JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 112 (WT/A) of 2001. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: The accused-Appellant No. 1 Shri Pradip Sarkar married Smti. Jhulan Sarkar (since deceased), daughter of Shri Jogesh Das and out of the said wedlock a female child was born to the said couple. After the marriage, accused-Appellant No. 1 Shri Pradip Sarkar used to torture his wife demanding dowry and his mother Smti. Malati Sarkar also used to torture her daughter-in-law. On 08.03.2001 at about 11 O'clock accused-Appellant No. 1 Pradip Sarkar set his wife to fire by pouring kerosene oil, as a result of which she sustained severe burnt injuries and succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital. Smti. Rekha Nama, sister of the deceased lodged an FIR on 09.03.2001 at about 9.15 a.m. with Amtalai P.S. alleging, therein, that the death of her sister was caused by setting her on fire by her husband Pradip Sarkar and that mother-in-law of her sister Smti. Malati Sarkar also used to torture her mentally and physically. 3. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case under Sections 498(A)/326/307 IPC and launched investigation into the case. During investigation, police recorded statement of the witnesses, prepared sketch map, seized a kerosene can and collected post mortem examination report. At the end of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC. 4. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against Shri Pradip Sarkar under Section 302 of IPC and against Shri Pradip Sarkar and Malati Sarkar under Section 498(A) of IPC. 5. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officers. The accused-persons were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. While denying the allegations, they declined to adduce defence evidence. 6. 5. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officers. The accused-persons were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. While denying the allegations, they declined to adduce defence evidence. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and considering the materials on record, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Shri Pradip Sarkar for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month. Smti. Malati Sarkar and Shri Pradip Sarkar were convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Smti. Malati Sarkar was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (three hundred), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused-Appellants preferred this appeal alleging that the conviction was not based on substantive and legal evidence. 8. I have heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and carefully gone through the evidence on records. 9. Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, accused-Appellant No. 1 Shri Pradip Sarkar, who was undergoing imprisonment, served out the entire period of his sentence and as such he is not pressing the appeal on behalf of Shri Pradip Sarkar. Therefore, this appeal survives for the other Appellant i.e. Smti Malati Sarkar. Hence this Court will examine if Smti. Malati Sarkar committed the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and whether the conviction and sentence so far it relates to Smti. Malati Sarkar was lawful or not. 10. To appreciate the evidence on records and to find out the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I find it proper to reproduce the material evidence, in brief, as follows: 11. Admittedly, in the present case, there was no eye witness. In the FIR, which was exhibited as Ext. 1, it was mentioned that Smti. 10. To appreciate the evidence on records and to find out the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I find it proper to reproduce the material evidence, in brief, as follows: 11. Admittedly, in the present case, there was no eye witness. In the FIR, which was exhibited as Ext. 1, it was mentioned that Smti. Malati Sarkar used to torture her daughter-in-law Julan Sarkar mentally and physically. The FIR was lodged by Smti. Rekha Nama, one of the sisters of the deceased. Deposing as P.W.1 Smti. Rekha Nama stated that her deceased sister was given in marriage with accused-Appellant No. 1 Shri Pradip Sarkar and after about 2/3 months of peaceful living, her husband and her mother-in-law used to assault and ill-treat her demanding cash money and a bicycle. She did not state anything as to how she came to know about the ill-treatment and demand of Pradip Sarkar and his mother. She also did not state that she was informed by her deceased sister that she was ill-treated by her mother-in-law in any manner. The terms 'assault' and 'ill-treatment' are quite vague. There is no description as to in what manner the deceased was tortured. In her evidence she further stated that coming to know about the incident she rushed to the hospital and on being asked, her deceased sister told her that she was set to fire by pouring kerosene oil by her husband. Deceased did not tell her anything about the ill-treatment, if any, caused by her mother-in-law. Hence from the evidence of P.W. 11 find nothing substantive evidence to hold that the mother-in-law used to treat the deceased with cruelty. 12. P.W.2 Shri Tapan Das, the elder brother of the deceased stated that he met his sister in the hospital with severe burn injuries and she told him that her husband Pradip Sarkar had set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil. He further stated that after the marriage, his sister was living peacefully, but her husband and mother-in-law assaulted her in the matrimonial home causing physical and mental torture demanding a bicycle. This witness also failed to disclose the source of information as to how he came to know that his sister was assaulted or treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law. 13. This witness also failed to disclose the source of information as to how he came to know that his sister was assaulted or treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law. 13. P.W.3 Shri Haridhan Nama, the brother-in-law of the deceased stated that, hearing about the incident, he along with his wife and sister-in-law rushed to the hospital and found that the victim was not in a position to speak. In view of the evidence of P.W.3, it is surprising as to how the P.W.1 and P.W.2 could know about the incident of setting of fire by the husband of the deceased. This witness also stated that the deceased was beaten up by her husband and mother-in-law in the matrimonial home. But the witness failed to disclose the source of his information. 