JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2004 and order of sentence, dated 14.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, appellant has been further awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All these sentences are directed to run concurrently. By the same impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted all other accused persons under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted all the accused persons including the present appellant under Section 307 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The prosecution case is based upon a complaint petition filed by Smt. Sunita Mandal, wife of the appellant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa on 14.01.1999, which was registered as C/1 Case No. 2 of 1999, against Pradeep Mandal and other relatives, alleging the date of occurrence as December, 1997 and onwards. The said complaint petition was sent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Officer-in-Charge, Chaibasa, Sadar P.S. through S.P., Singhbhum West to institute a case and investigate vide order of the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa dated 25.01.1999. The complainant has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the accused/appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal on 26.02.1997 at Chaibasa according to Hindu religion which was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, the father of the complainant has given the articles mentioned in the Schedule below to the complaint petition, as marriage gifts and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- cash to the father of the appellant. At the time of marriage, the father of the complainant has given the articles mentioned in the Schedule below to the complaint petition, as marriage gifts and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- cash to the father of the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to her matrimonial home at Hume Pipe Basti, Near Kali Mandir, in the town of Jamshedpur along with the articles mentioned in the schedule below. Soon after the complainant went to her matrimonial home, the accused persons started saying that the articles given to her by her father are not sufficient and up to their standard and thus, they have started demanding a colour television and a fridge and asked the complainant to demand those articles from her father. The complainant was knowing that her father is a retired government servant and could not meet the demands of the accused persons, therefore, the complainant kept mum and tolerated all inhuman torture given to her by the accused persons. In the meantime, complainant conceived in or about the month of August, 1997. The complainant with the hope that the accused persons would change their behavior towards her in course of time, but instead of changing their mind, all the accused persons intensify their torturous activities upon the complainant. Finding no other way, the complainant wrote letters to her father on 20.12.1997 and 22.12.1997, informing her father about such demands of the accused persons and the ill treatment given to her by the accused persons. On receipt of the aforesaid two letters, the complainant’s father went to Jamshedpur to settle the matter. The father of the complainant told that after arranging money, he will give those articles to them and requested them not to administer torture to the complainant, upon which the father of the appellant has assured him, that in future they would not torture the complainant. It is further alleged that in spite of the aforesaid assurance, the accused persons did not change their behavior. In the month of January, 1998, the accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil on the complainant with a view to kill her, but the complainant managed to flee from the house and the neighbourers saved her. Further, the complainant could detect that her husband Pradeep Mandal has illicit relationship with one lady named Tulu and he is in the habit of drinking liquor. Further, the complainant could detect that her husband Pradeep Mandal has illicit relationship with one lady named Tulu and he is in the habit of drinking liquor. One night, the appellant snatched all the ornaments and told the complainant, that he will give those ornaments to her beloved. It is further alleged that the complainant was pregnant but she was not given any medical treatment nor she was provided with food by the accused persons. In the month of April, 1998, the appellant, Pradeep Mandal demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for his business of electronic goods and asked the complainant to bring the said amount from her father. When she refused, she was brutally assaulted by him. Finding no other way, the complainant wrote letter to her father on 20.04.1998. On receipt of the said letter, the father of the complainant along with her brother went to Jamshedpur and seeing the pitiable condition of the complainant, they brought her to Chaibasa on 06.05.1998. Even at the time of leaving her house, Rita Mandal snatched her earrings and finger ring in presence of her father and brother. On 16.05.1998, the complainant gave birth to a female child after undergoing an operation. It is further alleged that, information about such birth of the female child was given but the appellant did not come to Chaibasa even to see his daughter. It has been further alleged that, instead of coming to Chaibasa to take the complainant and her daughter, the appellant sent a legal notice through his lawyer on 24.12.1998 with some false and frivolous allegation to save his skin and the said notice has been suitably replied by the complainant through her lawyer on 30.12.1998. That the complainant was under the hope that the accused persons would change their behavior and take the complainant to lead a peaceful conjugal life. The present case relates to the marital life of the complainant, she was in family way and as such she could not file this complaint earlier. But when she received the aforesaid notice from the husband through her lawyer, the complainant lost all her hope and replied the same through her lawyer. Due to this fact, a bit delay in lodging the complaint case has been caused. 3. But when she received the aforesaid notice from the husband through her lawyer, the complainant lost all her hope and replied the same through her lawyer. Due to this fact, a bit delay in lodging the complaint case has been caused. 