Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 31 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010185682014
2025:GAU-AS:15072
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./264/2014
CHANDRA KANTA DAS
S/O LT. BALINDRA NATH DAS R/O AMARAGURI GAON P.S. DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
2:SMTI TANUJA DAS
D/O SRI ANIL DAS R/O KHOWANG KAWAIMARI KAIBARTYA GAON
P.S. BARBARUAH DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P P DUTTA, MR.A BHATTACHARYA,MR.T J MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
31/10/2025 Heard Mr. P P Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.
2. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
3. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 13.05.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Crl. A. No. 78(4)/2013, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh in G.R. Case No. 1833/2007, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 498(A) IPC and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) years along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 2 (two) months.
4. One Amala Das had lodged an FIR before the Amolapatty Police Outpost on 01.11.2007, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that her daughter, Tanuja Das was married off to the petitioner, herein, on 01.03.2006, but after 2 (two) months of her such marriage, her daughter was subjected to torture by the petitioner, herein and his family members. It was further alleged in the FIR that there was a demand of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) made by the petitioner, herein and non-payment of the same resulted in her daughter being forced to leave her matrimonial house.
The said FIR came to be registered as Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 473/2007. Police on completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 498(A) IPC.
The learned Trial Court on consideration of the materials brought on record was pleased to frame charge under Section 498(A) IPC against the petitioner, herein, and his mother, Urmila Das and the same on being read over and explained to him, the petitioner, Page No.# 3/10 herein, having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued.
However, during the pendency of the trial, the mother of the petitioner, herein, having expired, the case against her stood abated.
During the trial, the prosecution had examined 9 (nine) witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The learned Trial Court upon conclusion of the trial, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment dated 26.11.2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) years along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 2 (two) more months.
The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the judgment dated 26.11.2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 78(4)/2013. The said appeal was taken up for disposal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.
The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment dated 13.05.2014 to dismiss the same and thereby, uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding.
5. Mr. P P Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the evidence of the victim/respondent No. 2, herein, as PW1 and that of the informant, herein, PW2 had only brought on record a purported demand of dowry being made by the petitioner, herein. He has submitted that the evidences of the PW1 and PW2 do not bring on record the fact that the respondent No. 2, herein, was subjected to torture on account of non-payment of the purported demand of dowry made of her and her family members by the petitioner, herein, and his family members.
6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the Page No.# 4/10 evidence of the respondent No. 2, herein, as PW1 has submitted that an omnibus statement with regard to the torture she was subjected to, was made, however, no specific incident along with detail particulars was set out in her deposition by the PW1.
7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the purported torture suffered by the PW1 was never brought to the notice of the police and of any other person. The torture the PW1 was purportedly subjected to, had only come on record during the trial in the evidence adduced by PW1 and PW2.
8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of Section 498(A) IPC has submitted that the ingredients requisite for satisfying the harassment of the respondent No. 2, herein, by the petitioner and his family members was not satisfied. He submits that the evidences coming on record had not demonstrated that the respondent No. 2, herein, was subjected to cruelty on her being unable to fulfill the demand of dowry made of her.
9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in a proceeding instituted by the respondent No. 2, herein, against the petitioner, herein, for commission of an offence under Section 406 IPC, the petitioner, herein, was acquitted by the learned Trial Court and the same has attained its finality. Accordingly, he submits that the judgment dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court would mandate an interference by this Court.
10. Per-contra, Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has submitted that the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses during the trial had brought on record the demand for dowry made by the petitioner, herein and the torture she was subjected to by the petitioner, on her failure to bring the said demanded items. He submits that the evidence adduced by, respondent No. 2, herein as PW1 and her mother, as PW2, has not been dislodged by the petitioner, herein, during their cross-examination and accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that the ingredients of Section 498A IPC stood established against the petitioner, herein, would not mandate any interference and accordingly, the judgment dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Page No.# 5/10 Appellate would not mandate any interference from this Court.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
12. The learned Trial Court upon examining the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the denial of the petitioner, herein, to the circumstances put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had vide judgment dated 26.11.2013, drawn the following conclusion:-
"25. From the evidences available on record, it is noticed that Tanuja Das was the wife of the accused Chandrakanta Das and she was subjected to cruelty to meet their unlawful demand of money and articles and the harassment was on account of failure by her and her family members to meet their demand. The accused have also admitted that they are paying Rs.2500/- as maintenance to Tanuja Das in a 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding.
......
34. It is true that except PW1 Tanuja Das and her mother PW2 Amala Das none of the witnesses have deposed that accused persons had made demand and in the event of the non fulfillment of his demand the victim, PW1 was tortured and further more PW1 Tanuja Das and PW2 Amala Das have also only named accused Chandra Kanta Das for making demands but this itself does not go to prove that no demand was made because such an event can occur only within the precincts of the matrimonial abode and the plausibility or possibility of such occurrence, being known to persons other than the family members of the family is rather bleak, if not impossible and to expect for proof of such an event evidence from independent quarters is to look something, which in the ordinary course of event, cannot be expected to happen. In such a situation, the best person, expected to speak to such an event can be no else, except the victim of harassment and cruel treatment.
......
Page No.# 6/10
37. It is difficult rather impossible to enumerate acts amounting to cruelty or to put cruel conduct into a straight jacket or to make cruel conduct considerable to any inflexible standard but as per Section 498A explanation (a) harassment for not fulfilling the unlawful demand is also "cruelty", in this case also Tanuja Das, the victim have deposed that harassment and cruel treatment was made out to her and even more the paternity of her child was denied by accused Chandra Kanta Das on her failure to meet their unlawful demand. Taking the evidence as an organic whole there is no hesitation to come to a definite finding that victim, Tanuja Das was subjected to cruelty by the accused husband within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. Accordingly, accused Chandra Kanta Das is convicted u/s 498A IPC.
