JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 2nd November 2006 passed by Additional sessions Judge-FTC IV at Hazaribag in criminal appeal No. 80/2006 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2006 passed by learned SDJM, Hazaribagh in Complaint case No. 555/2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 169/2006, wherein the learned trail court has held the petitioners guilty for having committed offence u/s 498 A I.P.C and convicted them and ordered petitioner No. 1 to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment, further to undergo 3 months, whereas petitioner no. 2 was released on furnishing bond for maintaining peace for 2 years, has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 3. The brief fact of the case is that a complaint petition was filed and registered as complaint case no. 555/2000 before learned C.J.M Hazaribagh u/S 498 A, 341, 342, 323 I.P.C and section 3/ 4 Dowry prohibition Act. As per the petition, the complainant/O.P.No.2-Chinta Devi was married with petitioner no. 1-Krishna Pd. Mehta in the month of June 1997. After marriage O.P.No.2-Chinta Devi went to her sasural for 4 days then she came to her Naihar. After performing ceremony the complainant again went to her sasural after 2 months in year 1997. Thereafter return to Naihar after remaining in her sasural for few days. In 1997 after chhatt festival complainant/O.P.No.2 went to her sasural where she was being ill-treated by not providing food and not even allowed to wash cloths and a demand of Rs.20,000/- and color TV was made. Therefore, the complainant/O.P.No.2 filed complaint case before the learned C.J.M. 4. Ms. Rinki Kumari, leanred Amicus appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds as the same have not been rightly appreciated by the court below:- (i) The impugned judgment is improper and against the material available in the record as well as due to wrong appreciation of the evidence. (ii) The learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant/petitioners for offence of torture/assault u/s 498 A I.P.C. though it disbelieved the allegation about demand for dowry and torture. (iii) The learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant even after holding the basis of allegation of assault as false but surprisingly, jumped upon conclusion that petitioners have assaulted the complainant. (ii) The learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant/petitioners for offence of torture/assault u/s 498 A I.P.C. though it disbelieved the allegation about demand for dowry and torture. (iii) The learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant even after holding the basis of allegation of assault as false but surprisingly, jumped upon conclusion that petitioners have assaulted the complainant. (iv) The Appellants/Petitioners were illegally and improperly held guilty of assaulting the complainant even in absence of medical evidence inspite of that she deposed that she was seriously and brutally assaulted and she had been treated by doctor. (v) The learned trial Court relied on oral evidence of witnesses inspite of the evidence of the complainant who admitted that there was no witness present when she was assaulted. (vi) The learned Court below also ignored the evidence of complainant wherein she admitted that she lived at her father’s house after marriage because her husband had been living in Faridabad. (vii) The learned Court below failed to appreciate that no offence had been committed on the alleged dates of occurrence as were not proved in course of evidence. (viii) The Appellants/ Petitioners have been wrongly and improperly convicted u/S 498 A I.P.C. even though the allegation of assault or torture was not proved by the evidence. (ix) The learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the Appellants holding that the complaint case had been filed after fabricated false story. Further, learned Amicus for the petitioner relied upon several judgments to substantiate her point and contends that the perversity is apparent in the order of trial court as well as the appellate court; as such petitioners require acquittal. In support of her contention learned Amicus has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 April, 2002 (Supreme Court) The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b). The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of Section 498-A against the accused. The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of Section 498-A against the accused. Acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record. (b) Bulu Bag & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 18 January, 2023, Calcutta High Court 44. In view of the discussions and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, the prosecution case based on suspicion, incoherent medical evidence, faulty in creating a chain to establish circumstantial evidence cannot be relied upon. The offence to have been committed in the secrecy of the house does not prove the appellants' to be guilty in case of their failure to explain any of the circumstances where the prosecution has not 28 succeeded in proving its case, since the initial burden lay on the prosecution to prove its case. (c) Ram Niwas vs The State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2022 19. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. This Court has held that the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict. 20. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. Learned APP opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that no interference is required as there is concurrent finding and there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. 6. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. Learned APP opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that no interference is required as there is concurrent finding and there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioners, as the learned trial court in paragraph 15 of the judgement has categorically given a finding that the demand of Rs.20,000/- and a colour TV was not true and that there is a legal brain behind the case to make it more serious. It further transpires that the learned trail court in para 18 of the judgment has given another finding that the assault committed by the petitioners was due to the intolerable act of the complainant. Therefore the allegation that complainant was assaulted due to non-fulfillment of the demand dowry is falsified. It further transpires from record that despite holding the basis of the assault allegation to be false, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners and jumped to the conclusion that the petitioners had assaulted the complainant. Further the court below also disregarded the complainant's evidence, in which she admitted to living at her father's house after marriage because her husband lived in Faridabad. The complainant in her petition stated that she was assaulted and tortured by the petitioners, however no medical record is brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. In this regard reference is made to order passed in the case of Bulu Bag and others V. State of West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 113 wherein Calcutta High Court has held that the offence to have been committed in the secrecy of the house does not prove the appellants' to be guilty in case of their failure to explain any of the circumstances where the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case, since the initial burden lay on the prosecution to prove its case. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1007 held that there has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. It was further held that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: "26. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. This Court has held that the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict. 27. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 177 has categorically held that some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of section 498-A as well , without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below: 18.......... Acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record." 7. Acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record." 7. In the case at hand the prosecution has not been to prove the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt and the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is improper as against the material available on record as well as due to wrong appreciation of the evidence. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and judicial pronouncement the revision petitioners are entitled to get acquittal of the charge, levelled against them and as a result the sentence imposed is also not proper and the same is also liable to be set aside. 8. Consequently, the judgment dated 2nd November 2006 passed by Additional sessions Judge-FTC IV at Hazaribagh in criminal appeal No. 80/2006 and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court dated 24.06.2006 in Complaint case No. 555/2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 169/2006 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Hazaribagh are hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. The petitioners are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision application, is hereby, allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. 11. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills. Fee for the learned Amicus shall be Rs.5000/- per appearance as professional fee, subject to the maximum ceiling as per the existing guidelines. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.