3. On the basis of the complaint petition of the complainant, and upon direction of the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa exercising power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., police has registered Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 1999, dated 13.04.1999, under Sections 498 (A), 307, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide no. 41 of 1999, dated 30.07.1999, under Sections 498 (A), 307, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.07.1999 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.02.2000. 6. The charge has been framed against all the six accused persons including the present appellant on 13.02.2002, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498 A/34, 307/34 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses. Dwijesh Chandra Bhattacharya has been examined as P.W. 1, Lakhi Kant Mandal, father of the victim has been examined as P.W. 2, Rajkumar Singh has been examined as P.W. 3, Jagdish Mandal, brother of the victim, has been examined as P.W. 4, Sunita Mandal, complainant and victim of the case has been examined as P.W. 5, Pankaj Kumar Mandal, another brother of the complainant has been examined as P.W. 6 and Birendra Kumar Rajbanshi, investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also exhibited a number of documentary evidence in support of its case. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also exhibited a number of documentary evidence in support of its case. Signatures of Sunita Mandal on the entire complaint petition have been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1 to 1/3, four letters written by Sunita Mandal to her father have been proved and marked as Exhibits 2 to 2/3, two photographs have been marked as Exhibit- X and X/1, endorsement and signature over the complaint petition has been proved and marked as Exhibit 1/4, formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3. All these exhibits have been proved and marked as exhibits without any objection from the side of the defence. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.07.2003, where he has admitted the marriage with Sunita but has discarded the allegation levelled against him. This witness has also admitted during statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Sunita was pregnant and has further admitted that father of Sunita has taken his daughter to his house and has admitted that, he has been blessed with a girl child from the wedlock with Sunita. No defence witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant. 9. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Om Prakash assisted by Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that in the evidence, though the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 5 has alleged that she has been assaulted by the appellant but no such averment has been found in the complaint petition, nor any witness to the occurrence has been examined on behalf of the complainant/victim of the case to establish that the complainant was assaulted by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is a contradictory statement of the witnesses as such, the learned Trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 498 (A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is contrary to the material available on record and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that from perusal of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand made by the in-laws on or before the marriage, related to the marriage is only dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no evidence has been brought on record that subsequent demand of fridge, television or Rs. 40,000/- cash as alleged by the prosecution are related with the marriage, rather those are the demands made subsequent to the marriage, having no bearing on the marriage, and as such, the same cannot constitute an offence under Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment as reported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 721 in case of Appasaheb and Another versus State of Maharashtra, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “demand of money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry”. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that convicting the appellant under Sections 498 (A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is contrary to the material available on record and as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges and conviction by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 2, Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 2, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 498 (A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the complainant Sunita (P.W. 5) was forced to leave the house with her father in pregnancy. She gave birth to a girl child, after undergoing surgical operation and information of the same was given to the appellant (husband of the complainant and father of the girl child) but the appellant did not went to see her girl child. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that from perusal of the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has admitted about the marriage, pregnancy of Sunita and subsequent knowledge regarding birth of a girl child from the said wedlock. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Dwijesh Chandra Bhattacharya (P.W. 1) is a close associate of the father of the complainant Lakhi Kant Mandal. This witness has attended the marriage of Sunita which was solemnized with the appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal and after that Sunita remained peacefully for 2-3 months in her sasural, as he has been told by the father of the complainant. Father of the complainant (P.W. 2) has subsequently disclosed him (P.W. 1) that the in-laws are not giving proper treatment to Sunita and the in-laws are usually abusing her, as has been informed by Sunita about the same through letters. This witness has further stated that he has advised, the father of the complainant to materialize the situation who went there for settlement, but nothing happened. For panchayati this witness along with Lakhi Kant Mandal, Jagdish Mandal and Raj Kumar Singh went to the sasural of the complainant in the year 1997 during winter season and after reconciliation, assurance was given by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant that in future she will not be tortured and after two days Sunita was given bidaai. For panchayati this witness along with Lakhi Kant Mandal, Jagdish Mandal and Raj Kumar Singh went to the sasural of the complainant in the year 1997 during winter season and after reconciliation, assurance was given by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant that in future she will not be tortured and after two days Sunita was given bidaai. This witness has heard from the father of Sunita that the