The prosecution must establish credible evidence of cruelty and abetment for convictions under Sections 498A and 306 IPC; mere dissatisfaction in marriage does not suffice to substantiate claims.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.01.2020, passed in Case No. ST (Type-II) 07 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura whereby and where-under the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 (two) years along with a fine of ?5,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, IPC) and further to suffer R.I. for 6(six) years along with a fine of ?10,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts of the prosecution case as projected by the learned trial Court may be reproduced here-in-below:

"The gist of the prosecution in short is that on 17.02.2016 one Ali Akbar, S/O Late Abdul Rahim of Amtali Bazar, P.S- Kakraban laid an Ejahar against Khurshed Alam, Hamid Miah, mother of Khurshed Alam and 2 other persons to the O/C Melaghar P.S alleging inter alia that about 10 years back the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the informant namely Aklima Begam was held with accused Khurshed Alam as per Muslim rites and customs. At the time of marriage, they fulfilled all the demands of bride groom side. After about 2 years of their marriage on several occasions the daughter of the complainant was subjected to mental and physical torture by the FIR named accused Khurshed Alam. It is further stated that on 17.02.2016 the informant could learnt that his daughter received burn injury and admitted at AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala in serious condition. It is further stated that all the FIR named accused persons set fire over the body of his daughter with intent to kill her. Hence, the informant laid the Ejahar. "

4. The learned trial court on receipt of the charge sheet, framed charges against the accused-husband (appellant, herein) under Sections 498Aand306ofIPC.

5. In course of trial, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and cross-examined. The prosecution introduced 14 documents including the SFSL report.

6. At the closure of recording prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, when he was noticed about all the incriminating evidences as surfaced against him to which he denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

7. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties recorded the findings of guilt against the accused-appellant and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforestated.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as stated here-in-above.

9. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant. The dying declaration of the victim does not reveal any of the ingredients of Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC. The neighbouring witnesses who deposed before the court have categorically stated that there was good relation between the accused and his deceased wife, though the witnesses were subsequently declared hostile by the prosecution.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the depositions of PW-1 and PW-5 have