JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Crl. A. No.25(2)/2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 23.03.2006, passed by the learned SDJM (Sadar), Tinsukia, in GR Case No.29/2003 convicting the accused petitioners u/s 498A of the IPC and sentencing them to S.I. for 1(one) month and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each with a default stipulation. 2. The learned Sessions Judge though maintained the conviction of the accused petitioners, acquitted the other 2 accused petitioners against whom conviction has been recorded by the learned SDJM. 3. The sum and substance of the case is that the marriage between the petitioner Dulal Bhowmick and the sister of the informant Malati Dutta, was solemnized on 24.02.1999 and after the marriage both of them started living together as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner No.2, Smti Kheloni Das, maternal aunt of the accused petitioner No.1. As a result of their co-habitation Malati Dutta, gave birth to a female child on 14.04.2001. After the birth of the child acrimony had started brewing in their marital relationship and according to Malati Dutta, the accused petitioners started torturing her demanding dowry from her. Although her brother paid some amount on different occasions, but they were not satisfied and they demanded Rs.50,000/-. For her failure to meet the illegal demand they tried to burn her by disconnecting the gas pipe from the burner but due to timely arrival of the neighbours they could not succeed. Her brother, who is the informant of the case having come to know about the incident, lodged an FIR before the police but subsequently, it was withdrawn and a compromise was arrived at between the parties. 4. After the compromise, both the husband and wife started living in a rented house at Sripuria at Tinsukia with the child. In the rented house also petitioners continued their torture which eventually lead to the filing of the present case. 5. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused petitioners and Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 6. Mr. In the rented house also petitioners continued their torture which eventually lead to the filing of the present case. 5. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused petitioners and Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 6. Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel made strenuous submissions, to convince me that bone of contention between the husband and wife is not due to any demand for dowry but it was due to the greed of the wife for the properties of petitioner No.2 in whose house they were living. It transpires from the evidence on record that the husband and wife, after the marriage, started living in the house of the petitioner No.2. Evidence also shows that the accused petitioner No. 1 was working in a shop belonging to petitioner No.2, his maternal aunt, who brought him up from his childhood. By referring to the evidence of PW 1, elder brother of the alleged victim woman, Mr. Agarwal submits that the family members of the wife at the time of marriage were under the impression that the shop in which the husband was working was owned by him and under such belief they performed the marriage between the two and when they came to know that infact the shop was owned by the accused petitioner No.2, maternal aunt of the petitioner No.1, they insisted the petitioner No.1 to demand properties from his aunt and on his refusal to do so a false case has been foisted against them. 7. It is next contended by Mr. Agarwal that the alleged occurrence which took place prior to filing of the present FIR cannot be taken into consideration since compromise was arrived at and the said FIR was withdrawn. 8. Mr. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the victim woman coupled with the evidence of her brother PW 1 and the other evidence on record established beyond doubt that both the accused petitioners tortured the victim woman demanding dowry from her which brings the offence within the purview of Section 498A of the IPC. 9. In the backdrop of the contentions raised by the counsel for both parties, I have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. 9. In the backdrop of the contentions raised by the counsel for both parties, I have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that an FIR was filed initially by the elder brother of the victim woman alleging torture of his sister by the accused petitioners demanding dowry from her but subsequently, the said FIR was withdrawn after compromise was arrived at between the parties. 10. After the compromise both the husband and wife started leaving in a rented house at Sripuria at Tinsukia with their child. According to the PW 2 in the rented house also the other accused Biresh Dutta and Cheela Dutta (already acquitted) and the accused petitioner Kheloni Das came and instigated her husband to demand Rs.50,000/- from her and accordingly he demanded the amount and on her failure to meet the demand she was assaulted by him. In the month of December, the accused petitioner No.2 sold the properties at Tinsukia and went to Doomdooma to stay in the house of Biresh Dutta, uncle of the accused petitioner No.1 and while going to Doomdooma they took away her cloths, gold ornaments, T.V. Utensils etc., and her husband also accompanied them to Doomdooma. Though PW 2 claimed that her materials were taken away by the accused petitioners at the time of going to Doomdooma but her evidence in this regard is not corroborated by her brother PW 1 who has stated that after a few month of going to Doomdooma the accused petitioners came and took away the materials and demanded Rs.50,000/- from her. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that she stayed in the rented house for about 2/3 months awaiting for her husband to come back, but her husband did not come back and having no other alternative he took her to his house from the rented house. However, her evidence shows that the rent of the house including ration etc., were paid by her husband. PW 2 claimed that all throughout the accused petitioners demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and her brother also supported her in this regard. But on a perusal of the evidence on record, I find it difficult to believe that the accused petitioners kept on torturing her demanding Rs.50,000/-. PW 2 claimed that all throughout the accused petitioners demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and her brother also supported her in this regard. But on a perusal of the evidence on record, I find it difficult to believe that the accused petitioners kept on torturing her demanding Rs.50,000/-. In cross examination PW 2 admitted that ½ months prior to filing of this case she was staying in the house of her brother. No explanation has been offered for delayed filing of the case. It emerges from the evidence that her husband also left the rented house and he went to his parental house at Tripura. Evidence also go to show that he asked his wife to accompany him to Tripura but she refused. 11. PW 2 herself admitted in her evidence that before 4/5 months of the filing of the case she went to the house of Biresh Dutta, uncle of her husband at Doomdooma for a casual visit. If she was at all tortured by the accused petitioners as claimed by her she would not have gone to Doomdooma before filing of the case that too, on a casual visit. Her evidence also reveals that her husband left for Doomdooma before filing of the case and her evidence further shows that her husband cleared all the rent of the house for the period he was staying with her. 12. PW 3 Smti Nilu Das is the land lady in whose house the accused petitioner No.1 and the alleged victim woman was staying after the compromise. Though she stated that she saw some persons coming to the house of her tenant she had not seen them torturing her. According to PW 3 after about 2/3 months of his stay in the rented house the accused stopped coming to the house and on being asked by Malati Dutta, (PW2) she telephonically contacted the aunt of Dulal seeking information about Dulal but she was informed that he had not gone to Doomdooma. There is nothing in her evidence, apart from the statement made by Malati Dutta to her, regarding the demand of Rs.50,000/- by the accused petitioners and she admitted that she had not seen the occurrence. Evidence of PW 4 is also of no help to the prosecution and apart from hearing from PW 1 that accused petitioners tortured his sister demanding Rs.25,000/-, she could not say anything. Evidence of PW 4 is also of no help to the prosecution and apart from hearing from PW 1 that accused petitioners tortured his sister demanding Rs.25,000/-, she could not say anything. He had not seen the accused trying to burn Malati Dutta alive (PW 2) and his evidence discloses that a police case was filed which was subsequently withdrawn. His evidence also shows that accused petitioner Dulal Bhowmick was staying in the house after the marriage as there was quarrel between the accused petitioner No.2 and the wife of accused petitioner No.1 and it was mutually settled. According to PW 6 Milan Singha after the marriage also Dulal was staying in the house of Kheloni and Dulal’s wife Malati was making enquiries about the properties and due to this reason Dulal left his house. In cross examination he clearly stated that Malati demanded property from Kheloni Das and due to this reason there was quarrel. 13. On an overall assessment of the entire evidence on record it emerges that the main dispute between the husband and the wife was regarding the properties of Kheloni Das. The wife and her brother were not happy with Kheloni Das for not handing over the properties to Dulal and it appears that Dulal was also did not insist his aunt to part with the properties. It further appears that the family members of the wife was not aware that Dulal was only an employee of the shop which was situated in the market, which was owned by his aunt. The evidence of torture demanding dowry is not supported by the independent witness and none of them claims to have seen the accused petitioners torturing her demanding money from her rather PW 6 asserted that the quarrel was regarding the property of Kheloni Das and on her refusal to part with the properties the alleged victim quarreled with her. 14. The accused petitioner No.1 examined himself as a witness and testified that he was an employee under his aunt Kheloni Das at a monthly salary of Rs.1500/- and at the time of marriage she advanced an amount of Rs.50,000/- to him as a loan. 14. The accused petitioner No.1 examined himself as a witness and testified that he was an employee under his aunt Kheloni Das at a monthly salary of Rs.1500/- and at the time of marriage she advanced an amount of Rs.50,000/- to him as a loan. In 2002 his aunt sold her properties and the brother of his wife having come to know about it asked him to demand the properties from his aunt and on his refusal to do so they came with police and got him arrested and he was not even aware about the actual reason of his arrest. Compromise was arrived at between the parties and after the compromise he and his wife started living in the rented house. When his aunt sold the properties, he insisted his wife to go to his parental house at Tripura but she refused and her brother also refused to allow her to go to Tripura. 15. Having no other alternative he gave information to police before he left for Tripura that his wife refused to go with him and while in Tripura he came to know that a case was filed. During the pendency of the case the brother of his wife asked for Rs.5,00,000/- to withdraw the case but he could not pay the amount and due to this reason this case was filed. He denied that he tortured his wife demanding dowry. 16. Plausible explanation has been offered in his evidence by the accused petitioner No.1 for his inability to live with his wife at Tinsukia. It clearly emerges from the evidence that after his aunt sold the properties at Tinsukia he decided to leave for Tripura to the house of his parents and though he asked his wife to accompany him, she refused and it appears that a false case has been foistedagainst him and his aunt. His evidence that the brother of his wife demanded Rs.5,00,000/- has not been controverted in cross examination and such a probability cannot be ruled out. 17. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record it would be too hazardous to come to the conclusion that the accused petitioners tortured the woman for non fulfillment of dowry demand. 18. 17. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record it would be too hazardous to come to the conclusion that the accused petitioners tortured the woman for non fulfillment of dowry demand. 18. In view of my above discussion and having regard to the submissions and the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia without proper appreciation of the evidence on record affirmed the judgment of the trial court which is not found to be sustainable. 19. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. 20. The accused petitioners are acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands discharged. 21. Send down the LCR forthwith.