accused persons again started torturing and abusing her and as such he brought her to his house in pregnant condition and thereafter a handicapped girl child was born. During cross-examination this witness has stated that the father of the complainant is known to him for more than 8-9 years and he has retired. On 14.12.1997, he went to Ghatshilla. The witness has been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 12. Lakhi Kant Mandal, father of the victim has been examined as P.W. 2. This witness has stated that marriage of his daughter Sunita was solemnized on 26.02.1997 with Pradeep Kumar Mandal as per Hindu rites and customs and the demand of dowry raised at the time of marriage was fulfilled which was Rs. 75,000/- cash, 10 tolas of gold, apart from the household articles. After marriage, his daughter remained peacefully for two-three months and thereafter the husband started demanding cash for which he used to assault her frequently. The daughter used to inform him about the torture and demand, by way of writing letters. Thereafter, the informant along with Dwijesh Chandra Bhattacharya, Raj Kumar Singh, Jagdish Kumar Mandal and other persons went to Ghatshilla on 14.12.1997 for settlement and after panchayati, he brought his daughter to his house. On 22.12.1997, he has received a letter from his daughter, where an allegation was made with regard to demand of money, torture and assault. In January, 1998, it is alleged that accused persons have tried to put the complainant on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. On 02.05.1998, son of this witness went to Jamshedpur to see his sister and he saw injury on the person of the victim. In January, 1998, it is alleged that accused persons have tried to put the complainant on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. On 02.05.1998, son of this witness went to Jamshedpur to see his sister and he saw injury on the person of the victim. Thereafter, the father of complainant along with another son Pankaj Kumar, went to Ghatshilla and disclosed the occurrence to the father of Pradeep Kumar Mandal, who asked this witness to take his daughter to his house and thereafter this witness came to Jamshedpur and brought his daughter to Chaibasa. On 16.05.1998, a handicapped girl child has been born from the said wedlock but the appellant did not come to see her wife and daughter. This witness has further stated that dowry was given to the family of the appellant by withdrawing the amount from his account and after two and three months of the marriage, the daughter was tortured and assaulted by the appellant and his family. She disclosed the fact, when she came to his house and also through letters. After receiving the first letter, this witness has talked to his son-in-law. After receiving the first letter, this witness informed Dwijesh Bhattacharya and Rajkumar Singh with regard to the torture, as they are close friends. Second letter was received by this witness after panchayati. This witness has categorically stated during cross-examination at paragraph- 10, that he has given photocopies of all five letters to the police but he has no knowledge, about the list of photocopies of letters were prepared by the police or not. This witness has stated in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination, that abdomen of victim Sunita was examined by Dr. Sati Rani, where some assault was there but he is not sure whether some medical report is available in the house or not. He has categorically stated, that first time Dr. Sati Rani has examined Sunita on 07.05.1998, papers of treatment was shown to the police and it was taken by the police but he is not knowing whether a seizure/production list of the paper has been prepared by the police or not. This witness has further stated in paragraph- 13 of his cross-examination, that his son went to Jamshedpur and saw her daughter in pitiable condition, lying on the bed. Thereafter, on arriving Chaibasa, the entire episode has been disclosed by the daughter to her mother. This witness has further stated in paragraph- 13 of his cross-examination, that his son went to Jamshedpur and saw her daughter in pitiable condition, lying on the bed. Thereafter, on arriving Chaibasa, the entire episode has been disclosed by the daughter to her mother. She has also shown the injury caused upon her. The neighbours of this witness are knowing about the torture made upon his daughter. After birth of the girl child, nobody came from her sasural. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 13. Rajkumar Singh, friend of the complainant’s father, has been examined as P.W. 3. This witness has stated that Sunita was abused by her husband Pradeep Mandal and has admitted that he along with D.C. Bhattacharya and father and brother of the victim went for panchayati in December, 1997. Nimai Mandal was not present at the house, thereafter, they went to Ghhatshilla in the house of the elder brother and father of the appellant. This witness has categorically stated during cross-examination, that he has not been examined by the investigating officer and as such his statement is not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 14. Jagdish Mandal, brother of the victim/complainant of this case has been examined as P.W. 4. This witness has stated that in the month of February, 1997, the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Pradeep Mandal and after marriage his sister went to her sasural. At the time of marriage, the daily use articles, ornmanents and cash of Rs. 75,000/- was given. After some time, the appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal started demanding some money upon which his sister said that her father is not in a position to give the same and thereafter Pradeep Mandal assaulted and abused the complainant. In 1998 Pradeep Mandal tried to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil, at that time she was pregnant and the other inmates of the house were not taking care of her. These things were informed by his sister to his father through letters and thereafter Pankaj Mandal brought the victim from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa, where she gave birth to a girl child after surgical operation but none of the in-laws or appellant, came to see her or the baby. Panchayati was convened at Ghatshilla. These things were informed by his sister to his father through letters and thereafter Pankaj Mandal brought the victim from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa, where she gave birth to a girl child after surgical operation but none of the in-laws or appellant, came to see her or the baby. Panchayati was convened at Ghatshilla. This witness has been cross-examined