The court reinforced that testimony from victims of domestic violence can substantiate claims of cruelty under IPC Section 498A, and affirmed high standards for interference with concurrent factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present revision petitioner, namely, Sri Bidya Sagar Pashi was married to one Sabita Pashi, but subsequently alleging demand of money and physical assault, she lodged FIR dated 11.01.2025, resulting in the registration of Udharbond P.S Case No.08/05 under Section 498A IPC – which after investigation resulted in charge-sheet against the accused and registration of GR No.98/2025

3. The revision petitioner as accused underwent trial before the Court of learned SDJM(S), Silchar and he was convicted under Section 498A IPC vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of R.I for 6(Six) Months and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default S.I for 2(two) months.

4. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal against the same but even the same came to be dismissed in its entirety vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No.16/2012.

5. In this backdrop, the said convict appellant is before this Court as a revision petitioner seeking interference with his conviction and sentence.

6. Original TCR is available and relevant portions perused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the ejahar has been lodged after 8(eight) months and though an attempt has been made to explain the same but contends that it is not adequate.

8. It is further submitted that in her police statement, she omitted to state about demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only as deposed in her evidence. It is submitted that there are no documents regarding the testimony of the victim’s side regarding miscarriage etc.

9. Mr. K.Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who submits that in her testimony, she has stated about having faced cruelty and also monetary demands.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that both PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses and PW-3, though independent witness is a hearsay witness.

11. Upon perusing the depositions and the discussion of the evidence by the learned Court’s below, I find that PW-3 is a neighbour and he has testified about being reported to by the informant about the assault. However, one important aspect of his testimony is that he has deposed about hearing hue and cry on the day of the incident.

12. Upon perusing the testimony of PW-1, I find that she has testified about being assaulted by her husband, as a result of which she had to leave the matrimonial house and start staying in the parental house. Her testimony about being beaten and assaulted has remained unshaken in cross-examination. She has testified in examination-in-chief about her husband demanding Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and upon inability to pay the same, her facing assault in the hands of her husband.

13. However, the I.O as PW-4 has confirmed that in her statement before the Police, she has not stated about the demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand, though she has stated about demand of money.

14. In my considered opinion, the non mention of the amount while mentioning about the demand will not demolish her testimony completely about the accused making monetary demands upon her and harassing her for the same.

15. It is true as rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no documents regarding miscarriage etc. However, I find that the victim woman as PW-1 has cogently testified about being assaulted even during her pregnancy and her subsequent delivery of pre-matured baby, who died a