The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the conviction under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code based on consistent and corroborative evidence of demand, torture, and assault, along with the modification of the petitioner's sentence.

JUDGMENT

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

However, Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State is present.

2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara on 27.07.2007 in G.R. Case No. 98/2005 (T.R. No. 316/2007), convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been affirmed.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been alleged that after three months of marriage there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and on refusal the informant was subjected to torture and assault and a threat of solemnizing second marriage of the petitioner. It has also been alleged that on 03.03.2005 after taking her ornaments the informant was driven out from her matrimonial house.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations G.R. Case No. 98/2005 was instituted in which after submission of charge- sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323/34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 (Bahadur Mahato @ Jaideo Mahato) is the father of the informant who has stated that after three months of the marriage there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed for which his daughter was tortured. He has stated that several persons had gone to the P.S. and gave a written complaint. This witness has proved his signature in the written complaint marked as Exhibit-1. P.W.2 (Hiramoni Mahato) is the aunt of the informant who has supported the allegation with respect to the demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and for non-fulfillment of which the informant was subjected to torture. P.W.3 (Ranjeet Mahato) has stated that he knows the informant whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004. She has stated that after three months of the marriage quarrel had started between the informant and the petitioner. He has also stated that the petitioner had filed a case upon this witness and others. This witness appears to be an uncle of the informant. P.W.4 (Krishna Kumar Mahato) has stated that the informant was married with the petitioner on 02.05.2004 and torture had started upon her after six months of the marriage. He has stated about a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and due to non-fulfillment of the demand the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house on 03.03.2005. He has also stated that the informant had disclosed the entire incident to him.

6. In cross-examination this witness has deposed that the petitioner has also instituted a case against the informant and others in which she is also an accused. P.W.5 (Dhani Devi) is the mother of the informant who has stated that after treating her daughter properly for three months there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed. He has stated that the informant had disclosed to her in-laws that her father cannot afford to meet such demand at which she was subjected to assault. She has further stated that the informant was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial house. She has stated that the father-in-law of the informant had also tried to outrage her modesty. P.W.6 (Sarita Devi) is the informant who has stated that after her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.05.2004 she was treated properly for about three months. She has stated that the petitioner and her inlaws started demanding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and a bed and on non-fulfillment of the said demand she was subjected to tort