Sanjib Dhar vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 7327 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sanjib Dhar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 16 September, 2025

                                                                            Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010234832013




                                                                      undefined

                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./365/2013

           SANJIB DHAR
           S/O LT. SANTOSH CH. DHAR R/O NEHRU ROAD, LECHUTOLA, P.S.
           BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.



           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR


           2:SMTI SAMPA DHAR
            D/O LT. AJIT GHOSH R/O NEHRU ROAD
            LECHUTOLA
            P.S. BONGAIGAON
            DIST. BONGAIGAON
           ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M KONCH, MR.A CHOUDHURY,MD.B HUSSAIN,MD.S
ISLAM,MR.A ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,,PP, ASSAM




                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                        ORDER

Date : 16-09-2025

None appears for the petitioner on call. The present revision petition was listed on Page No.# 2/13

26-09-2024, however, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the said

date. Today also, when the matter was called up in the first half, there was no

representation. Accordingly, the matter was kept to be considered in the second half.

When the matter was again called up in the second half, again there was no

representation on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to consider the

criminal revision petition on its merit basing on the materials available on record.

2. Heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. None has

appeared for the respondent No. 2.

3. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner herein

assailing the judgment and order dated 19-09-2011 passed by the SDJM(S), Bongaigaon

in GR Case No. 346/2005, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 498(A) IPC and

sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months and to pay fine of

Rs. 1800/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) month. The petitioner

has also assailed the judgment and order dated 19-06-2023 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in CA No. 31(4)/2011 upholding the conviction of the

petitioner, herein, by the learned trial court.

4. The facts in brief, requisite for adjudication for the issue arising in the present

proceeding, is noticed as under:

The respondent No. 2, herein, had lodged an FIR on 22-09-2005, before the Officer-

in-Charge of Bongaigaon Police Station, inter-alia projecting, therein, that she was the

legally married wife of the petitioner, herein, and that their marriage was solemnized on Page No.# 3/13

25-02-2004. It was also projected that their marriage was also registered under the

Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Sub-Registrar, Bongaigaon on 18-12-2004. In the

FIR, it was alleged that after their marriage, the petitioner started to torture the

respondent No. 2, frequently. It was further alleged that the petitioner held wine parties

with his friends and other person at night and the respondent No. 2 was directed to serve

wine to his friends and the party would go on till 02:30 am to 03:00 am the next day. It

was further alleged that the petitioner, herein, had demanded that the mother of the

respondent No. 2 who was a widow and a pensioner, should give her pension amount to

him. It was further alleged that although the respondent No. 2, had conceived on several

occasion, the same was aborted by the petitioner, against her will.

It was further alleged that on 10-01-2005, the petitioner had demanded from the

respondent No. 2 an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), which she

was to bring from her widowed mother. On the respondent No. 2, denying to ask her

mother about the said amount, it was alleged that the petitioner had beaten her

mercilessly and also driven her out of his house by retaining all the ornaments and

dresses etc., which was projected to have been received by the respondent No. 2 at the

time of her marriage. The respondent No. 2 further alleged that left with no alternative,

she started to live and reside with her widowed mother at Bongaigaon. She also projected

that she had filed a maintenance case before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bongaigaon, which was stated to be pending. Basing on the same, she demanded action

against the petitioner, herein.

The police on receipt of the said FIR, registered the same as Bongaigaon P.S. Case Page No.# 4/13

No. 232/2005 under Section 498(A) IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police

submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 498(A) IPC. The

petitioner on charge being framed against him by the trial court, having pleaded not guilty

to the charges so framed and having demanded to be tried, a trial commenced in the

matter.

The prosecution had examined 05 (five) witnesses in support of its case and the

statement of the petitioner, herein, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence

witness was adduced by the petitioner, herein.

On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court, proceeded to convict the

petitioner, herein, under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for 03 (three) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1800/- (One Thousand Eight

Hundred) only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further 01 (one) month.

The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the trial court, assailed

the said judgment and order dated 19-09-2011 before the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon.

