Conviction requires credible and corroborated evidence; failure to provide such evidence results in acquittal.

1. Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This is an appeal by the convict from the judgment and order dated 22.08.2015 delivered in Case No.S.T. 38(GT / U) / 2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati, Udaipur.

3. By the said judgment the appellant has been convicted under S.498A of the IPC , but he has been acquitted from the charge under S.304B of the and S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 22.08.2015 the appellant has been sentenced to suffer 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

5. The prosecution commenced against the appellant when one Dinabandhu Das (PW - 1) lodged a written complaint to the Officer In - Charge, Kakraban Police Station, Udaipur disclosing that his daughter namely, Purnima Das, after her marriage with the appellant was subjected to cruelty on unlawful demand. It has been categorically stated that the appellant used to assault her for collecting Rs.20,000/- in cash and for gold ornaments. Since the said unlawful demand was not met, the appellant started inhuman torture on the daughter of the complainant. The matter was interfered by the village panchayat several times, but without any positive change in the circumstances. Finally, on 22.12.2012 Purnima committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the complainant dated 28.12.2012, Kakraban P.S. Case No.242 of 2012 under S.498A / 304B and 34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police report was submitted against the appellant and two of the inmates namely, Kailash Das and Kalpana Das. Accordingly, the charge was framed on taking cognizance for offences as stated, but all the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, adduced as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses including the informant, some relatives, the doctor who attended the dead body of Purnima and two Investigating Officers (PWs 15 and 16).

6. After recording the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was as well examined under S.313 of Cr.P.C., where he had taken a stand that he did not torture the victim. Her own brother assaulted her and out of ignominy, the victim committed suicide, but no evidence has been led to prove that statement. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court has delivered the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. This appeal as stated is against the said finding of conviction and consequential order of sentence.

7. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the beginning stated that there are 3 (three) categories of witnesses viz. the related witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 8 and 10), the independent witnesses (PWs 3, 5, 6 , 11 and 12) and the official witnesses or the medical officers (PWs 4, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 16).

According to Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel there is no positive evidence to return the finding of conviction. He has submitted that most of the evidence is in the nature of hearsay or those are the improved version in the trial. The defence has proved by placing those parts of testimony to the Investigating Officer and as such those parts cannot but be accepted as contradiction. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no details of how and when cruelty was afflicted. These are all sweeping statements, without any reference to the date and time. Even, it is there in the evidence that no witness has ever seen the victim being assaulted or harassed by the appellant.

8. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned