The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the act constitutes 'cruelty' as defined by the statute under Section 498A IPC.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Mr. A.M. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P. as well as Ms. R.D. Majumdar, learned legal aid counsels appearing for the informant were heard.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Crl.A. No. 44/2012 uholding and affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in GR No. 685/2010, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

3. The facts, which may be relevant for disposal of this revision petition may briefly be stated thus - the respondent No. 2 was married to the revision petitioner. Since after few days of marriage, the respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioner upon demand of dowry and thereafter the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR, on the basis of which police registered a case and submitted charge sheet under Section 498 A IPC and eventually the petitioner stood convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court as indicated above. The conviction and sentence was also upheld by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 498A IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and both the courts fell in error in convicting the petitioner under Section 498A IPC ignoring the evidence brought on record and as such, the impugned judgment had suffered from the vice of perversity.

5. Learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 as well as the learned Addl. P.P. contended that the cruelty includes mental torture, and as such the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the courts below cannot be faulted.

6. It appears from the record that the FIR was lodged by the elder brother of the respondent No. 2 (victim), who was examined as PW-1. He deposed in his evidence that after the marriage, the PW-2 lived happily with the petitioner for about 10 months and thereafter the petitioner demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the father of the victim. He further stated that as the father of the victim could not pay the demanded money, the PW-2 was subjected to torture. He also stated that because of the torture, the PW-2 came to their house, where she gave birth to a child and there were village meeting on several occasions and ultimately on 21.05.2010, the petitioner assaulted the victim and had driven her out from the house. During cross examination, it was elicited that he has no knowledge as to when the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made by the accused to his father.

7. It is worthy to mention that the father of the victim has not been examined in the instant case and as such the evidence of PW-1 with regard to demand of money appears to be hearsay and not admissible in evidence. He also stated during cross examination that on being informed by the victim, he rescued the victim from her matrimonial home with the help of police, whereas, PW-2, the victim herself negated the aforesaid statement of the PW-1, inasmuch as, according to her, she herself came out the matrimonial home when police investigated the case. PW-2 also stated in her evidence that after 6/7 months of marriage, the accused started to torture her and also started to demand Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereafter a girl child was born to them. She further stated, that there were several village meeting and eventually on 21.05.2010, she was assaulted by her husband (petitioner) and kept her confined in a room, where from she made a telephone call to her brother and police rescued her at the instance of his brother. Whereas, during cross examination, she has admitted that she was not confined and out of her own, she left the matrimonial home when police came to investigate the case.

8. In the FIR lodged by PW-1, it was stated that dem