by the appellant with respect to the negotiation of the marriage and other things, but nothing has been elucidated by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case. Rather in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he has information that Pradeep Mandal has given a notice through an advocate to his sister for bidaai and said notice was also replied prior to the institution of the present case, but no attempt has been taken by the appellant by filing an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights nor by coming for bidaai. The said legal notice sent by the appellant through advocate and its reply sent by wife have not been brought on record by the parties. This court has taken adverse view of such letter not produced by the appellant along with the reply nor the appellant has filed any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugals right, nor it is the defence of the appellant that he ever went to the house of the complainant for bidaai, mere asking such question during cross-examination is an attempt to camouflage the wrong committed by the appellant. 15. Sunita Mandal, complainant and victim of the case has been examined as P.W. 5. She has supported her statement made in the First Information Report during examination-in-chief stating that after marriage she went to the house of the in-laws and after two months the appellant Pradeep Mandal started torturing her for freeze, television and Rs. 8000 and when the complainant has shown her disability to fulfil his demands, as her father has superannuated, Pradeep Mandal assaulted and tortured her. The information regarding assault and torture was given to the father through letters. The appellant used to abuse and assault her frequently. In January, 1998, Pradeep Mandal came to the house under the intoxicated condition of liquor and pour kerosene oil on her to put her on fire. The information regarding assault and torture was given to the father through letters. The appellant used to abuse and assault her frequently. In January, 1998, Pradeep Mandal came to the house under the intoxicated condition of liquor and pour kerosene oil on her to put her on fire. The complainant somehow saved herself by fleeing away and thereafter she wrote a letter to her father. Her father came for settlement though Pradeep Mandal has assaulted her. At that time, she was pregnant and no medicine or food was given. The letter was written to the father disclosing the entire torture and assault and thereafter her younger brother came to Jamshedpur and seeing her condition, informed her father and her father along with another brother Pankaj Mandal came to Jamshedpur and thereafter she was taken to Chaibasa, where she gave birth to a girl child after operation. Information of the same was given by the younger brother to the in-laws but no one came to see her. The complainant has proved her signature on the letters written by her to her father as Exhibit-2, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and the photographs of her marriage as Exhibit X and X/1. This witness has admitted during cross-examination that for filing the case, she came herself to the court and disclosed the incident to the advocate, who drafted the petition and after typing the said petition, the same has been filed in the Court. The complainant has further stated that before filing the case, she has read over the contents of the complaint and the same was found to be correct and then she put her signature. This witness has deposed, supporting her case made out in the First Information Report/complaint petition. She has been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 16. Pankaj Kumar Mandal, another brother of the victim has been examined as P.W. 6. He has also supported the case as made out in the complaint petition filed by his sister and has categorically stated that Pradeep Mandal used to assault his sister for demand of money. 16. Pankaj Kumar Mandal, another brother of the victim has been examined as P.W. 6. He has also supported the case as made out in the complaint petition filed by his sister and has categorically stated that Pradeep Mandal used to assault his sister for demand of money. When he went to see his sister, she started crying by saying that she is assaulted brutally and thereafter he came to Chaibasa, informed the incident to his father, who went to Ghatshilla and met the father of Pradeep Mandal and on the basis of that, father brought his daughter (complainant) to Chaibasa, where she gave birth to a girl child but nobody including the appellant, came from the in-laws house to see her. This witness has cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 17. Birendra Kumar Rajbanshi, Sub-inspector of the Police has been examined as P.W. 7. This witness has stated that on the basis of the complaint received from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa vide complaint case No. 2 of 1999, the officer-in-charge Rajeev Kumar Singh instituted Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 1999 dated 13.04.1999 under Sections 498 (A), 307, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the matter was handed over to him for investigation. The signature and endorsement made by Rajeev Kumar Singh has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/4. This witness has admitted in paragraph- 2 of his examination-in-chief, that the complainant has shown the original four post card letters, photocopies of which, has been appended with the case diary. This witness has admitted about the original copies of the letter which has already been proved and marked as Exhibits- 2, 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 and the photographs of the marriage which has already been marked as X and X/1 for identification. There is nothing to disbelieve about the authenticity and genuineness of the letters as the same have been produced before the investigating officer. The investigating officer has taken the photocopies of the same and has appended the same in the case diary and as such the genuineness and authenticity of the letters cannot be doubted nor the same has been assailed by the appellant, alleging it to be false. The investigating officer has taken the photocopies of the same and has appended the same in the case diary and as such the genuineness and authenticity of the letters cannot be doubted nor the same has been assailed by the appellant, alleging it to be false. This witness has further stated that he has recorded the statement of Lakhi Kant Mandal, Jagdish Kumar Mandal, Pankaj Kumar and Rajkumar Singh and D.C. Bhattacharya. This witness has stated that he has visited the place of occurrence and has found that room