Crl.A. 118/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.S. Sinha , learned Addl. PP representing the State. 2. This Appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2003 in Sessions Case No. 110(DM)2001 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge of Darr ang District at Mangaldoi, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted unde r Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fi ne of Rs.5000/ and in default, further R.I. for 3 months. 3. The case of the prosecution, as revealed from the FIR, is that the marri age of the informant’s daughter Jamini Talukdar was solemnized with the accused about a year earlier and after marriage, the accused appellant in drunken condit ion used to torture his wife. On the night preceding the incident also, the accu sed assaulted his wife and unable to bear the torture any further, the informant ’s daughter committed suicide by hanging herself in her room. On the basis of th e FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, the Mangaldoi P.S. Case No. 206/200 0 was registered and the police started investigation of the case. 4. Thereafter the accused was charged under Section 306 IPC but during the trial when it transpired that ingredients under Section 498(A) IPC are also pres ent, additional charge under Section 498(A) was framed against the accused. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 5. PW-1 Durgeswar Talukdar is the father of the deceased who had filed the FIR on 14.10.2000. He testified that after his daughter was given in marriage, h is son-in-law after getting drunk used to beat up the deceased. His daughter too informed her family of such beatings. But she could not fathom the reason for t he beating given by her husband. 5.1. PW-1 further testified that after learning of the regular assaults from his daughter, he visited his son-in-law’s house to resolve the problem but the a ccused even on that occasion after getting drunk ill-behaved with his father-in- law. Thereafter the witness learnt of the suicide committed by his daughter. In his cross-examination the father mentioned about another incident when that the accused spent a night at his in-law’s house and on that occasion also, after get ting drunk, the accused left his in-law’s place. 6. PW-2 Debojani Deka is the sister of the accused who testified that when the deceased was found hanging in the morning hours, the accused was not at his house. The witness stated that there used to be frequent quarrel between the dec eased and the accused. 7. PW-3 Tutu Deka is a cousin sister of the accused who rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry from the residence of the accused. She stated that on the night previous to the suicide, she heard Hulasthul (commoti on) from the house of the accused. In her re-examination after charges under Sec tion 498(A) of the IPC was framed, PW-3 stated that she learnt from the other re latives that there used to be quarrels between the deceased and the accused, but she had not herself witnessed such quarrel. 8. PW-5 Dr. Noni Gopal Saharia was the Medical Officer posted at Mangaldoi Civil Hospital who opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging but he could not clearly opine as to whether it was a case of suicide o r homicide. 9. The Investigating Officer of the case was Abdul Jalil who was the PW-6 i n the case.. He stated that after information was received on 14.10.2000 about t he death, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report and arrang ed for sending the dead body for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Offi cer also stated that the accused was detained by his co- villagers on 14.10.2000 itself and the I.O. made the formal arrest thereafter. DEFENCE STAND 10. when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied that he had any quarrel with his wife or had tortured her. But no witness was adduced from the side of the defence. 11. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that mere ly because there were occasional quarrels between the spouses, it cannot be said that the deceased was subjected to such cruelty by the accused, that the deceas ed was driven to commit suicide. Accordingly, it is argued that no connection be tween the suicidal death and the accused could be established in the present cas e. 12. Supporting the conviction it is argued by Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. PP that the evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that the deceased had kept her father informed about being beaten up regularly by the accused and that she is unable to fathom as to why the accused used to administer such beating to the wife. It is pointed out by the learned Addl. PP that when the father protested against th e beatings, his son-in-law ill-behaved with him as well.. On another occasion th e accused while visiting his in-laws , after getting drunk had left the residenc e of his in-laws. According to the learned Addl. PP, these incidents coupled wit h the regular beatings amount to cruelty, particularly for the purpose of Sectio n 498(A). He submits that the victim’s own ill treatment and the insults meted o ut to her family by the accused drove her to commit suicide. 13. On examination of the rival submissions and on perusal of the evidence i t becomes clear that after her marriage, the deceased was subjected to regular a ssaults by the accused. When the father of the deceased after being informed by his daughter tried to intercede with the accused, the accused instead of respond ing positively, had misbehaved with his father-in-law as well. It is also eviden ced by the accused’s own sisters that there were frequent quarrels between the a ccused and the deceased and particularly on the night preceding the suicide, the re was Hulasthul (serious commotion) at the residence of the accused. These e vidence clearly shows that the deceased was subjected to regular assault by the accused for no ostensible reason and that the accused did not mend his ways even after his father-in-law tried to intercede in the matter. Not only the deceased was assaulted but the father-in-law too was misbehaved by the accused. Even on a visit to the in-laws house the accused behaved badly and left the in-laws hou se in a drunken state. All these incidents clearly shows that the deceased was s ubjected to cruelty in the form of beating or in the form of misbehaviour to her father and in her parental home and such incidents clearly establish that the d eceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused on regular basis. Evidence is al so available from the PW-3 that on the night preceding of the suicide, there was serious commotion in the house of the accused. The impact of such cruelty must have driven the deceased to commit suicide and considering the fact that she was pregnant at the time of her death only shows the stage of utter helplessness st ate of the deceased, which compelled her to not only take her own life but also that of her unborn child. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I find that in this case the prosecution has been clearly able to prove the charge under Section 498(A) IPC and the impugned conviction has been rightly ordered for the accused appellant. The appeal is ac cordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 110/ 2001 stands affirmed. 16. Send down the LCR.