- (1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January, 1996 passed by Shri Milan Chatterjee, Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1994 whereunder he set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri B. Konar, Judicial Magistrate, Third Court, Hooghly dated 28th July, 1994 in T.R. Case No. 39 of 1993 arising out of Cr. Case No. 558 of 1992 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The facts leading to the present revision may be summarized as follows :- The revision - petitioner Sm. Santi Das filed a complaint against Shri Dilip Das (opposite party No. 2 in the present revision) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly on 24th December, 1992 alleging that the said accused Dilip Das married her according to Hindu rites on 4th November, 1992 and took her in his house as his wife immediately thereafter and they lived as husband and wife for some days. The two maternal uncles of Dilip, namely, Satyanarayan and Dulal and one brother of Dilip named Samir were not happy with that marriage and could not accept her and troubles arose and they provoked Dilip against her and Dilip demanded from her dowry to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees ten thousand). Her father being a poor man could somehow pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and other articles as dowry, but could not pay more. On 8th November, 1992, the said maternal uncles of Dilip prompted him to beat her and use filthy languages at her and Dilip dealt fists and blows at her and on the night of 8th November, 1992, is, 9th November, 1992, he left the house leaving her alone. On the next day, that is, 9th November, 1992, the said maternal uncles of Dilip and the said brother of Dilip in collusion with one another drove her from Dilip's house and as a result, she was compelled to take shelter in the house of her father. Subsequently, she came to know that Dilip was living with another woman. Thereafter, on 24th December, 1992, she lodged the said complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the four accused persons, namely, Dilip, his brother Samir and his two maternal uncles, Satyanarayan and Dulal and issued summons under Section 498A, I.P.C. Thereafter, the accused persons appeared before the Court and trial was held. Charge was framed when all the accused pleaded not guilty and, thereafter, witnesses were examined on behalf of both the sides and the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides passed the judgment finding the accused persons guilty of the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and convicting them thereunder and sentencing them to. for three months each.
(3.) Being aggrieved by that judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the convicts preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the materials-on-record and hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides came to hold that the charge against the accused persons had not been substantiated from the evidence on record and he reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted all the accused persons.;