JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a further direction that the fine amount must be paid to the de facto complainant. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is as follows : Nupur Chatterjee (P.W. 1) had a love affair with the appellant and such affair culminated in a social marriage on 9th Baisakh, 1409 B.S. i.e. 23.04.2002. At the time of marriage her father (P.W.2) gave Rs. 25,000/- cash, gold ornaments, furniture, cycle and other customary articles. Initially her matrimonial life was pleasant but after sometime the appellant and her in laws inflicted mental and physical torture upon her on demand of cash for expansion of family business. Eight months after her marriage she suffered pain in her abdomen and had to undergo an operation and expenses of the operation was borne by her father. After operation she was illtreated and insinuations were made that she would be incapable to conceive. The appellant demanded 50,000/- in cash and one Hero Honda Splender Motorcycle in order to permit her to stay at the matrimonial home. Joint conciliation was held on 28.03.2003 at the local police station and the victim returned to her matrimonial home. The appellant continued mental and physical torture on her. He used to return home inebriated at late hours in the night and used to physically assault her. On 18.05.2004 when Nupur Chatteerjee returned from a nearby temple after performing Puja the appellant physically assaulted her with a broken glass causing physical injury on her person which endangered her life. She had to be shifted from her matrimonial home and medically treated. On the basis of her written complaint, Bankura P.S. Case No. 104 of 2004 dated 19.05.2004 under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was started against the appellant, the father-in-law, Monimohan Chatterjee, the mother-in-law, Jharna Chatterjee and sister-in-law, Ruma Das. 3. On the basis of her written complaint, Bankura P.S. Case No. 104 of 2004 dated 19.05.2004 under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was started against the appellant, the father-in-law, Monimohan Chatterjee, the mother-in-law, Jharna Chatterjee and sister-in-law, Ruma Das. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the appellant and the other accused persons under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Charges were framed under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant and other accused persons. 5. The appellant and other accused persons pleaded ' not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The case of the appellant and other accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. 6. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a further direction that the fine amount, if realised, be paid to the de facto complainant. By the selfsame judgment and order the appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 7. The present appeal was filed before this Court and was admitted by order dated 07.02.2012. I find that the appeal ought to have been presented before the Court of Session in view of section 374(3) Cr.P.C. However, as the appeal has already been admitted and is ready for hearing I am of the opinion that the appeal need not be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court and may be heard out by this Court on its merit. 8. Mrs. Suchitra Chatterjee, amicus curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution case of demand of dowry has not been proved. The prosecution evidence on the allegations of torture on the victim is contradictory and does not inspire confidence. 8. Mrs. Suchitra Chatterjee, amicus curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution case of demand of dowry has not been proved. The prosecution evidence on the allegations of torture on the victim is contradictory and does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 9. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing of the State submitted that the evidence of torture upon the appellant is established by oral version of the witnesses and the same is supported by medical evidence. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not require interference. 10. P.W. 1 is the victim lady. She deposed that she was married to the appellant on 9th Baisakh, 1409 B.S. i.e. 23.04.2002 and at the time of marriage cash amount, gold ornaments and other articles were given as dowry. Three/four months after the marriage she was subjected to physical assault by the appellant who used to assault her in an inebriated condition. There was demand for more money. The appellant demanded a motorcycle from the father of the victim. She narrated the torture to her relations as well as neighbours. On 18.05.2004 she was assaulted by the appellant with a broken glass and had to be treated in hospital. She proved the first information report in the instant case. She has also proved the seizure of photograph and invitation letters relating to her marriage. In cross-examination, she stated that there was a love affair between themselves prior to marriage. She further stated that she had an operation after her marriage and all the members of the family including the appellant taunted her that she would never become a mother because of the operation. 