The said case was transferred to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon

for disposal. The appellate court upon appreciating the evidence coming on record as well

as the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties was pleased vide

judgment and order dated 19-06-2013 to dismiss the said appeal, upholding the

conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned trial court.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

5. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has submitted that the evidences coming Page No.# 5/13

on record during the trial without any ambiguity indicated the commission of torture and

assault upon the respondent No. 2, herein, by the petitioner. Mr. Baruah by referring to

the evidences coming on record has submitted that the cruelty as committed upon the

respondent No. 2 by the petitioner is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that

the ingredients of Section 498(A) IPC was established beyond reasonable doubt by the

prosecution in the matter against the petitioner, herein. He submits that the conviction of

the petitioner by the learned trial court being so based on the proper appreciation of the

evidences coming on record in trial, the same would mandate no interference from this

Court.

6. Mr. Baruah further submits that the appellate court had, on appreciation of the

evidence coming on record, arrived at a conclusion that the conviction of the petitioner,

herein, would require no interference. He submits that said conclusion being so based on

proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record in the trial, the same would also

not mandate any interference from this Court.

7. I have heard the learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State and perused the

materials available on record.

8. For a proper appreciation of the submission made by Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl.

P.P. Assam and conclusion drawn in the matter by the learned trial court as well as by the

appellate court, the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court is required to

be noticed.

9. PW-1 Ashim Bhattacharjee is the neighbour of the petitioner, herein. He deposed Page No.# 6/13

that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, herein, was solemnized as per

Hindu religious rites and further that the marriage was also registered and he was a

witness to such registration of marriage. The marriage certificate of the petitioner and the

respondent was exhibited by him as Exhibit-1. He further deposed that for about one year

from the date of the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent they had lived

peacefully. However, thereafter he started to hear hulla from the house of the petitioner

during the night time. He further deposed that the petitioner had illicit relationship with

other women and he was also caught red-handed in the matter. He further deposed that

the petitioner was also arrested by the police. The PW-1 had testified that the petitioner,

herein, had demanded Rs. 25000/- from the respondent No. 2 and had tortured her

physically for the purpose. PW-1 also deposed that the petitioner, herein, had brought

home different women and when the respondent No. 2, herein, raised objection, he used

to assault her. He further deposed that the petitioner, herein, had driven away the

respondent No. 2 out of his house. However, in his cross-examination, PW-1 revealed that

he did not see the incident.

10. PW-2 is the respondent No. 2, in the present proceeding, she after deposing about

the factum of her marriage and also its registration under the Special Marriage Act had

deposed that after 4/5 months from the date of her marriage, the accused used to bring

his friends and other women to their house and used to drink wine with them. She further

deposed that he had illicit relationship with those women and when she protested, the

petitioner used to assault her, which also resulted in bleeding from her nose. She further

deposed that she was confined inside a room and was not given food on several Page No.# 7/13

occasions. PW-2, further deposed that she was pregnant with his child but the petitioner

had forced her to abort the child. She deposed that unable to bear the torture of the

accused, she had come to her maternal home. She further deposed that the petitioner,

herein, came to her maternal home and demanded Rs. 25000/- as dowry and had stated

that if the PW-2 did not meet his demand, he would not take back her to his house. PW-2

further deposed that the petitioner had kept another women in his house and the incident

was reported on 16-09-2005 in the first page of Bengali daily "Dainik Jugantar". During

her cross-examination, the PW-2 deposed that she could not remember the dates on

which the petitioner had demanded money from her and also the dates he used to bring

women.

11. PW-3 is the mother of the respondent, herein, and after reiterating the factum of

marriage of PW-2 with the petitioner, herein, she deposed that the petitioner had tortured

PW-2 and had also confined her inside the house and had not given her food. PW-3

further reiterated the fact that the petitioner, herein, used to bring his friends to his house

and he used to drink with them and that he even forced PW-2 to have wine with them.

PW-3 further deposed that the petitioner, herein, brought other women to his house and

he had illicit relationship with them and on protest by the PW-2, he used to assault her.

