IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC encompasses both physical and mental abuse, and that consistent witness testimonies can substantiate claims of such cruelty, leading to a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Present revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 04.12.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XIV, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned S.D.J.M Dhanbad in Complaint Case no. 1211 of 2005 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs. 3,000/-as default stipulation has been upheld and confirmed by the appellate court.

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that a complaint case was instituted by Mazada Khatoon, wife of the present petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A), 341, 323, 313, 314, 406, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal code stating interalia the she was married with the present petition Riyaz Ansari as per Muslim ritual and customs on 03.06.2004. At the time of marriage her parents had gifted Rs. 25,000/-cash along with other house hold articles and ornaments. After marriage she came to her matrimonial home and started residing there but her husband and in-laws again raised demand of Rs. 25,000/-as additional dowry for starting some business. Due to non-fulfillment of the same by her parents she was subjected to cruelty and torture coupled with physical assault. She was forced to do labour work like carrying bricks and stone chips, etc due to which she became ill but was not provided proper medical facility and food. Her brother-in-law (dewar) finding her alone in the house attempted to commit rape with her on 01.02.205 but her husband did not take any cognizance of the above incident. Complainant came to know later on from the neighbor that she is the third wife of her present husband and in the months of July 2005 while she was carrying pregnancy of 2-3 months was forced to sign a blank sheet of paper thereafter she was dropped to her paternal home on 02.07.2005. Her jewelries and other housel hold articles worth Rs. 22,000/-were also seized by her husband and in-laws. Finding no way she lodged the complaint case for the offence under Section 341, 323, 313, 314, 406, 354, 498(A) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

3. Initially the trial was conducted against altogether four accused persons including present petitioner who faced trial for the charges under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. After conclusion of trial considering the evidence available on record the trial court held the present petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code only and other co-accused persons were given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

4. It appears that a Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2009 was preferred by the present petitioner against his Judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which was heard and decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIV Dhanbad who reappraised the evidence of three witnesses examined by complainant and came to conclusion that there is consistent evidence of witnesses that there was Rs.25,000/-additional demand of dowry by the petitioner and the complainant was also forced to work as a labourer due to which she fell ill and she was also not provided medical treatment and nutritious diet, rather she was dropped at her parental home by her husband. Present petitioner denied the marriage in the course of his examination which also adds in the instance of cruelty against the complainant. It was also found that one defence witness Ishaque Ansari was examined who has made reference of talak between complainant and her husband on 12.12.2004 without any documentary evidence. Accordingly, the learned appellate court find no material to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant husband and dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of conviction and order of