has not disclosed about such dowry demand to anybody else in their village and has said that the accused persons did not oust her from their house by assaulting her; rather, they kept her in their house as she was suffering from fever with an undertaking that they will take her to a medical.

11. Indeed, the said assertion of the informant herself "that the accused persons did not oust her from their house by assaulting her" has negated all her crucial allegations made in the FIR "that only because of her inability to pay the dowry she was ousted from their house by assaulting her".

12. Both, PW1 and 2 have nowhere stated the kind of torture, when, how and what type of torture was made on petitioner. So one line statement of both the witnesses relating to dowry demand "that because of inability of petitioner to pay the dowry she was ousted from their house" is not enough to hold "cruelty" within the purview of Section 498(A) of the IPC.

13. Section 498A of the IPC provides as follows.

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means -

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawf