JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. R. Datta for the appellant and learned Special P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for State respondent. None is present for respondent No.2 (accused). 2. This appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.04.2011, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2011, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned SDJM, Belonia dated 03.02.2011, passed in Case No. GR 445 of 2007. 3. The fact, in short, necessary for disposal of this appeal is that the appellant lodged an FIR with the O/C Belonia P.S. on 21.05.2007, alleging inter alia, that her marriage with accused, Shib Sankar Majumder was solemnized about four years before (the date of lodging FIR), and thereafter, they lived and cohabited as husband and wife. Since after one year of the marriage her husband, being drunken started physical assault on her but she continued to live in her husband's house bearing all such torture. There were meetings held in the house of one advocate, namely, Dilip Dey for conciliation and it was decided that they should live separately for six months and at that time she was living in her father's house. For last few days (before the date of lodging FIR), her husband illegally trespassed in her father's house and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and also threatened to set fire to her father's house. The wrongful activity of her husband was reported to his parents but they took no step rather encouraged her husband in doing so. On 21.10.2007 at about 6.00 pm her husband attacked the shop of Ratna Majumder (Choudhury) and Swadesh Choudhury, adjacent to her parents house and on hearing hue and cry when she went there, she was severely beaten up by her husband. On 21.10.2007 at about 6.00 pm her husband attacked the shop of Ratna Majumder (Choudhury) and Swadesh Choudhury, adjacent to her parents house and on hearing hue and cry when she went there, she was severely beaten up by her husband. On the basis of an FIR, Belonia P.S. Case No.180 of 2007 U/S 498(A)/448/427 and 323 of IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused respondent, Shib Sankar Majumder for commission of offence punishable U/S 498(A)/448/427 and 323 of IPC, and accordingly, cognizance was taken by order dated 24.03.2008 in connection with GR Case No.445 of 2007, and in course of trial, learned SDJM, Belonia framed charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/S 498(A)/448/427/323 and 506 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW.1, Hari Pada Majumder, PW.2, Swadesh alias Partha Chaudhury, PW.3, Mantu Kr. Das, PW.4, Dilip Dey, PW.5, Smti. Rupa Majumder, PW.6, Sasanka Sekhar Chaudhury and PW.7, Inspector Nitya Nanda Sarkar. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence of the prosecution, learned SDJM found the accused-respondent No.2 guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for further three months. Learned SDJM acquitted the accused from the charges framed under other Sections. The accused-convict preferred criminal appeal No.04 of 2011 in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, and that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, after re-appreciation and consideration of the evidence on record, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused from the charge. 4. The victim-informant, Rupa Majumder preferred the present appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Special P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath has submitted that the appellant, who is the victim woman of the case, if believed alone, the order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned SDJM shall sustain. He has frankly submitted that the victim has not been supported by other evidence on record, and therefore, left the matter for appreciation and decision to the Court. 6. R.C. Debnath has submitted that the appellant, who is the victim woman of the case, if believed alone, the order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned SDJM shall sustain. He has frankly submitted that the victim has not been supported by other evidence on record, and therefore, left the matter for appreciation and decision to the Court. 6. The marriage between the appellant and the accused-respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year 2001 following love affairs. According to the prosecution, after about a year of the marriage, father of the appellant accepted the marriage through some social ceremonies, and thereafter, the appellant and her husband (respondent No.2) started visiting her father's house. The matrimonial relation became sore since after one year of the marriage, the respondent-accused started torture being drunken on the appellant. The substantial allegation made in the FIR is that the accused used to torture on her being drunken and that there was a meeting for conciliation of the dispute held in the house of one advocate, namely, Dilip Dey and as per the decision she had started living in her parent's house but for a few days prior to lodging of the FIR her husband started visiting the house of her father and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. Her husband also threatened to set fire to her father's house. On 21.10.2007 her husband attacked a nearby shop, belonged to one Swadesh Choudhury and destructed the shop and when she went in front of the shop, she was beaten up. Regarding the physical torture in a drunken position, except the statement of the informant i.e. the appellant, there is no other corroborating evidence on record. The allegation is totally omnibus. PWs 4, 6 and 7, who were present in the meeting, have stated nothing about such torture-physical or mental but only stated that the meeting was held to mitigate the dispute between the husband and wife. Only PW.6 stated that the appellant in the meeting stated that she was subjected to torture but that was merely an omnibus statement. The definite allegation of the appellant is that on 21.10.2007 she was beaten up in front of the shop of PW.2 but PW.2 denied the fact and also denied the allegation that there was any incident occurred in front of his shop on that day. The definite allegation of the appellant is that on 21.10.2007 she was beaten up in front of the shop of PW.2 but PW.2 denied the fact and also denied the allegation that there was any incident occurred in front of his shop on that day. Regarding the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as made in the FIR the appellant stated that after the meeting when she started living in her parent's house, a few days before lodging of the FIR, her husband trespassed into her parent's house and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. But her father, PW.1 has made a categorical statement that on 21.10.2007 the accused went to him and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and beaten up his daughter. Under such circumstances, the allegation made by the appellant is shrouded with doubt and her sole testimony cannot be said to be inspiring for punishment of the accused. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as I find learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the order of acquittal does not deserve interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 8. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of the judgment. Appeal dismissed