Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 8 (TRI)

Sanjit Das v. State of Tripura

2019-01-09

S.TALAPATRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This is an appeal by the convict from the judgment and order dated 22.08.2015 delivered in Case No. S.T. 38(GT/U)/2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati, Udaipur. 3. By the said judgment the appellant has been convicted under Section 498A of the IPC, but he has been acquitted from the charge under Section 304B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 22.08.2015 the appellant has been sentenced to suffer 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 5. The prosecution commenced against the appellant when one Dinabandhu Das (PW-1) lodged a written complaint to the Officer In-Charge, Kakraban Police Station, Udaipur disclosing that his daughter namely, Purnima Das, after her marriage with the appellant was subjected to cruelty on unlawful demand. It has been categorically stated that the appellant used to assault her for collecting Rs. 20,000/- in cash and for gold ornaments. Since the said unlawful demand was not met, the appellant started inhuman torture on the daughter of the complainant. The matter was interfered by the village panchayat several times, but without any positive change in the circumstances. Finally, on 22.12.2012 Purnima committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the complainant dated 28.12.2012, Kakraban P.S. Case No. 242 of 2012 under Section 498A/304B and 34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police report was submitted against the appellant and two of the inmates namely, Kailash Das and Kalpana Das. Accordingly, the charge was framed on taking cognizance for offences as stated, but all the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, adduced as many as 16 (sixteen) witnesses including the informant, some relatives, the doctor who attended the dead body of Purnima and two Investigating Officers (PWs 15 and 16). 6. After recording the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was as well examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he had taken a stand that he did not torture the victim. 6. After recording the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was as well examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he had taken a stand that he did not torture the victim. Her own brother assaulted her and out of ignominy, the victim committed suicide, but no evidence has been led to prove that statement. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court has delivered the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. This appeal as stated is against the said finding of conviction and consequential order of sentence. 7. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the beginning stated that there are 3 (three) categories of witnesses viz. the related witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 8 and 10), the independent witnesses (PWs 3, 5, 6, 11 and 12) and the official witnesses or the medical officers (PWs 4, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 16). According to Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel there is no positive evidence to return the finding of conviction. He has submitted that most of the evidence is in the nature of hearsay or those are the improved version in the trial. The defence has proved by placing those parts of testimony to the Investigating Officer and as such those parts cannot but be accepted as contradiction. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no details of how and when cruelty was afflicted. These are all sweeping statements, without any reference to the date and time. Even, it is there in the evidence that no witness has ever seen the victim being assaulted or harassed by the appellant. 8. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that this unfortunate death, the suicidal nature has apparently been prompted for the other reason, not for any unlawful demand. According to Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant this may be for the extreme poverty as there is a clear evidence that even the rice was not there in the home for cooking food for the victim. She had to go to the parent's house, where according to appellant, she was assaulted by her own brother. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that the marriage, since it took shape from a love affair, was not accepted by the parents of the victim and other family members. She had to go to the parent's house, where according to appellant, she was assaulted by her own brother. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that the marriage, since it took shape from a love affair, was not accepted by the parents of the victim and other family members. That may be the reason for mental agony which perhaps was instrumental in committing suicide. 9. Be that as it may, Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent has in his usual fairness submitted that the most important witnesses are PWs-6 and 12, but those witnesses themselves have admitted that the vital part of their testimony, they only revealed in the trial and did not put to the Investigating Officer for verification and thus those are contradictions within the explanation provided by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. According to Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. PW-12 Sri Badal Bhawal is a former Gram Pradhan who conducted the conciliation between the appellant and the victim. He has stated that the victim was tortured for not bringing the dowry. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that this statement from the independent witness if made the basis then there is no infirmity in the finding of conviction. 10. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, has again asserted that those statements either from the PW-6 and PW-12 cannot be appreciated as cogent evidence for their inherent defects as those are made first time in the trial and those are clear improvement as the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that those statements were never made to him. To buttress his contention, Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Satvir Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633 . In that case, the fact situation was completely different from this case. The victim committed suicide failing to bring the dowry but the harassment soon before the death since could not be proved, the conviction was under Section 498A of the IPC. The apex court, taking an empathetic view having regard to the dependent-daughter, reduced the sentence but maintained the finding of conviction. 11. The victim committed suicide failing to bring the dowry but the harassment soon before the death since could not be proved, the conviction was under Section 498A of the IPC. The apex court, taking an empathetic view having regard to the dependent-daughter, reduced the sentence but maintained the finding of conviction. 11. In Satvir Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another the apex court has observed that 2 (two) important events which had happened in the family in the long interregnum of 3 (three) years, such as birth of the elder son and the birth of the second son and the demand for payment was made after 5 (five) months from the birth of the second son. Even there is no evidentiary material to demonstrate that the victim was subjected to any ill treatment in connection with demand for dowry on any day. After she reported to him about the demand for dowry, all amounts paid by the in-laws of the husband, cannot become dowry. In Preeti Gupta and Another Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 the apex court had occasion to observe, inter alia, that it is a matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. It has been also observed by the apex court that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty, and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. In Preeti Gupta (supra) the apex court has made the following pertinent observation: "37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering or ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law." [Emphasis added] 12. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has also referred to the decision of the apex court in Krishnegowda and Others Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98 . In Krishnegowda (supra), the apex court while deliberating upon the appreciation of the evidence vis-à-vis the lapses in the investigation, had occasion to shed light on the probative value of the statements made by the close relatives. In Krishnegowda (supra), the apex court while deliberating upon the appreciation of the evidence vis-à-vis the lapses in the investigation, had occasion to shed light on the probative value of the statements made by the close relatives. It has been observed that to understand the fact and to come to a conclusion in respect of the involvement of the accused, the trial court or the appellate court has to come to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence formed the witnesses is trustworthy. If it is found that the witnesses cannot be trusted, no conviction can be returned. The basic principle of the criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the said report, the apex court has observed as under: "32. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of independent witnesses for the incident which took place on a public road in the broad daylight. Although there is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, it would be trite in law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt. 33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, "witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice". In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused." [Emphasis added] 13. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also referred to decision of this court in Anup Kumar Guha Versus State of Tripura and Ors. reported in (2014) 1 TLR 397 and Durjoy Debnath Alias Dulal and Anr. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also referred to decision of this court in Anup Kumar Guha Versus State of Tripura and Ors. reported in (2014) 1 TLR 397 and Durjoy Debnath Alias Dulal and Anr. Versus State of Tripura reported in (2017) 1 TLR 208. The passages which were referred to, by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant deal with the statutory prescription under Section 498A of the IPC. For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions as projected by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be apposite that this court glances through the evidence as recorded in the trial. 