PW-3 further deposed that once when she had come to the house of the petitioner she

saw the petitioner taking liquor with his friends and when she had resisted, she was

asked by the petitioner, herein, to take away her daughter (i.e. the respondent No. 2,

herein), with her. She further deposed that unable to bear the torture, respondent No. 2,

left her matrimonial home and took shelter in her house. PW-3 also deposed that the Page No.# 8/13

petitioner had come to her house and had demanded Rs. 25000/- with further stipulation

that only on fulfilling his said demand, he would take back PW-2 to his house. PW-3

deposed that she could not fulfil the demand of the petitioner. PW-3, during her cross-

examination, deposed that she had not seen the incident of assault upon the respondent

No. 2, herein, but was told about the same by her.

12. PW-4 is the neighbour of PW-2, he also deposed with regard to the factum of

marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, herein. He further deposed that

after the marriage, the petitioner used to bring home other women and on this matter

frequent fight between the petitioner and the PW-2 occasioned. He deposed that the

petitioner, herein, had beaten the respondent No. 2, and had driven her out of his house

after about 1½ year of their marriage and respondent No. 2 had taken shelter in her

maternal house. PW-4 also deposed that the petitioner was caught red-handed with

another woman and was handed over to the police and the matter was reported in the

newspaper. In his cross, the PW-4 deposed that after the respondent No. 2, had left her

matrimonial home, she stayed with her mother in her rented house.

13. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer, he proved the charge-sheet. During his cross-

examination, PW-5 deposed that the respondent No. 2, had not stated before him the

date when the petitioner came to her mother's house demanding money from her.

14. On appreciating the evidence coming on record during the trial, the learned trial

court had drawn the following conclusions:

"10. It is in the evidence of pw-2 (complaint as well as the victim) that after some months of the marriage, the accused started to torture her both Page No.# 9/13

mentally and physically. He brought friends to his house and they would drink liquor together. He also enjoyed the company of different women in his house and had illicit relation with them. When pw-2 protested, she was subjected to severe mental and physical torture by the accused person. As it was a continued process, so pw-2 was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and she took shelter in the rented house of her mother (pw-3). It has further come out from the evidence of pw-2 that the accused came to her mother's house and he demanded Rs. 25000/- as dowry from her and told her that he would take her home only if his monetary demand is fulfilled. As his demands could not be fulfilled, he did not come to take pw-2 to his home. Though pw-2 has been subjected to long cross-examination but except giving many suggestions, the evidence as to the continuous mental and physical torture remained the same. Her evidence is fully supported by pw-3, who claimed to have once witnessed the accused getting drunk with his friends and upon her objection, he told her to take her daughter (pw-2) with her. This witness also alleged that being unable to bear the mental and physical torture of the accused person, pw-2 was compelled to leave the house. But after this, the accused came to her house and he demanded Rs. 25000/- as dowry.

11. The independent witness, pw-1 has clearly stated that after about one year of their marriage, he used to hear hullah in the house of the accused person. His evidence also reveals that the accused had illicit relation with other women and he was once caught red-handed and handed over to the police. He further supported pw-2 and testified that the accused used to torture pw-2 physically and he even demanded Rs. 25000/- from her. Another witness, pw-4 also narrated the same story. He too stated during their marital life, the accused used to bring home various women and over this matter frequent quarrels took place between both the parties and the accused used to torture pw-2 mentally and physically. Therefore, the evidence of pw-2 is corroborated by all the pws. Moreover, the news-item exhibited as ext-3(1) clearly reveals the character of the accused person. So, no married women will ever tolerate such kind of character and behaviour of her husband inside the house. It is therefore very clear that pw-2 has suffered from physical and mental harassment from her husband, which has compelled her to leave the matrimonial home.

12. The learned Defence Counsel argued that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. There are no eye witness to the occurrence. He submitted that there has been considerable delay in lodging the ejahar, which raises a doubt regarding the persecution story.