of the house, in which complainant with her husband used to reside was equipped with all things i.e. electricity, water connection, bed and chairs. The complainant has alleged that in the said room, the appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal has assaulted her, abused her and had also poured kerosene oil to kill her, as stated in paragraph – 4 of his examination-in-chief. This witness has further stated that after investigation he has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. This witness has proved and marked the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit- 3. This witness has stated during cross-examination at paragraph-2 that he has seen the post-cards in original. This witness has further stated that he has not recorded the statement of Dr. Sati Rani, who has examined the victim nor he has found any mark of injury on the person of the victim. This witness has further stated that he has not examined neighbour of the informant, nor he has seized the letters and photographs by preparing seizure list. This witness has admitted, that P.W. 6, Pankaj Mandal has stated in his statement that after marriage, his sister was assaulted for money by Pradeep Mandal. 18. After hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Om Prakash assisted by Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 2, Additional Public Prosecutor and from perusal of the First Information Report (complaint petition), chargesheet, framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, three exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this Court is of the view that, the complaint petition was in complete consonance with evidence of P.W. 5, Sunita Mandal. The letters which have been marked as Exhibit- 2 series are sufficient to establish the prosecution case as the letters are genuine and has been written by the complainant to her father time to time disclosing the torture given to her by the appellant and his family members. From the evidence on record, this Court does not found any reason that why a wife will allege against her husband without any rhyme and reason. Legal notice sent by the appellant through his advocate has been suitably replied by the complainant but for the reason best known to the appellant, the same has not been brought on record, nor there is any attempt by the appellant to bring his wife taking bidaai and as such there is no material to disbelieve the prosecution case, only on the ground that a legal notice has been sent by the appellant for bidaai of his wife. This Court has also perused the records and found that appellant has never taken any legal recourse for bidaai of his wife by filing an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights nor the appellant has ever stated in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. or of appearance from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, that he went to his sasural for the bidaai of his wife rather from perusal of the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. particularly question nos. 2, 4 and 5, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution case as made out in the complaint petition and the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are in total consonance with the prosecution case and are within the knowledge of the appellant, as the appellant has admitted his marriage with the complainant, the pregnancy of the said lady and birth of a girl child from the said wedlock. This court has also perused the letters written by the complainant to her father where specific averment with regard to money and assault against the appellant has been made. The allegations which has been made in the complaint petition as well as in the deposition of the witnesses, are consistent to the contents of the letters. This court has also perused the letters written by the complainant to her father where specific averment with regard to money and assault against the appellant has been made. The allegations which has been made in the complaint petition as well as in the deposition of the witnesses, are consistent to the contents of the letters. Court has not found any reason why a wife will file a complaint case against her husband unless and until she is being tortured to the extent that the same torture is unbearable to her. All these letters which have been marked as Exhibit- 2 series contains the material evidence with regard to the torture, assault and abuse made by the appellant against the complainant. This Court is of the opinion that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution case which has been initiated by the wife against her husband and the husband has not shown any evidence to disbelieve the prosecution case. 19. Considering the discussions made above and from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sections 498 (A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. So far as, conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, this Court finds that the judgment placed by the learned counsel for the appellant as reported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 721 in case of Appasaheb and Another versus State of Maharashtra (supra), is applicable in this case, as no evidence for demand of dowry has been brought on record by the prosecution which relates to marriage as contemplated under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as such considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court acquits the appellant of the Charge and conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 21. 21. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2004 and order of sentence, dated 14.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2001, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 1999, corresponding to G. R. No. 147 of 1999, is hereby partly set aside with respect to conviction of the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but is affirmed and upheld, so far conviction and sentence under Section 498 (A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 22. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled and the appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal is directed to surrender before the Court below for serving out the rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. If the appellant is not surrendering within the stipulated time, the learned Trial Court is directed to take all suitable steps for the custody of the appellant to serve out the rest of the sentence. 23. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed, so far conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. 24. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal dismissed