A conviction under Sections 323 and 498-A requires proof of marriage and credible corroboration of dowry demands, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon, in G.R. case No.121/2009 affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam in Criminal Appeal No.16/2011.

3. On 22.03.2009, late Anima Tanti, being the wife of the present petitioner had lodged an FIR before police alleging that after her marriage with him, he wanted her to bring money from the house of her parents. On that issue, the petitioner allegedly physically assaulted his wife. On 02.02.2009, he drove his wife out of the house. Thereafter, on 21.03.2009, she along with her mother had gone to the house of the petitioner. On that day also, she was assaulted by the petitioner. At the time of filing of the FIR, the informant wife was residing in the house of her parents.

4. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet under Section 498-A and Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the present petitioner. The charges were framed accordingly, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty.

5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution side examined 6(six) witnesses. The appellant examined himself as his defence witness.

6. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 323 and 498-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

7. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the court of Sessions at Nagaon. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

9. A revisional court normally does not go into the evidence. A revisional court relies upon jurisdictional error committed by sub-ordinate courts while considering a revision petition. But in this case, I have decided to go through the evidence because it is necessary for disposal of the criminal petition.

10. The first prosecution witness is the informant late Anima Tanti who died in the year 2023. She has stated in her evidence that the petitioner used to demand money from her and when she could not give him money, he used to physically assault her.

11. In her cross-examination, she has stated that on one occasion her parents dropped her in the house of the petitioner. According to the informant, the petitioner often used to remain absent from his house. He sometimes used to stay in the house of his aunt. On 21.03.2009, some unknown persons had assaulted the present petitioner.

12. The second prosecution witness is the mother of the informant. She has stated in her evidence that the petitioner used to assault her daughter for want of money and therefore, she came back to her house. She further stated that when she took her daughter to the house of the petitioner, then the petitioner assaulted her daughter as well as her also.

13. In her cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that her daughter was given in marriage to the petitioner by performing religious rituals.

14. The third prosecution witness is an acquaintance of the informant. He stated that the petitioner married the informant on 07.12.2008. This witness has quoted the informant as saying to him that the petitioner assaulted her for want of dowry. He also came to know from her that on