Financial demands and domestic violence constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, where minor evidentiary inconsistencies do not negate the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. Invoking sections 397/401 Cr.P.C, the two petitioners herein, namely, Md. Hillaluddin Ahmed and Mrs. Rashida Begum are seeking interference with the judgment and order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4 (FTC), Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2015, whereby the learned Appellate Court was pleased to uphold the judgment and order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) in GR No. 3951/2008- whereby the petitioners as accused were convicted under 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 3 (three) months each and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each{in default to undergo SI for one month each}.

3. The facts in brief are that on 31.05.2008, the informant/victim, Tasneem Ahmed lodged an FIR before the All Woman Police station Guwahati alleging that after her marriage with the petitioner No.1, he and his family members had subjected her to physical and mental torture upon demand of money and despite payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, such ill treatment continued. She further alleged that on 28.05.2008, she was assaulted by her husband and family members causing injuries.

4. Upon receipt of the FIR, All Woman PS Case No.37/2008 was registered under Section 498(A)/34. The corresponding GR is GR No. 3951/2008. An investigation was started, which resulted in a charge-sheet.

5. Subsequently, trial also commenced, during which the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the informant/victim, her parents, doctor and IO. The defence examined two witnesses, including the father of the husband. Upon completion of trial, conviction and sentence was passed as mentioned above. Though the same was taken up in appeal before the Sessions Court, but the appeal came to be dismissed, giving rise to the present revision.

6. Partly scanned and partly original case record have been received from the learned appellate court. As reflected in the order dated 07.09.2017, the respondentNo.2/informant was duly noticed, but she did not choose to appear and today also, none appears on her behalf for the hearing.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the PW-1, 2 and 3 who are the informant and her parents and they also happen to be interested witnesses. It is submitted by the learned counsel that though the informant as PW-1 has stated about her medical examination at MMC hospital, but her father has not stated regarding the same. It is also submitted that the PW-1/informant has stated about paying Rs.2,00,000/-to the husband and his family, but in the testimony of her father, it is revealed that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- to her, even before the harassment/torture had started and that the same was supposedly sought for by her for investments.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there are also contradictions with regard to the time when her parents had supposedly arrived at the place of occurrence to take her back, after the alleged act of assault. Moreover, the two cousins who were stated to have accompanied to the matrimonial home to bring her back were not examined during the trial.

9. It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that though the alleged incident of assault took place on 28.05.2008, but her medical examination was on 31.05.2008 and in the intervening period, it is not clear as to whether she sustained such injuries due to