Abu Taher vs State Of Assam

1) This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and

order, dated 26.3.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2013, dismissing the appeal preferred against the

judgment and order, in GR Case No. 260/2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaliabor, modifying the sentence imposed upon by

the learned trial court from simple imprisonment for 8 months to simple imprisonment for 2 months and fine amount for Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-.

2) The fact leading to the case is that, the informant, Sabina Yeasmin, lodged an FIR on 1.4.2012, with Sibasthan Police outpost under Samaguri

Police Station, alleging that she got married with the accused-revision petitioner, and since her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental

torture by the accused-revision petitioner, resulting in injuries in her person. She also alleged in the FIR that with promise to provide a job, the accused-

revision petitioner also obtained Rs. 60,000/- from her parents through her.

3) On receipt of the FIR, the Samaguri Police Station registered a case, being No. 98/2012, under Section 498(A) of the IPC, investigated into it,

collected evidence, and finally, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-revision petitioner.

4) After exhausting all required formalities, on appearance of the accused-revision petitioner before the learned trial court, a formal charge under

Section 498(A) of the IPC was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Thus, the trial.

5) The prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses and defence examined none.

6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-revision petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, wherein he

heard denying the allegations made against him. He also declined to adduce defence evidence.

7) After hearing learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial court, convicted the accused-revision

petitioner under Section 498(A) of the IPC to simple imprisonment for 8 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default clause. Thereafter, the

accused-revision petitioner preferred the appeal aforesaid. The sentence was modified in the appeal as indicated above.

8) Heard Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Mr. A.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard

Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent No.

9) I have perused the impugned judgments of the learned trial court as well as that of the learned appellate court. It appears from the judgments of

both the courts below that they have thoroughly discussed the evidence on record and based on such evidence found and held the accused-revision

petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

10) I have scanned the evidence in the record. PW1, PW2 & PW3, are the victim, her mother and her father respectively. PW5 & PW6 are the

witnesses who have no knowledge about the occurrence. PW5 categorically stated in her evidence that she has never seen any assault taking place

between the accused and his wife. PW6 expressed his ignorance about the occurrence and he has not even subjected to cross-examination by the

defence. The investigating officer, examined as PW6, (ought to have been PW7). On perusal of the evidence of the PW1, PW2 & PW3, it appears

that there is a demand of money to be taken from the parents by the victim/PW1 for the purpose of obtaining job for the victim by the accused-

revision petitioner. Thereafter also, she had taken Rs. 20,000/- each time twice from her parents for giving to the accused-revision petitioner to meet

his demand. PW2 & PW3, the mother and the father of the victim/PW1 respectively, corroborates such evidence of the PW1 on material point. They

were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but the defence could not dislodge their evidence in respect of demand, fulfilment of demand as well as

failure to fulfil the demand of money, as aforesaid.

11) The term “harassmentâ€, as explained in Section 498(A) of the IPC also includes harassment due to failure to meet the unlawful demand. The

demand of money by the accused-revision petitioner is unlawful is a question cannot be disputed. On the basis of such evidence, the learned trial court

found and held the accused-revision petitioner guilty, and accordingly, convicted him as indicated above. The learned appellate court of Sessions

Judge, Nagaon, on appeal, reduced the sentence, as specifically mentioned above. In the considered view of this court, the punishment imposed upon

the accused-revision petitioner by the learned appellate court, modifying the order of the learned trial court appears to be in the lower side requiring no

interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this court.

12) There is no other legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner to justify any illegality or impropriety in the judgments

rendered by the courts below.

13) Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned in this revision petition.

14) However, the period of detention of the accused-revision petitioner in custody during investigation, trial and thereafter, if any, be set off against the

substantive sentence.

15) Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

16) Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.