14. P.W.4 Smti. Mira Sarkar stated that she met her sister (deceased) in the hospital who told her that her sister was set on fire by her husband. This witness did not state anything against the mother-in-law of the deceased. In view of the evidence of P.W.3 that the victim was not in a position to speak, it is not believable that the victim could disclose anything to P.W.4 and as such the statement of P.W.4 is not reliable. 15. P.W.5 Shri Jogesh Sarkar, the father of the deceased gave a different story. According to him, after the birth of a female child the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law. He did not state anything regarding dowry demand including demand for a bicycle as stated by the other witnesses. This witness simply stated that his daughter was subjected to cruelty in different manner. But he did not define the nature and type of torture. Furthermore, his evidence is silent about the source of his information regarding cruelty. He, nowhere stated that his daughter had ever reported him about the cruelty. 16. P.W.6 Shri Nirmal Sarkar did not state anything about the torture. According to him, the deceased committed suicide. 17. P.W.7 Shri Ratan Sarkar, P.W.8 Shri Bishnu Chakraborty, P.W.9 Shri Swapan Sarkar and P.W.10 Shri Dwijendra Sarkar did not state anything in favour of the prosecution. 18. P.W.11 Smti. Purnima Sarkar (Das), another sister of the deceased stated that on query, her sister told her in the hospital that she was set on fire by pouring kerosene oil. 17. P.W.7 Shri Ratan Sarkar, P.W.8 Shri Bishnu Chakraborty, P.W.9 Shri Swapan Sarkar and P.W.10 Shri Dwijendra Sarkar did not state anything in favour of the prosecution. 18. P.W.11 Smti. Purnima Sarkar (Das), another sister of the deceased stated that on query, her sister told her in the hospital that she was set on fire by pouring kerosene oil. She further stated that her sister was beaten up by her husband demanding money and a bicycle. She also stated that the mother-in-law of her sister used to badly treat her. Except stating about ill-treatment, this witness stated nothing against the mother-in-law of the victim. Further her evidence does not disclose as to how he came to know about the torture and ill-treatment made against her sister. 19. P.W.12, the mother of the deceased also stated that on being asked her daughter told her that the husband of the deceased had set fire by pouring kerosene oil. She further stated that in the hospital her daughter Jhulan i.e. the deceased told her that on the previous night she was not given food and that she was beaten up by her husband and mother-in-law. But according to the evidence of P.W.3 i.e. another son-in-law of P.W.5, the deceased was not in a position to speak. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the deceased could disclose anything regarding the ill-treatment meted out to her in the previous night. This witness nowhere stated that her daughter used to inform her earlier that she was treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law. 20. P.W.13 Shri Swapan Sarkar and P.W.14 Smti. Sunity Sarkar were tendered by the prosecution and they were not examined. P.W.15 Shri Pranab Sengupta and P.W.16 Shri Kalipada Saha were Investigating Officers. P.W.17 Dr. Pijush Kanti Das was the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem examination. 21. In view of the above evidence on records, I find no substantive and direct evidence to believe that the mother-in-law i.e. the present Appellant Smti. Malati Sarkar had treated the deceased with cruelty. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows: 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. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows: 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 purpose of this section, "cruelty" means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to driver 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. 22. In view of the above, in order to hold a person guilty of committing the offence under Section498-A it must be established beyond all reasonable doubt that she was suspended to cruelty and cruelty as defined in explanation (a) and (b). Any other type of assault, harassment or torture not coming within the definition as defined in the explanation aforesaid will not amount to cruelty warranting conviction under Section 498-A of IPC. None of the witnesses could indicate any element of evidence to substantiate that the alleged torture/ill-treatment was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman or that the harassment was with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Except stating that the victim was ill-treated/assaulted by the mother-in-law, the witnesses failed to narrate the nature of ill-treatment or assault so as to ascertain whether the accused-Appellant had committed the offence under Section498-A of IPC. The father of the victim, who was one of the star witnesses, deposing as P.W. 5 did not state anything regarding demand of money or property. A plain reading of his evidence indicates that the alleged ill-treatment/torture was started after the birth of the female child. The gravity or degree of the ill-treatment has not been indicated. 23. The father of the victim, who was one of the star witnesses, deposing as P.W. 5 did not state anything regarding demand of money or property. A plain reading of his evidence indicates that the alleged ill-treatment/torture was started after the birth of the female child. The gravity or degree of the ill-treatment has not been indicated. 23. As discussed above, none of the witnesses saw the accused Appellant committing the alleged offence. Hence they had no personal or direct knowledge about the ill-treatment etc. In such a situation, to determine the veracity of the evidence and reliability of the witnesses the source of knowledge/information should be disclosed. Their failure to disclose the source raises doubt about the veracity of their evidence. 24. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Appellant Smti. Malati Sarkar subjected her daughter-in-law (deceased) to cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of IPC. 25. In absence of sufficient cogent evidence, the learned Trial Judge committed error by convicting the said accused-Appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and as such the same cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed against Smti. Malati Sarkar under Section 498-A of IPC is set aside. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Smti. Malati Sarkar is set at liberty forthwith. Her bail bond shall stand discharged.