The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong and corroborative evidence to establish guilt under Section 498(A) IPC, particularly in cases involving allegations of domestic violence and dowry harassment.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 05(1) of 2006 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 498(A) IPC passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First class), North Tripura, Dharmanagar and modified the sentence from R.I. for 2 years to S.I. for 2 years.

2. Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The fact of the prosecution case leading to this revision petition, in short, is that on 13.06.1998 the marriage of the informant Halima Khatoon was solemnized with the accused petitioner Achadur Rahman as per Mohamedan customary law. After marriage she was leading conjugal life with the convict petitioner as husband and wife but after few days the accused persons i.e. the accused petitioner and others started physical and mental torture on her on demand of dowry of one Yamaha motorcycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/- but her parents were unable to meet the demand of dowry, as a result her husband and his family members increased their torture and also induced her to commit suicide by taking poison or by pouring kerosene and lighting fire or by hanging etc. Her husband also express that in case he married second time, he would have got more quantity of dowry. The other accused persons also would encourage and abet him for causing torture on her on demand of dowry. Prior to the case, in question, she also filed another case under Section 498(A) IPC but subsequently the same was compromised for the sake of her happy conjugal life. She gave birth of a male child on 4.3.1999 during her wedlock with the accused petitioner Achadur Rahman. She could get no proper nursing, treatment and medicine during and after her delivery. On 15.6.1999 the accused petitioner Achadur Rahman assaulted the informant and on 20.9.1999 also demanded dowry and assaulted her. On 1.8.1999 the accused petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted the informant on demand of dowry as a result of which she left her matrimonial house only with her wearing apparels to save herself leaving her son. On the following day with the intervention of police her son was rescued.

4. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused petitioner and other accused persons, in total six in numbers for committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and proceeded with the trial when they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held both the husband of the informant and her father-in-law are guilty and adjourned the case sine-die against the remaining four accused persons.

5. The learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioner Achadur Rahman under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a period of two years and also convicted the father-in-law Dilu Miah under the said section of 498(A) IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of six months.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First class), North Tripura, Dharmanagar, the accused petitioner and his father preferred an appeal and the said appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar being Criminal Appeal No. 5(1) of 2006. Upon hearing the appeal and going through the evidences on record, the learned appellate Court acquitted the accused Dilu Miah, father-in-law of the informant as there was no direct evidence against him and upheld the conviction so far the present accused petitioner is concerned and modified the sentence, as stated supra. Hence, the instant revision petition.

7. It appears from the record that the prosecution has examined in total seven numbers of witnesses and also relied upon some documents.

8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel