TAJA DOLEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Kalita, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(2.) By this petition, filed Under Section 401 r/w Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgment and order, dated 19.02.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, in Criminal Appeal No. 29(4)/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the present Petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned SDJM, Jonai in G.R. Case No. 151/2002, has been challenged. By the judgment and order dated 17.11.2003 the learned SDJM, Jonai convicted the Petitioners for the offence under Sections 498(A)/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence the Petitioners, as Appellants, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29(4)/2003 and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, by the impugned judgment and order, while upholding the impugned conviction modified the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Petitioners have come up with this revision on the ground that the learned Courts below committed error by recording the conviction, as indicated above without any sufficient evidence on record.

(3.) Mr. B. Kalita, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, taking this Court through the evidence on record and the provision of Section 498(A) IPC, has submitted that there is no allegations regarding demand of property or valuable security and as such the provision of Section 498(A)(b) is not applicable in this case. The learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners further submitted that there is also no sufficient evidence to show that the conduct of the Petitioners towards the complainant was of such a nature which was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life of the woman. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no medical evidence to substantiate that the woman had sustained any grave injury endangering her life, limb or health. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Courts below committed error by holding the Petitioners guilty of the offence under Sections 498(A) IPC.