JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PS Laskar, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-09-2006, passed by the learned SDJM (M), Dhakuakhana convicting the revision petitioner under Section 498(A)/34 IPC and sentencing to imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that, informant Junali Hazarika was residing with her in-laws and in absence of her husband, accused Sunad Hazarika and Lily Hazarika being her mother-in-law and father-in-law, subjected her to physical and mental torture and on 01.02.2006 at about 9’o clock, both of them assaulted her and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. An FIR was lodged by said Junali Hazarika, Pw-1, on the basis of which, police registered a case under Section 498 A IPC. On conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against Sunad Hazarika and Lily Hazarika under Section 498 A IPC. 4. In course of trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The learned magistrate on appreciation of evidence convicted both the accused persons under Section 498 A IPC. However, learned trial Court released accused Sunad Hazarika on Probation of Good Conduct, and, awarded sentence to the present petitioner as indicated above. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, the revision petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner was perverse and illegal as there was no evidence on record to constitute an offence under Section 498 A IPC against the accused persons. 7. Learned Addl. PP has also very fairly submits that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 498 A IPC, and this was a fit case where the revision petitioner ought to have been given at least the benefit of doubt. 8. Pw-1, the informant deposed that before 7 months of the occurrence, she was married to the son of the accused persons and lived together with her husband for a week. Thereafter, her husband went to join his service, leaving her with his parents. She also stated that in absence of her husband, the in-laws tortured her physically and mentally and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, her husband went to join his service, leaving her with his parents. She also stated that in absence of her husband, the in-laws tortured her physically and mentally and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. The accused persons rebuked her with filthy language and did not provide her food at nights. She also stated that the accused persons threatened her to leave the matrimonial home and had driven her out of the house. According to Pw-2, who was the president of Mahila Samiti, Pw-1 was married to the son of the accused persons and lived in the matrimonial house for about 7 months. She stated to have heard about physical and mental torture during that period. Pw-3 though stated regarding marriage of Pw-1 with the son of the accused persons, she has not stated anything regarding any torture. Pw-4 and Pw-5 have also denied having any personal knowledge about the occurrence. Pw-7 and Pw-8 has stated regarding the marriage of Pw-1 with the son of the accused persons, but they have denied to have seen the accused persons torturing the Pw-1. Therefore, the only legal evidence brought on record is the evidence of Pw-1, that the accused persons being her in-laws, tortured her physically and mentally and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. From the allegation made in the FIR lodged by the informant herself, it appears that the accused persons assaulted her only on 01.02.2006 and on the same day she was driven out from the matrimonial home. 9. In order to bring home the charge under Section 498 A IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following facts: a. The accused is the husband or the relative of the husband of the women in question. 9. In order to bring home the charge under Section 498 A IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following facts: a. The accused is the husband or the relative of the husband of the women in question. b. The women was subjected to cruelty by her husband and/or relative of the husband c. The cruelty meted out to the women must come within the definition of ‘cruelty’ given in the explanation to Section 498 A IPC, which reads as follows: 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.] 10. It would appear from the above definition that in order to bring home a charge under Section 498 A IPC, the assault or mental and physical cruelty meted out to the women must be of such degree, as would force the women to commit suicide or harassment of the women for unlawful demand of money or valuable security. There is absolutely no evidence on record that there has been any unlawful demand by the accused persons or harassment of the accused persons on such demand. 11. What appears from the evidence and the allegation in the FIR is that only on one occasion i.e. 01.02.2006, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the Pw-1 and driven her out of the house. A single incident of assault is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498 A. In order to convict the accused under Section 498 A IPC, there must be clinching evidence to show that the victim women was subjected to continuous torture or harassment for demand of money or valuable security and the torture, should be of such nature, that the women would be forced to commit suicide. A single incident of assault in the present case as alleged by the PW-1, even if accepted to be true, is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498 A IPC. A single incident of assault in the present case as alleged by the PW-1, even if accepted to be true, is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498 A IPC. Thus, the evidence brought on record appears to be grossly inadequate to prove any charge under Section 498 A IPC against the revision petitioner and therefore, conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed and conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner is set-aside. 12. Send back the LCR.