JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-02-96 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Criminal Appeal No. 16(S-3)/95 whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. In GR Case No. 1427/92 the Petitioner Sri Arunava Bhowmik was tried along with two others for commission of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court acquitted the other co-accused and convicted the accused Petitioner under the above section of law and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16(S-3)/95 before the Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur and vide impugned order dated 19-02-96 affirmed the order of conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for six months. Hence the present revision. 4. In the present case there is no dispute at the Bar that the Petitioner had married Smt. Sarbani Bhowmik and thereafter lived as husband and wife. The prosecution allegation is that on 04-09-92 at about 4.30 P.M. the three accused persons assaulted the alleged victim Sarbani Bhowmik and caused injury on her person. 5. In this case, during trial prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and P.W.1 is the alleged victim Sarbani Bhowmik. She has deposed that her mother-in-law Smt. Bina Bhowmik used to taunt her for not giving colour TV in the marriage and on the day of occurrence her mother-in-law and the maid servant Smt. Anima Das caught hold of her and her husband assaulted her. She raised alarm whereupon the neighbours came and saved her. P.W.2 Sri Mantu Ghosh a neighbour is the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence. He saw P.W.1 being assaulted by Anima Das only. The witness has categorically stated that the present Petitioner husband and his mother were standing nearby. P.W.3 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 is also supported by Sri Nikhil Paul P.W.4 and Sri Dulal Bora P.W.5. P.W.6 is Dr. Mahendra Nath Saikia who had examined P.W.1 and found abrasion over the right wrist and accymosis in the left little finger. P.W.3 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 is also supported by Sri Nikhil Paul P.W.4 and Sri Dulal Bora P.W.5. P.W.6 is Dr. Mahendra Nath Saikia who had examined P.W.1 and found abrasion over the right wrist and accymosis in the left little finger. It may be mentioned here that the Doctor also found lacerated injury on the person of Smt. Anima Das, the co-accused who was acquitted by the trial court. Thus, we find that except P.W.1, the wife of the Petitioner, no other witnesses had seen the accused Petitioner Arunava Bhowmik assaulting her. On the other hand, the other witnesses have deposed about the assault made by Anima Das only and stated that the husband was standing nearby. 6. The learned Counsel for the accused Appellant has submitted that the entire evidence is directed against Anima Das and Bina Bhowmik. P.W.1 has categorically stated that it was Bina Bhowmik who used to taunt her for not bringing a colour T.V. There is no allegation against the husband to that effect. Despite the above evidence on record, the trial court had acquitted Smt. Anima Das and Smt. Bina Bhowmik but on the basis of the said evidence, the Petitioner has been convicted. It is, therefore, submitted that when the evidence of the witnesses has not been relied upon by the trial court, for the purpose of acquitting the co-accused, there was no scope to convict the present accused on the same evidence. 7. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that an offence under Section498(A) IPC does not cover a single incident of altercation or assault between the husband and wife. 8. In this case, there is no allegation against the Petitioner that he had demanded a colour T.V. or harassed the informant for that purpose. There is absolutely no evidence that beating or the alleged act in question was with the view to compel the informant to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence of P.W.1 that the husband had assaulted her on any previous occasion. The witness has deposed about the single incident of assault by the husband and even if we accept the above evidence of P.W.1. which is not supported by other witnesses, it does not amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498(A) IPC. The witness has deposed about the single incident of assault by the husband and even if we accept the above evidence of P.W.1. which is not supported by other witnesses, it does not amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498(A) IPC. We find that the trial court as well as the appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. Both the courts below also erred in holding that the single incident of alleged assault on 04-09-92 amounts to an offence under Section 498(A)I.P.C. Accordingly, we allow this revision and set aside the order of conviction and sentence entered against the accused Petitioner. The accused is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. He need not surrender to the bail bonds. 9. Send down the records. Petition allowed