IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that specific allegations of cruelty are essential for a conviction under Section 498A of the IPC, and the absence of such evidence can lead to a modification of sentence in favor of probation rather than imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2006 arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar in PCR No. 118 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A/323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 500/- each and also sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with default stipulation and the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld and confirmed the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the complainant Nasima Khatoon was married with the petitioner no. 1 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs about four years ago (approx. in the year 1998-99) on fixed den mehar of Rs. 5,051/- which was in the deferred form. It is alleged that as per capacity, the parents of the complainant had presented some articles as mentioned in the Schedule to the complaint and she went to her matrimonial home and started discharging her matrimonial obligations. It is further alleged that about 2 ½ years everything was quite well. Thereafter, all accused persons started raising demand of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a milching cow from the father of the complainant, which could not be fulfilled, then all the accused persons/petitioners started assaulting the complainant and also tried to terminate her pregnancy, but she gave birth to a female child, who died on 05.11.2002 due to negligence in medical treatment and the accused persons drove her away from the matrimonial home on the same date. All the efforts were made to settle the matter /disputes, but went in vain. It is further alleged that on 06.05.2003, all the accused persons came to the parental home of the complainant and insisted upon the said demand in a threatening manner, otherwise her husband would perform second marriage with another girl within 10 days. The complainant also went to lodge FIR at the concerned police station, but was advised to lodge case before the Court. Accordingly, the complaint case was lodged on 09.05.2003.

4. After enquiry conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. all the petitioners were summoned for the offence under Sections 323, 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. All the accused persons/petitioners appeared and denied the allegations/charges levelled against them and claimed for trial.

5. In course of trial, on behalf of complainant three witnesses were examined including herself. The case of defence was denial from the allegations and false implication. One witness namely, Yasin Mian D.W.-1 was examined by defence and also some documentary evidences were adduced marked as Exhibits - A, B, C & D.

6. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the concerned trial court, which has been affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate court and assailed in this revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have challenged the impugned judgments mainly on following grounds:-

(i) The learned trial court without considering the facts and circumstances, materials available on record, held the petitioners guilty by terms of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which suffers from perversity in the sense that even if the entire allegation is taken to be correct on their face value, the ingredients of offence under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. are absolutely lacking in this case, as defined under the statute.

(ii) The tri