Conviction under Section 498A IPC requires substantial evidence of persistent cruelty, not mere vague allegations.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19.05.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Bokaro, in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2005; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 29.06.2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo Teunghat, Bokaro in Petarbar, P.S. Case No. 81 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 882 of 1991; whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 498 A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years, has been dismissed and order of trial court was sustained.

3. The prosecution case as per written information dated 02.09.1991 of Dawarika Prasad is that the sister of the informant was married with Accused-Ratan Sao 8 years ago and they were blessed with two children. The accused got service in place of his father in Swang Colliery last year and thereafter he started torturing Nirmla Devi. On 30.08.1991 Nirmala Devi-P.W.1 went to her Maikae and informed the informant about act of her husband then he along with his sister Nirmala went to village Jebra to meet Ratan Sao. On query Ratan Sao became angry and started abusing him. He also has assaulted Nirmala with fist and leg before him and said that he will marry with another girl.

4. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a peculiar case where conviction has been made on the basis of mere surmises and conjecture; none of the allegation is specific in order to attract the charge under Section 498 A IPC and all the allegations are vague. He further draws attention of this court towards paragraph 5 of the judgment, wherein at one place the learned appellate court has held that the petitioner herein has married with one Anju Devi and the complainant-Nirmala is living in the quarter in Swang where the petitioner is not living. By referring this finding of the appellate court, learned counsel submits that there is no iota of evidence in order to show that she was ousted from the house due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, as the appellant himself admitted that the O.P.No.2 is living in the same quarter which has been allotted to the petitioner.

He further submits that in the instant case, neither the informant nor the investigating officer of the case has been examined. Though, the learned trial court has mentioned the details of object for enactment of Section 498 A IPC and held that there is no need of independent witness in the case of matrimonial dispute, but it has not uttered a single word that even in the absence of examination of informant; conviction will sustain.

He further submits that though in the first information report there is allegation that her husband/petitioner has married to another lady, but there is no charge of under Section 494 IPC . Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be acquitted from all the charges.

5. Mr. P.D.Agrawal, learned Addl. P.P. oppose the prayer of the petitioner for acquittal and further submits that there are concurrent finding of two courts and as such, the petitioner should not be acquitted.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR and the impugned judgments it appears that the prosecution case was lodged at the initiation of FIR which has been lodged by brother of the victim wife.

Interestingly, the informant himself has not been examined in order to prove the case. It further transpires that even the Investigating Officer has not been examined in order to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. It further transpires that the P.W.-2 who is the neighbor said tha