JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011, whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai in Case No. G.R.277 of 2009 has been upheld. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. C. Saha for the accused-petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State-respondent. 3. Prosecution case is that the informant victim Nirulata Debbarma had love affairs with accused-petitioner, Trithit Debbarma, and following the love affairs they had undergone sexual relation and as a result she got pregnant. While she was pregnant her marriage was solemnized with the accused on 05.08.2008 and thereafter she went to her husband’s house and she gave birth a male child on 12.12.2008. It is alleged by the victim Nirulata Debbarma that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started torture on her both physically and mentally since after marriage and they demanded Rs.50,000/-. The demand could not be fulfilled by her and so, after 15 days of marriage she was driven out from her matrimonial home. After the birth of child she again went to her husband’s house and lived there for 24/25 days, but thereafter again she was driven out of the matrimonial home on demand of Rs.50,000/-. Finally on 05.03.2009 she took shelter to her paternal home on being driven out by the accused persons from her matrimonial home. She lodged FIR before O/C, Champahour P.S. on 22.11.2009 making the allegation as stated above and accordingly, Champahour P.S. Case No. 21/2009 under Section 498A was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused-petitioner and his parents. 4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and in course of trial learned SDJM, Khowai framed charge against the accused-petitioner and his parents for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the charge. 4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and in course of trial learned SDJM, Khowai framed charge against the accused-petitioner and his parents for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the charge. Out of them, PW5 is the victim-informant, PWs 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the victim, PWs 3 and 6 are the bother and uncle of the victim, PW4 is the priest of the marriage and PW7 is the I/O of the case. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in his turn the accused examined two witnesses, i.e., DW1, Rajendra Debbarma and DW2, Amaresh Debbarma. The defence case so far ascertained from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statement of the accused made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the deposition of the defence witnesses is that the accused-petitioner never inflicted physical or mental torture on demand of money or anything else and that after the birth of the son the victim prosecutrix Nirulata Debbarma voluntarily left the house of the accused and had been living with her son in her parental house. Attempts were made by the accused through his relatives to take her back, but she declined to return to the matrimonial home. 7. Learned SDJM considering the evidence on record by impugned judgment dated 15.11.2011 found the accused-petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and accordingly convicted him under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment to suffer S.I. for further three months. 8. Aggrieved, the convict-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated 23.02.2012 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 9. Hence, this revisional application. 10. This Court being a revisional Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and to see the regularity of the proceeding. 9. Hence, this revisional application. 10. This Court being a revisional Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and to see the regularity of the proceeding. Ordinarily this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record unless it is found that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Saha appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no definite allegation of exercise of cruelty as defined in Section 498A of IPC on the victim informant, Nirulata Debbarma and even her statement has not been supported by her parents, brother and uncle. No independent witness has been examined. Based on the fractured statement of the victim the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion of guilt of the accused and the appellate Court also affirmed it. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and for acquittal of the accused. 12. Learned P.P. modestly submits that exercise cruelty on any woman in the matrimonial home is committed normally within the compound of the matrimonial home and as a result no independent witness is normally available to see the occurrence. The Court has to see whether the evidence of the informant i.e., victim lady, inspires confidence and if her statement is found to be cogent and consistent and the ingredients of offence is established, a conviction may be recorded even on her solitary statement. 13. To record a conviction under Section 498A of IPC, prosecution is to prove that the victim lady, who is a married woman, was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home by the accused-petitioner being her husband. 13. To record a conviction under Section 498A of IPC, prosecution is to prove that the victim lady, who is a married woman, was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home by the accused-petitioner being her husband. The word “cruelty” has been defined in Explanation to Section 498A of IPC thus: “(a) any willful 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 is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 14. In the present case the prosecution alleged that the victim lady was subjected to cruelty on demand of Rs.50,000/- and since the amount could not be paid by the victim lady as per the demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the accused and his parents. So, the allegation comes under the purview of the allegation of cruelty as prescribed in Explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC. 15. Let us first see what is the allegation made in the FIR. It was lodged by the victim, Nirulata Debbarma, on 22.11.2009. Since it was an information first in point of time about the exercise of cruelty the statement of allegation made in the FIR definitely deserve some sorts of authenticity. She stated that her marriage was solemnized on 05.08.2008 and at that time she was pregnant because of her physical relation with the accused out of love affairs before marriage. She stated that since after marriage the accused persons started torture on her on demand of Rs.50,000/- and other goods and utensils. Her father gave certain goods and utensils as dowry, but after 15 days of marriage all the accused persons driven her out from the matrimonial home after physical and mental torture since Rs.50,000/- could not be paid by her. Her father gave certain goods and utensils as dowry, but after 15 days of marriage all the accused persons driven her out from the matrimonial home after physical and mental torture since Rs.50,000/- could not be paid by her. After the birth of the baby she was again taken back to her matrimonial home at the intervention of the local people and at that time she stayed for about 24/25 days, but again the accused persons started torture on her both mentally and physically on demand of Rs.50,000/- and since that amount could not be arranged from her parental home she was finally driven out from her matrimonial home on 05.03.2009 after physical and mental torture. 16. In her deposition the victim, PW5, Nirulata Debbarma, stated that after marriage she started living with her husband and after about 15 days her husband asked her to bring Rs.15,000/- from her father. She could not fulfill the demand for which the accused tortured her. She gave birth of a male child. On 05.03.2009 all the accused persons (accused-petitioner and his parents) driven her out from the matrimonial home and she took shelter in her parental home with her son. The accused persons assured her to take back if their demand of Rs.15,000/- is fulfilled. She filed FIR before police and she proved the FIR. 17. Even if we accept the statement of the victim as made in her deposition is a true statement, it do not disclose the manner in which the victim was harassed by the accused persons on demand of Rs.15,000/-. The amount is different from what has been stated in the FIR. But in her deposition she simply stated that her husband started asking her for Rs.15,000/- and since the amount could not be paid she was tortured. By mean ‘torture’ what she intended to mean has not been elaborated in her deposition. It is a mere omnibus statement on the basis of which no person can be held guilty and such an omnibus statement cannot be said to be a proof of exercise of cruelty as defined in Section 498A of IPC. There must be evidence to show that the accused persons by committing certain acts or omissions harassed the petitioner on demand of any property or valuable security. There must be evidence to show that the accused persons by committing certain acts or omissions harassed the petitioner on demand of any property or valuable security. Since there is nothing in the statement of the victim herself as to what was the nature of torture, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, in my considered opinion, has failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with law and arrived at a wrong finding. 18. The mother of the victim, i.e., PW1, has not stated anything about the torture. The father, brother and uncle stated that the victim was tortured mentally and physically and they stated before the Court as was reported by the victim. They also did not elaborate as to what was the nature of mental or physical torture. The allegation of torture must be proved with the definite statement of the nature of torture, i.e., the acts or omissions by which torture, i.e., the harassment which amounts to cruelty was committed. In the absence of any such definite evidence of exercise of cruelty the charge for commission of offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be proved. 19. In view of the discussion made above, I am of considered opinion that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is not tenable in law and since those judgments suffer from illegality and impropriety, order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2011 passed by the learned SDJM, Khowai and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai by judgment dated 23.02.2012 in Case No. Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011 are set aside. The accused-petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and accordingly, he is set at liberty. 20. Send back the lower Court records along with a copy of this judgment.