13. There may not be eye-witness to the occurrence. One cannot expect eye-witness in each and every case. Moreover, it is clear that the offences against the married women are committed within the four corners of a house and there is no likelihood of availability of evidence. The pws were duly cross-examined but their evidence could not be shattered on any material point.

14. The last alleged incident took place on 19.9.05 and the ejahar was Page No.# 10/13

lodged on 20.9.05. This is a case under sec 498A of the IPC, which is filed by the complainant against her husband as she has been subjected to torture continuously since after the marriage. Naturally being the wife, she would feel extremely embarrassed to prosecute against her husband. She might think about the consequence of the case. So, in such type of case, the victim might have given a second thought whether she would file the case against her husband or not. As such, the delay in filing the ejahar cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case.

15. There are no doubt some minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the pws but those infirmities have not affected the substratum of the prosecution story. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses cannot be given too much importance. From the evidences of the pws, it has been proved that after the marriage, pw-2 was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the accused person and he demanded Rs. 25000/- as dowry from her. The demand for Rs. 25000/- is nothing but a demand for dowry, which is an ingredient of the offence u/s 498A of IPC."

15. On a perusal of the said conclusion drawn by the learned trial court, this Court

finds that the same to be so based on proper appreciation of the evidence coming on

record in the trial. As noticed hereinabove, the prosecution witness had adduced evidence

which revealed about the torture committed upon the respondent No. 2, herein, by the

petitioner and also about the demand of dowry by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is

of the considered view that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court in the

judgment and order dated 19-09-2011, is not erroneous. Accordingly, the conviction and

sentencing of the petitioner, herein, as ordered by the learned trial court under Section

498(A) IPC, would not mandate any interference.

16. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would now examine the judgment

and order dated 19-06-2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC),

Bongaigaon in CA No. 31(4)/2011. On a perusal of the said judgment, it is found that the Page No.# 11/13

learned appellate court had appreciated the evidences coming on record and on such

appreciation had concluded that the findings reached by the learned trial court did not

suffer from any infirmity and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. This Court

does not found any infirmity with the conclusions drawn by the Appellate Court.

17. The conviction of the petitioner being under Section 498(A), the same would

mandate to be noticed. The provisions of Section 498(A) IPC being relevant, is extracted,

here-in-below for ready reference:-

"498(A) 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.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the 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."

18. On perusal of the provisions of Section 498(A) IPC, it is seen that the same

mandates that whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women

subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The term 'cruelty' has also been

explained, therein, as any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health

(whether mental or physical) of the woman or the harassment of the woman where such Page No.# 12/13

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.

19. On a perusal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution witnesses in the

trial, it is seen that the torture upon the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner, herein, is

proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the illicit relationship maintained by the

petitioner, herein, with other women is also established. The same would go to show that

in addition to the physical torture as committed upon the respondent No. 2 by the

petitioner, herein, she was subjected to mental torture as well. Further, the evidence of

PW-2 wherein she had deposed that the petitioner, herein, had demanded Rs. 25000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only, as dowry from her is corroborated by the evidences

of PW-1 and PW-3. Accordingly, the demand of dowry by the petitioner and the

consequential harassment caused to the respondent No. 2, by the petitioner, herein, on

account of non-fulfilment of such demand is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, it is to be held that the ingredients of Section 498A stood established against

the petitioner, beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In view of the above conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that there

exists no infirmity in the Judgment and Order dated 19-09-2011, passed by the learned

SDJM(S), Bongaigaon in GR Case No. 346/2005 and the same would mandate no

interference. Further, for the reasons given, hereinabove, the Judgment and Order dated

19-06-2013 passed by the learned appellate court in CA No. 31(4)/2011, would also not

mandate any interference.

Page No.# 13/13

21. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit

and the same stands dismissed. The petitioner (accused) is directed to surrender before

the trial court, within a period of 01 (one) month from today, to serve out the sentence.

22. The interim direction passed by this Court, vide order dated 17-09-2013 in Crl.

M.C. No. 718/2013, stands vacated.

23. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands dismissed.

24. Registry to send down the records of the case to the trial court along with a copy

of this order for information and necessary action.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant