JUDGMENT :

1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 5.8.2004, the informant Mustt. Basatan Bibi lodged an ejahar with the Bogribari P.S to the effect that, she was married with the accused, Md. Hurmuz Ali about three years ago as per the Muslim Custom and law. Sufficient dowry of Rs. 10,000 along with gold ornament was given in the marriage but despite the same her husband Harmuz Ali and all other in-laws (total 6 in Nos.) tortured her physically and mentally. They badly beaten her and forcefully taken away the golden ornaments and misappropriated the money and on 1.8.2004 all the accused-persons by making a conspiracy confined the petitioner in their house and after severely assaulting her causing bodily injury, she was thrown on the road. The said ejahar was registered at the Bogribari PS Case No. 108/04, and investigation was conducted into the case. The investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, draw the sketch map, recorded the statement of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.PC, and finding sufficient material against the accused Hurmuz Ali submitted the charge sheet under section 498A, IPC and the other persons named in the FIR not sent up for trial.

2. The accused faced the trial denied the charge that was framed against him under section 498A, IPC and claimed to be tried. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and defence examined none. Plea of defence is of total denial. Statement of accused-person was recorded under section 313, Cr.PC wherein he denied all the allegations. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court held the accused guilty under section 498A, IPC and convicting him under said section of law sentenced him to SI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default SI for 30 days. The appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner was dismissed, hence, the present petition.

3. I have heard the submission of learned counsel Mr. R. Sharma for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Dutta, the learned Addl. PP for the State-respondent.

4. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order and the evidence on record.

5. In the instant case, the informant in the FIR has alleged that physical and mental torture on her since after the marriage and also that she has been ousted by the accused-petitioner from his house with such torture. But to utter surprise the informant in her evidence has given a very cryptic evidence to the effect that since after two months of the marriage accused-person tortured her physically and mentally demanding dowry and due to physical torture she became senseless and she regained sense in her father's house. She has not narrated any sort of manner, date and time, etc., to disclose the factum of harassment or torture which may constitute cruelty within the purview of section 498A, IPC. In sharp contrast to the allegation made in the FIR, she has not implicated any of the FIR named person in her evidence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that many people gathered at the place of occurrence where she was lying.

6. The other witnesses/PW-2 Hebel Shiekh, PW-3 Bilal Shiekh has stated that about 3 years ago while they were returning home at night they found PW-1 was lying on the side of road and on being informed her mother arrived and took the PW-1 to her house. It is stated that they have heard that the accused-husband tortured her and kept her on the side of the road. It is stated that the informant is related to them being cousin sister. They are not eye witness to the occurrence neither they have stated as to under what circumstances the PW-1 was found injured on the road side nor they have stated anything about the torture upon the PW-1. Both of them are hearsay witness, that too in a vague manner. Similar is the version of PW-4 (Kachira Bewa) mother of the victim, who in her two line statements has stated that after marriage the accused demanded money and she gave him Rs. 10,000 in cash but the accused continued to assault the victim for