14. PW-1, Dinabandhu Das has stated that his daughter was given marriage with the appellant. She was subjected to cruelty on unlawful demand of Rs.20,000/- but since they could not provide that amount for his financial constraint, the appellant used to physically assault the victim. Finally, the matter had gone to the village panchayat where some conciliation was made but the situation did not improve. On 26.12.2012 he was called by the police and when he had reached the matrimonial home of his daughter, he found the victim hanging in the room of his son-in-law (the appellant). Accordingly, he filed the ejahar immediately stating that his daughter had been killed, and the investigation was carried on. The final police report, as stated, was filed under Section 304B of the IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 498A of the IPC. PW-1, as in the trial has stated that during the marriage he could not give any articles but paid Rs.10,000/- in cash. When the unlawful demand started coming from the appellant, he sought intervention of the local panchayat. But finally, he found his daughter hanging. In the cross-examination, he has admitted in the qualified language as under: "I did not mention specifically in the FIR that for furniture and ornaments she was subjected to torture. I did not tell darogababu that for furniture and cash Rs. 20,000/- and ornaments my daughter was subjected to torture. I did not tell darogababu or mentioned in the FIR that I paid Rs. 8000/- to the accused." 15. PW-2, Smt. Chaya Das is one of the aunts of the victim. I did not tell darogababu that for furniture and cash Rs. 20,000/- and ornaments my daughter was subjected to torture. I did not tell darogababu or mentioned in the FIR that I paid Rs. 8000/- to the accused." 15. PW-2, Smt. Chaya Das is one of the aunts of the victim. She has stated that in the trial when the victim used to visit her father's house, she did tell that the appellant demanded furniture and the cash of Rs. 20,000/- and ornaments. Sometimes, she used to tell that her husband demanded even rice from her parents. Her husband used to quarrel with her and subjected her to torture. There was a panchayat meeting for finding conciliation to the situation but that did not succeed. From the wedlock, one daughter was born. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has, in the course of his submission, stated that the daughter is in the house of the appellant. One day, the victim came to PW-2 and stated that without arranging any food for her, the appellant had left the house and he had not returned even after two days. Then PW-1 gave her some rice and vegetables for cooking. She went to the panchayat paradhan to inform about this situation but again she has stated in the cross-examination as under: "I did not tell darogababu specifically that cash Rs. 20,000/-, golden ornaments and furniture were demanded by Sanjib. I did not tell darogababu that Purnima was driven out by her husband and she stayed in our house for one month." 16. PW-3, Smt. Malati Das is a neighbor who has stated that the victim used to tell her that she was beaten up for articles of marriage. She heard and saw her whenever she visited her uncle's house. She has confirmed that there was a panchayat meeting held in respect of the dispute. She has also stated that on the previous date of her death she had visited her uncle's house. Her aunt had given her rice and vegetable as the appellant left the house three days ago after quarrel. In the night the victim committed suicide. But in the cross-examination she has stated that: "I have not seen torture on Purnima. She directly did not tell me, she told her aunt and I heard it. Darogababu did not talk with me in respect of the incident." 17. In the night the victim committed suicide. But in the cross-examination she has stated that: "I have not seen torture on Purnima. She directly did not tell me, she told her aunt and I heard it. Darogababu did not talk with me in respect of the incident." 17. PW-4, Raju Chakraborty is a formal witness who is the witness of seizure of viscera of the victim. 18. PW-5, Rekha Ghosh is a witness from the neighbourhood. She has also stated that after one month of marriage the victim was subjected to mental and physical torture for cash money and articles. She was informed by the victim. She along with others had tried to convince the appellant and his family members to refrain from such conduct. The appellant promised that he would not torture, but insisted that those articles should be given as if it was a social marriage. She has also stated that PW-1 was requested to give those articles and money. But since the said demand was not met up the victim was subjected to torture. PW-5 has stated further that she along with Purnima (the victim) went to the panchayat and the meeting for conciliation was held there. Even in the meeting, Sanjit (the appellant) had stated that the articles of marriage should be given to him. In the cross-examination, her such statements were not found in the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. For purpose of reference the cross-examination of PW-5 is extracted hereunder: "My house is near the house of Dinabandhu Das. Distance between my house and house of Sanjib is half km. I told darogababu that Purnima told me that she was subjected to torture for cash, ornaments and furniture. Attention drawn to the omission subject to confirmation by the I.O. It is not a fact that Purnima did not tell me that facts. I told darogababu that she told me two days before her death that Sanjib left her without providing fooding and necessities of life. Attention drawn to the omission subject to confirmation by the I.O. I told darogababu that in the panchayat meeting Sanjib demanded that all things are to be given. I told darogababu that Sanjib and his relatives refused to receive Purnima if the articles of marriage not given. I told darogababu that I went with Badal Bhawal in the house of Sanjib. I told darogababu that Sanjib and his relatives refused to receive Purnima if the articles of marriage not given. I told darogababu that I went with Badal Bhawal in the house of Sanjib. Attention drawn to the omission subject to confirmation by the I.O. Police talked with me for several times after 7/8 days of her death. Particular dates I cannot recollect. It is not a fact that after 15 days I did not meet darogababu. It is not a fact that Purnima did not tell me about any torture on her or panchayat meeting did not hold on this issue. It is not a fact that two days before she did not tell me nothing. It is not a fact that I have given false evidence." 