11. P.W. 2 is the father of P.W. 1. He has corroborated her evidence with regard to torture over demands of dowry. He has stated due to torture P.W. 1 came back to his residence. There was a settlement of the dispute. She was sent to her matrimonial home. She was again assaulted in 2003 and the matter was reported to the police and settled. In 2004 on the day of Mongal Chandi the appellant assaulted her with broken glass and she suffered injuries. He proved his signature on the seizure list of the invitation cards and photographs of marriage. 12. P.W. 3 is the mother of the victim. She was again assaulted in 2003 and the matter was reported to the police and settled. In 2004 on the day of Mongal Chandi the appellant assaulted her with broken glass and she suffered injuries. He proved his signature on the seizure list of the invitation cards and photographs of marriage. 12. P.W. 3 is the mother of the victim. She has stated about torture and harassment of P.W. 1 at the matrimonial home. She stated that after the abdominal surgery of P.W. 1, in-laws used to make false allegation that she would not be able to bear child. She was not given proper food. She stated that the appellant assaulted her with broken glass. As a result, the victim was injured and had to be medically treated. 13. P.W. 4 claims to be uncle of P.W. 1 of village courtesy. He narrated torture of P.W. 1 and stated that on 18.05.2004 she was assaulted by appellant with broken glass and suffered injury. 14. P.W. 5 is a neighbour. She has deposed about the torture of P.W. 1 at her matrimonial home. She also deposed about assault by appellant on 18.05.2004 resulting in injuries. 15. P.W. 6 is the doctor who treated the victim. He found the following injuries on her body : '1. Linear abrasion on extensor aspect of right forearm (seven in number) 2. One linear abrasion on back of right shoulder measuring about one inch. 3. Three parallel abrasion about three inches about left breast. 4. Two long linear abrasion about three inches above right breast. 5. Defused tenderness on back.' He has proved the injury report. 16. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case. An analysis of the prosecution evidence clearly shows that the incident of torture as narrated by P.W. 1 is corroborated of her relations, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. P.W. 5, an independent witness, has also corroborated the incident of torture. All the prosecution witnesses have deposed that on 18.05.2004 she was assaulted by the appellant with broken glass. Medical evidence of P.W. 6 corroborated such oral evidence and proved the injuries on the victim (P.W. 1). 17. 2, 3 and 4. P.W. 5, an independent witness, has also corroborated the incident of torture. All the prosecution witnesses have deposed that on 18.05.2004 she was assaulted by the appellant with broken glass. Medical evidence of P.W. 6 corroborated such oral evidence and proved the injuries on the victim (P.W. 1). 17. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned amicus curiae that as the appellant had been acquitted of the charge under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act he is entitled to an acquittal of the charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Section 498A reads as follows : 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, cruelty means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.' 19. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that ' cruelty defined in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code need not necessarily be restricted for or in connection with demands of dowry. 20. In the instant case, there is evidence relating to torture arising from demands of dowry. That apart, it is alleged that the husband used to assault the victim after coming home in a drunken state. 21. Moreover, there is convincing evidence on record that the husband assaulted P.W. 1 on 18.05.2004 with a broken piece of glass causing injuries on her body. Oral evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6, the doctor. That apart, it is alleged that the husband used to assault the victim after coming home in a drunken state. 21. Moreover, there is convincing evidence on record that the husband assaulted P.W. 1 on 18.05.2004 with a broken piece of glass causing injuries on her body. Oral evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6, the doctor. This leads me to the irresistible conclusion that the physical torture meted out by the appellant to the victim falls within the ambit of ' cruelty as defined under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 22. I am therefore of the view that the conviction of the appellant under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is justified. 23. The appellant does not however have any criminal antecedent. He has already undergone two years imprisonment as would be evident from order dated 24.09.2012 passed in the appeal. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, I modify the sentence imposed upon the appellant and direct that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to period already undergone. The sentence of fine however shall remain unchanged. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court within a month and pay fine imposed upon him, failing which the trial Court will initiate appropriate proceeding for realisation of the fine and/or execution of the default sentence in accordance with law. 25. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 26. Copy of the judgment along with lower court records be sent down to the trial Court at once. 27. I record my appreciation for the able assistance extended by Ms. Suchitra Chatterjee, learned counsel as amicus curiae for disposing of the appeal. Appeal allowed.