Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1190 (GAU)

Uttam Ghose v. State of Assam

2019-11-05

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. This is a Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 18.05.2009, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 02(1)/2007 dismissing the appeal by upholding the order of conviction/sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Bongaigaon, vide order, dated 18.12.2006 in GR Case No. 263/2004 convicting the accused-revision petitioner under Section 498(A) of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine sentence to suffer for another 1 (one) month. 2. I have heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner as well as Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 3. I have perused the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith. I have perused the records of the learned trial court including the evidence available therein. 4. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 (three) witnesses and the defence examined none. 5. The accused-revision petitioner in his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, has denied the allegations levelled against him. 6. The PW1 is the informant who has lodged the complaint, vide Ext. 2. She has stated in her evidence that she got married with the accused-revision petitioner and one day he went out assuring her that he would come back on the next day, although he did not. Thereafter, the PW1 went in search of her husband/accused-revision petitioner and came to know that he had already married another girl. Thereafter, the accused-revision petitioner assaulted her along with her in-laws and stopped maintaining relationship with her. 7. The PW2 is found to have stated in his evidence that the PW1 and her husband/accused-revision petitioner lived together in a rented house for about a year and during that time, the complainant/PW1 gave birth to a child. The accused-revision petitioner is also stated to have lived with his other wife leaving the complainant in the rented house. Both the accused-revision petitioner and the complainant used to quarrel in an interval of about 2-3 days. 8. The PW3 is the Investigating Police Officer. The accused-revision petitioner is also stated to have lived with his other wife leaving the complainant in the rented house. Both the accused-revision petitioner and the complainant used to quarrel in an interval of about 2-3 days. 8. The PW3 is the Investigating Police Officer. His evidence is of routine nature about the investigation of the case as well as recording of statements of the witnesses. 9. From such evidence, it does not appear that there is any demand of dowry by the accused-revision petitioner or she was subjected to harassment due to her failure to meet such demand. So far the cruelty, as defined in Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, it means 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. There is absolutely no evidence on this aspect. There is no evidence that due to the alleged cruelty, the complainant was driven to commit suicide or cause grave injuries or danger to her life. In the absence of such evidence, to bring forth the ingredients of 'cruelty', as defined in Section 498A of the IPC itself, this court does not find that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against the accused-revision petitioner. 10. This court is aware of the fact that in exercising its revisional jurisdiction it cannot reevaluate the evidence on facts. However, when it is palpably seen that due to the wrong evaluation of the evidence on record, a wrong conclusion has been arrived at, it is in the domain of this court to interfere, of course, in rare case. 11. That being so, the accused-revision petitioner deserves to be acquitted. Accordingly, the judgments of both the courts below, referred to above, are set aside being improper in the absence of evidence to substantiate the findings. 12. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed. 13. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.