19. PW-6, Smt. Kajal Rani Dey is another witness from the neighbourhood. She has categorically stated that after two months of marriage, Purnima was subjected to mental and physical torture by her husband and other relatives for cash and articles. Purnima used to inform her about such torture. There was a panchayat meeting in the house of the appellant. In the meeting everybody wanted to convince the appellant to refrain from such conduct. Thereafter, Purnima committed suicide. In the cross-examination she has denied the suggestions generally projected to her by the defence. But the pertinent statement she made was omitted in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In the cross-examination she has stated as under: "I told darogababu that on the date of her death Purnima met me and told that her mother in law tortured her in absence of her husband. I told darogababu that Purnima told me that she was subjected to torture for cash, marital articles and ornaments. Attention drawn to the omission subject to confirmation by the I.O." 20. PW-7, Manibhusan Majumdar wrote the ejahar (Exbt. P.1) as stated to him by PW-1. 21. PW-8, Jagabandhu Das is a uncle of the victim. He had also stated that the victim told him that the appellant made unlawful demand of articles and gold ornaments. As the situation did not improve despite interventions, his niece (the victim) committed suicide. In the cross-examination he has also failed to show that he had stated those to the investigating officer that the victim told his wife about the torture on her and that from her wife he came to know that. As the situation did not improve despite interventions, his niece (the victim) committed suicide. In the cross-examination he has also failed to show that he had stated those to the investigating officer that the victim told his wife about the torture on her and that from her wife he came to know that. To be noted that Purnima was being tortured. For purpose of reference the relevant parts of the cross-examination are extracted hereunder: "I told darogababu that on the date of suicide Purnima told my wife about torture on her and my wife also informed panchayat with Purnima. Attention drawn to the omission subject to confirmation by the I.O. I told darogababu that Purnima told me that she was tortured by the accused on the demand of cash, furniture and ornaments. Attention drawn to the omission subject to confirmation by the I.O." 22. PW-9, Sakuntala Debbarma is a police officer who seized the viscera from the post mortem doctor. 23. PW-10, Sri Ramesh Ch. Das has stated that there was a panchayat meeting almost after one year of marriage of the appellant and the victim and in the meeting itself, the appellant demanded furniture, ornaments, cash from PW-1. PW-1 agreed in the meeting to give some articles but after 5 to 7 days. The victim was again beaten up and tortured and latter driven out of the matrimonial home. As she could not feed her she came to their house. After taking some vegetables and rice from their house, they went to the panchayat. On that night itself, she committed suicide by hanging. This witness as well followed the same suit and in the cross-examination he has stated as under: "I stated to darogababu that Purnima informed me about the torture on her by her husband, mother in law and others. I have not seen the accused to beat Purnima. I have stated to darogababu that, Purnima came to our house 8 to 9 days before her death and informed that she was beaten and driven out. Purnima and Sanjib had a love affairs and fled away for marriage. Social marriage was not solemnized by us. It is not a fact that Purnima did not inform me that she was tortured by her husband and mother in law for some articles and cash. It is not a fact that panchayat meeting was not held. Purnima and Sanjib had a love affairs and fled away for marriage. Social marriage was not solemnized by us. It is not a fact that Purnima did not inform me that she was tortured by her husband and mother in law for some articles and cash. It is not a fact that panchayat meeting was not held. It is not a fact that, the matter was not resolved in the panchayat and she did not go to her husband's house. It is not a fact that have given false evidence. After one month, darogababu recorded my statement. This period, I was in my house." 24. PW-11, Sri Sadhan Ch. Das was the Pradhan of Murapara Gram Panchayat in the year, 2011. He has stated about the meeting held by the panchayat in respect of the matrimonial dispute that existed between the victim and the appellant. In the meeting, according to PW-11, the appellant and his mother demanded cash, furniture and ornaments. Even PW-1 agreed to give furniture and two types of ornaments. The matter was discussed elaborately. The resolution was recorded by Badal Bhawal (PW-12) and the said resolution was also seized by the police officer. He stood by his statements made in the examination-in-chief. 25. PW-12, Sri Badal Bhawal was the Ex-pradhan of Murapara Gram Panchayat. He has corroborated the statement made by PW-11. He admitted that he wrote the resolution of the meeting (Exbt. P.5). In the cross-examination the PW-12 did not resile from what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. 26. PW-13, Sri Suman Kr. Chakraborty is a Deputy Director of State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL). On chemical examination of the viscera he did not find any common pesticide. 27. PW-14, Dr. Sudeshna Debnath carried out the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim, aided by Dr. Kallol Kr. Roy and Dr. Sagar Roy and according to him, the death occurred due to asphyxia due to hanging, followed by cardio respiratory failure which is suicidal in nature. 28. PW-15, Subrata Debbarma is the first investigating officer and at the relevant time, he was the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) at Udaipur. He had recorded statements of few witnesses and took initiative for the post-mortem examination and the chemical examination of the viscera. He also collected the reports, post-mortem examination report and SFSL report. In the cross-examination he has categorically stated as under: "PW10 Ramesh Ch. He had recorded statements of few witnesses and took initiative for the post-mortem examination and the chemical examination of the viscera. He also collected the reports, post-mortem examination report and SFSL report. In the cross-examination he has categorically stated as under: "PW10 Ramesh Ch. Das did not tell me that Purnima had informed him about torture on her by her husband and in laws. The witness also did not tell me that Purnima came to him and told that she was ousted by her husband. Omission confirmed. PW11 Sadhan Das did not tell me that Purnima had informed him that she was tortured. He did not tell that meeting was held and in that meeting accused demanded furniture, cash and ornaments. He also did not tell me that father of Purnima agreed to give furniture and ornaments after demand by the accused. He also did not tell me that father of Purnima refused to give Rs. 20,000/-. PW12 Badal Bhawal did not tell me that Sanjib demanded all the articles in the meeting held in his house." [Emphasis added] Thus, PW-15 has completely demolished the evidence of PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12 so far the vital part of their testimonies are concerned. 29. PW-16, is the another investigating officer namely Rabindra Kr. Bhowmik who was at the relevant point of time Sub-Divisional Police Officer at Udaipur. He completed that the remainder of the investigation and filed the police report under Section 498A/304 B/34 of the IPC. He has categorically stated that PW-5, Rekha Ghosh did not tell him that Purnima had informed her that she was tortured by the accused for cash, ornaments and furniture. Rekha Ghosh also did not tell him that two days before her death Purnima had informed her that her husband left her without making provision of food but she was apprised on 26.12.2011. Rekha Ghosh also did not tell him that she went to the house of Sanjib (the appellant) along with Badal Bhawal. PW-6, Kajal Rani Dey did not tell him that Purnima informed her that in absence of her husband, her mother in law tortured her. Kajal also did not tell him that Purnima informed her that she was subjected to torture for cash, ornaments and furniture. PW-8, Jagabandhu Das did not tell him that on the date of suicide Purnima informed to his wife and his wife told this to the panchayat. 30. Kajal also did not tell him that Purnima informed her that she was subjected to torture for cash, ornaments and furniture. PW-8, Jagabandhu Das did not tell him that on the date of suicide Purnima informed to his wife and his wife told this to the panchayat. 30. Having a conjoint reading of the testimonies, it emerges that the categories of the related witnesses, even the independent witnesses were greatly influenced by a shocking death of a young woman. At the first instance the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Those witnesses did fail to reveal the material fact to the investigating officer, but when they revealed those in the trial, the probity or testimonial value was substantially reduced in as much as, those omissions appeared to be improvement and became prone to be doubted. Moreover, when such 'improvement' is made by the related witness, the court shall not ordinarily rely on such testimony as it is the normal rule to scrutinize the evidence of the related witness with great caution. This court is constrained to observe that the omissions were not properly recorded. But, for the clear statements made by two investigating officers (PWs-15 and 16), the credential of those witnesses PWs-5, 6, 8, 11 and 12 had been substantially mutilated. Thus, this court does not have any hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 498A of the IPC to the hilt or beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit and accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentences are interfered with and set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 498 A of the IPC on benefit of doubt. 31. In the result, appeal stands allowed. 32. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Since, Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is on bail, the sureties are discharged from their respective obligations.