38. The charge u/s 498A IPC against other accused persons namely Rita Das, Saraswati Das, Ghanashyam Das, Dipa Das, Archana Das stands not proved and they are accordingly acquitted. Bail Bond will automatically cancel after expiry of six months, if no appeal is preferred.
39. Considering the nature of offence committed by the husband on his wife at his house the accused is not entitled to get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
13. The learned Appellate Court on an appeal being preferred in the matter by the petitioner, herein, vide judgment dated 13.05.2014 had drawn the following conclusions:-
"(18) I have meticulously gone through the grounds taken in the appeal petition.
From the deposition of PW-1, PW-2, PW-8 and PW-9 the prosecution has been successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. I have not found any cogent convincing ground to interfere with the judgments.
(19) I have meticulously gone through the grounds taken in ground No. (iv) and
(v) of the ground. The appellant has submitted that he has suffering since 2007 and in the event of putting the appellant in jail the maintenance amount will be stopped. But see the riverside, how the wife is suffering since 2007. Offence under Section 498(A) IPC though not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C, yet with the leave of the Court the offence can be compounded. But in this case the appellant has no taken any Page No.# 7/10 such steps. The appellant has been fighting his case one plea after another and poor wife has to wait for justice.
There is no cogent, convicting ground to interfere with the judgments. On the other hand the appellant has not taken any steps to compromise the matter with wife/complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case none of the decided cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is applicable in this case.
Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court."
14. This Court for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding as well as the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and by the learned Appellate Court in the matter, would now examine the evidences coming on record.
15. On a perusal of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it is found that the solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, herein, is not disputed. It is further not disputed that out of the said wedlock, a son was born to them. The respondent No. 2, herein, had deposed during the trial as PW1. In her deposition, she had deposed that the petitioner, herein, had demanded Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), fridge, bike etc. from her parental home. In her deposition, she further deposed that on the said demand made by the petitioner, herein, being brought to the notice of her mother, her parents on account of their poor financial condition could not fulfill the said demand. The respondent No. 2 as PW1 had also deposed that on her failure to fulfill the demand made by the petitioner, herein, he had assaulted her and had prevented her from entering his house, but she had somehow managed to enter the house of the petitioner, herein. She further deposed that her marriage was solemnized on 01.03.2006 and the child was born out of the said wedlock to her and the petitioner, herein, on 04.02.2007. It was further deposed by the respondent No. 2 as PW1 that at the time of birth of her child, the petitioner, herein, had sold out her gold ornaments and thereafter, when she wanted to visit her parental house, the Page No.# 8/10 petitioner, herein, had forced her to write on a paper that the said child did not belong to him and she out of her own will, had left the house. It is deposed that she refused to comply with the said requirement of the petitioner, herein, and accordingly, the petitioner threw her out from her matrimonial house.
16. The mother of the respondent No. 2 had deposed during the trial as PW2. During her deposition, she had deposed that after around 1½ month from the date of marriage of PW1, PW1 had come to her house and had informed that the petitioner, herein, had demanded Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) from her. She further deposed that she had sent her daughter back to the house of the petitioner, herein, as she was not able to fulfill the demand. It was further deposed by PW2, that PW1 had come back to her house and informed that the petitioner, herein, had again demanded scooter from her and when she failed to fulfill both the demands, the petitioner, herein, had started torturing her daughter. She further deposed that in the year 2007, when she had gone to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner, herein, had told her that PW1 will not be allowed to maintain relationship with her family members and PW1 was also required to write the same on a paper and when she refused to do so, PW1 was driven out from her matrimonial house. Accordingly, she lodged the FIR in the matter.
17. A perusal of the deposition of PW1 and PW2 would bring to the forefront that the petitioner, herein, had demanded dowry from the respondent No. 2, herein and her family members. However, it is not brought on record by the depositions of PW1 and PW2 that on non-fulfillment of the said demand for dowry, the PW1, i.e., the respondent No. 2, herein, was subjected to torture. The depositions of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the respondent No. 2 herein, being subjected to torture, is very sketchy and devoid of material particulars.
18. The FIR in the matter was lodged on 01.11.2007. It is not highlighted as to why the PW1 and PW2 had not lodged any complaint prior to that before the police with regard to the cruelty the respondent No. 2, herein, was subjected to. The petitioner, herein, was convicted under the provisions of Section 498(A) IPC, the same being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
Page No.# 9/10 "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
19. A perusal of the provisions of Section 498A IPC would reveal that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
20. Cruelty has been explained under the "Explanation" to Section 498A IPC. It is the Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC that would be applicable in the present matter.
21. Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC, mandates that harassment of a woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand is said to have been subjected to cruelty.
22. In the present case, the evidences adduced by PW1 and PW2 in the considered view of this Court does not bring to the forefront the particulars of the torture the respondent No. 2, herein, was subjected to. In absence of the details and explanation with regard to the manner in which the respondent No. 2, herein, was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner, herein, the ingredients of Section 498A IPC cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, herein. Mere matrimonial dispute cannot be elevated to that of a harassment under the provisions of Section 498A IPC.
23. In view of the said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients requisite for bring home a charge under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner, herein, was not satisfied in the matter. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 498A IPC would not be sustainable and consequently, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 498A IPC stands interfered with.
24. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the judgment dated Page No.# 10/10 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh and the judgment dated 13.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, stand set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty. The bail bond executed by the petitioner, herein, stands discharged.
25. With the above observations and direction, the present criminal revision petition stands allowed.
26. Registry to send down the records to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant