Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010132612013 2025:GAU-AS:15068 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./387/2013 MOUSUMI DEB W/O PRASENJIT NAHA, R/O C/O RANJIT KR. DEB, UDAYPUR BEHIND KALIMANDIR, BIRUBARI, GUWAHATI-16, PS. PALTANBAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP M. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. - 2:PRASENJIT NAHA S/O LT. PARIMAL NAHA 3:SRIMATI BITHIKA NAHA W/O LT. PARIMAL CH. NAHA 4:INDRANIL NAHA S/O LT. PARIMAL NAHA ALL ARE R/O RK MISSION ROAD NEAR SISHU SARATHI BABAMOHAN PATH HOUSE NO.7 UDAIPUR BIRUBARI GHY-16 PS. PALTANBAZAR DIST. KAMRUP ASSA Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K BHATTACHARJEE, MR.J C BARMAN,MR.D BANERJEE Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 31/10/2025 Heard Mr. K Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The present criminal appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 24.09.2013, acquitting the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 from the charges framed against them under Sections 498(A)/406/34 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati, in Crl. A. No. 132/2012 and thereby, setting aside the conviction of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati, vide judgment dated 25.02.2010 in C.R. Case No. 3634/2007 under Sections 498(A)/406/34 IPC. 3. The appellant, herein, instituted a complaint case against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, inter-alia, contending therein, that the appellant, herein, was married to the respondent No. 2 on 10.05.2005. After her marriage, it was contended that the appellant, herein, was living in her matrimonial house along with her husband and her in-laws. After passing of some time, it was alleged in the complaint that her husband used to get drunk at night and used to assault her. She also alleged in the complaint that her father-in-law and mother-in-law also started behaving with her in an unusual manner and also ill treated her. The appellant, herein, further contended in the complaint that she was working in a private school, but had to give up her job, due to the pressure of her in-laws. It was contended that in course of time, the appellant, herein, became pregnant and when on 30.06.2005, she informed her husband about it, he got angry and demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and a gold chain. She further alleged that when the fact that she Page No.# 3/8 had conceived, was made known to her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law had given her some homeopathic medicines, which lead to certain complications, leading to a miscarriage. It was further contended in the complaint that when the appellant, herein, had conceived for the 2nd time, her husband had tried to get it aborted but could not. It was further alleged that she was subjected to severe physical and mental torture during her pregnancy. The appellant, herein, had further alleged that she was forced to share the bed with the younger brother of her husband and was not given sufficient food during her pregnancy. In the complaint, it was also projected that the appellant, herein, gave birth to a male child on 26.08.2006 and when she had come back to her in-laws house, she was subjected to various types of physical and mental torture, whereupon, she finally decided to leave her matrimonial house and approached the Court of law for legal redressal. In the complaint, the appellant, herein, also prayed for a search warrant for recovery of the Streedhan, she had taken along with her to her matrimonial house during the time of her marriage. Accordingly, the complaint was registered as C.R. Case No. 3634/2007 and thereafter, cognizance was taken against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, under Sections 498(A)/406 IPC. A charge was also framed against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 under Sections 498(A)/406/34 IPC and the same on being read over and explained to them, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, during the trial, proceeded vide judgment dated 25.02.2010 to convict the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, under Sections 498(A)/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only, each, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months. The respondent No. 2, herein, was also convicted under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, being aggrieved by their conviction by the learned Trial Page No.# 4/8 Court, assailed the judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, by way of filing an appeal being Crl. A. No. 132/2012 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The appeal was taken up for disposal by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati. The learned Appellate Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment dated 24.09.2013 to allow the said appeal by interfering with the conviction and sentencing of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 25.02.2010, by granting them benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidence drew the following conclusions:- “10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no independent corroboration near the alleged matrimonial home or from any person of the locality in which complainant stayed and the complainant and her relatives have not given any consistent, corroborate and convincing evidence before the Court and as such whole case of the complainant becomes under reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that merely because the witnesses were closely related to the complaint, their testimonies can not be discarded. He relied on decision reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 280. I have perused the case record and it is seen that though the complainant mentioned the list of witnesses of five persons in her complaint petition yet she examined only two witnesses who are her relatives and she did not produce and examine even one of the listed independent witness which creates doubt about the whole prosecution story. Therefore, I am of the view, if the evidence of the complainant is not found wholly trustworthy and reliable, her evidence could not have been made the foundation for convicting the accused persons/appellants. Page No.# 5/8 11. It is, therefore, necessary to closely examine the evidence P.W.1 to determine if she was a wholly reliable witness. In this light, when the evidence of P.W.1 is closely examined, it transpired that, according to her evidence, her husband/accused no. 1 started torturing her after one month of their marriage by beating being heavily drunken, but that was not mentioned in her complaint petition which contains 16 (sixteen) pages. Moreover, on 8/5/2008, P.W.1, i.e. the complainant deposed that her mother-in-law demanded money and bike, but when she first appeared before the Court on 20/2/2007, and her initial deposition was recorded she did not mention that fact and in her complaint petition also, she did not mention the demand for bike. Moreover, P.W. 1 alleged that when she became pregnant for the first time on 30.08.2007, she informed about it to her husband and her husband told his mother and then her mother-in-law scolded her and brought for a homeopathic medicine and she took the medicine and suffered a miscarriage. But the P.W.1 failed to produce any documents to show that any miscarriage was suffered by her. The complainant i.e., P.W. 1 also deposed before the Court while she was staying in the house of her father, her husband i.e. the appellant No. 1 visited the house of her father and asked for the key of the almirah and locker, but she refused to hand over the key to him and when she returned to her husband’s house, she found the locker broken and came to know that all her ornaments were taken by her husband. But that fact was not stated by the complainant (P.W.1) in her initial depositon before the Court. Moreover, it appears from the record that the complainant had not mentioned any sort of bleeding and bodily injuries caused to her and also threatening by the accused persons over telephone that her son shall be kidnapped in her complaint petition which consisted of 16 pages. It is also seen that the P.W.1 i.e., the complainant deposed that in the month of November, 2006, she became pregnant for the second time and at that time she was staying at her mother’s house and her husband went there and gave to her medicine for termination of her pregnancy, but she did not take the medicine and on 26/8/2006, she gave birth a male child. But, if she became pregnant in the month of November, 2006, how she gave birth a child on 26.08.2006 i.e., prior to her pregnancy. Moreover, from the record, it is seen that though the P.W.3 Sri Ranjit Kr. Dev who is the father of the complainant stated that his daughter told her that the accused person demanded Page No.# 6/8 an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand( and a gold chain, but that fact was not stated by the complainant in her evidence. In the instant case, I do not find any ingredients of Section 498(A) and 406 IPC against the accused persons. From a wholesome appreciation of the evidence as led by the complainant’s side, it would be established that the allegations as leveled by the complainant suffer from contradiction vis-à-vis the evidence of the other witnesses. 12. In Gopa Deb-Vs-State of Tripura & Anr. Reported in 2008 (4) GLT 841, it has been held that if there is no allegation of illegal demand of dowry, cruelty within the meaning of explanation (b) of Section 498(A) IPC cannot be attracted unless it is demonstrated that mental torture should be of such degree which may drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of like, limb or health. So far the explanation (b) is concerned, it must be shown that 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 demands. 13. Here in the instant case, there is no proof of cruelty of such nature to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health or such type of harassment to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Moreover, the statement given by the P.W.1 is not corroborative in her complaint petition, her initial deposition and her evidence before the Court. 14. We know that in a criminal case, mere suspicion is not enough to convict the accused as the of proof required is strict than the civil proceedings. It is also well settled that the criminal trial is meant for doing justice to the accused, the victim and the society, so that the law and order is maintained. The Court should not search the evidence of the prosecution witnesses only to punish the accused person for the charges leveled against him. It is also the duty of the Court to find out whether the accused is really involved and/or connected with the offence for which charge is leveled against him. As the duty of the Court is to see that no innocent person should Page No.# 7/8 be punished as well as no guilty person should be escaped without punishment. The first one is as important as the latter one. In the instant case, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that there is no cogent, reliable, corroborative and trustworthy evidence to show that the accused persons are guilty of the offence charge against him.” 6. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Appellate Court proceeded to acquit the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, from the charges framed against them under Sections 498(A)/406/34 IPC by granting them the benefit of doubt. 7. This Court has examined the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, in the light of the evidences coming on record. 8. This Court finds that the PW1 had during her deposition, deposed with regard to the torture she was subjected to by her husband as well as by her in-laws. However, it is found that in her initial deposition before the learned Trial Court, the said facts were not disclosed. 9. The appellant, herein, had also not disclosed about the injuries suffered by her as well as the threatening given to her by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein. Further, it is noticed that inconsistencies exist with regard to the date on which she had conceived for the second time and also the date on which she had given birth to her child. 10. In the present case, the evidences coming on record does not support the claim made by the appellant, herein, of demand for dowry, being made by her husband and/or by her in-laws and further it is not established that she was subjected to cruelty, in terms of the Explanation set out in clause (b) of Section 498A IPC, on she not complying with such unlawful demand. 11. The deposition of the appellant, herein, before the learned Trial Court during the trial brings on record certain matrimonial disputes, however, the evidences coming on record does not establish the disputes to be one covered by the provisions of Section 498A IPC. While an allegation against the respondent No. 2 under Section 406 IPC has been laid down, this Court does not find particulars being mentioned about the Streedhan articles taken by the Page No.# 8/8 appellant, herein, at the time of her marriage to her matrimonial home. The basic ingredients requisite for establishing a charge under Section 406 IPC is not found established against the respondent No. 2 for convicting him under Section 406 IPC. 12. In view of the above conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.09.2013 would not mandate any interference. Accordingly, the acquittal of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, by the learned Appellate Court would also not mandate any interference. 13. In view of the above discussion, the judgment dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati in Crl. A. No. 132/2012 stands affirmed and the present appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 14. With the above observation and direction, the present appeal stands disposed of. 15. Registry to send down the TCR forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant