ORDER C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State applicant-appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. By this petition, the State applicant-appellant has prayed for leave to file appeal, under Section378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC), against the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 23.12.2009, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 76 (WT/A) 2007, whereby and where under the respondents were acquitted from the charge, brought against them. 3. The respondents have submitted their written objection against the prayer for leave to file appeal by the State. 4. Smti. Anju Paul (Das), wife of respondent No. 1, Sri Krishna Pada Das, lodged a written FIR on 15.01.2007, with the Women police station at Agartala and accordingly police registered a case being Agartala Women P. S. Case No. 09/2007 under Sections 498A/307/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 5. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:- The complainant was married by the respondent on 14th June, 2003, followed by registration of the marriage, on 11.07.2003 and after the said marriage, she used to live in her marital home. According to the complainant, her husband maintained illicit relation with the maid servant and she was ill-treated by her husband, his elder brother i.e. the respondent No. 2 and the said maid servant i.e. respondent No. 3. According to the informant the aforesaid respondents entered into a conspiracy to kill her, by putting the cylinder of cooking gas in switch on mode so that she could be caught by fire while working in the kitchen. She has also alleged, that her husband and her brother-in-law i.e. the respondent No. 2 demanded an amount of Rs. 3 lacs as dowry for purchasing a new house. 6. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Sections498A/307/34/120B IPC and forwarded the accused persons to the Court to stand trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, framed charges for the offences under Sections 498A/307/34/120B IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the Investigating Police Officer. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, framed charges for the offences under Sections 498A/307/34/120B IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the Investigating Police Officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The accused persons declined to adduce defense evidence. 8. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge came to the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations, brought against the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted from the charges, leveled against them and they were set at liberty forthwith. 9. Aggrieved by the said acquittal of accused persons, the State has come up with the appeal against acquittal seeking leave to file the same. 10. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State applicant-appellant, taking this Court through the evidence on record, has submitted, that the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 498A IPC against the accused respondents, by adducing sufficient evidence and that the learned trial Judge committed error by recording acquittal under Section 498A IPC. On behalf of the State applicant-appellant, it is submitted that, there is sufficient merit in the appeal and as such this is a fit case to grant leave. 11. Controvert the said argument, advanced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, has submitted, that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations, brought against the accused persons and as such the learned trial judge failed to prove the allegations brought against the accused persons by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, referring to the decision in the case of Arulvelu & Anr. v. State reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206 , has submitted, that the learned trial judge properly appreciated the evidence on record and that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity, requiring interference by this Court. 12. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have carefully perused the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and order. 13. 12. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have carefully perused the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and order. 13. Though the accused-respondents have been acquitted under Sections 498A/307/34/120BIPC, the State has challenged the acquittal of the Section 498A IPC only. Admittedly, there is no allegation under Section 498A IPC, against the maid servant i.e. the respondent No. 3. Section498A 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 willful 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. From the above, it appears that, in order to hold a person guilty of the offence, under Section498A IPC, it must be proved that the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjected her to cruelty. The maid servant does not come under the definition of relative of the husband. Therefore, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge committed no error by not convicting her under Section 498A IPC. 14. The learned trial Judge also did not frame any charge under Section 498A IPC against the respondent No. 3 i.e. the maid servant. Charge under Section 498A IPC was framed only against the respondent No. 1 Sri. Krishna Pada Das i.e. the husband of the complainant and the respondent No. 2 Sri Narayan Chandra Das i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant. Therefore, as no charge was framed under Section 498A IPC, appeal against acquittal preferred against the said maid servant i.e. the respondent No. 3, can't be entertained. 15. Krishna Pada Das i.e. the husband of the complainant and the respondent No. 2 Sri Narayan Chandra Das i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant. Therefore, as no charge was framed under Section 498A IPC, appeal against acquittal preferred against the said maid servant i.e. the respondent No. 3, can't be entertained. 15. The allegation brought by the complainant against her husband and her brother-in-law i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, is that the respondents unlawfully demanded Rs. 3 lacs from the informant and her parents for the purpose of purchasing a new house. The complainant, deposing as PW 1, stated that, on being so demanded by the respondents aforesaid, she had informed the matter to her brothers and requested them to arrange money, That apart, according to PW 1, her husband and brother-in-law wanted the money for the purpose of purchasing house, but from her own evidence, it appears that they had arranged the money from their own source. 16. From the evidence on record, as discussed by the learned trial judge, it has been established, that the respondents arranged the money from their own source by withdrawing the said amount from their GPF account as well as bank accounts. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents had conducted in such a manner so as to drive the informant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. There is also no evidence to show that the informant was harassed, either physically or mentally with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. 17. The learned trial judge has discussed the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusive finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations. 18. It is settled that, in a criminal trial, prosecution is required to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also settled position of law that, in the event of existence of two inferences i.e. one going in favor of the accused person and the other going in favor of the prosecution, the benefit should always go in favor of the accused person. It is also settled position of law that, in the event of existence of two inferences i.e. one going in favor of the accused person and the other going in favor of the prosecution, the benefit should always go in favor of the accused person. Law is well settled that, unless the judgment of the trial Court is found to be utterly perverse, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings given by the trial judge and reverse the judgment of acquittal. 19. In my considered view, the learned trial judge has carefully examined the entire evidence in its proper perspective. The findings given by the learned trial judge does not appear to be a wrong, unacceptable and unreasonable. Moreover, the impugned judgment is not against the weight of evidence and as such the verdict is not found to be perverse. 20. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Naresh reported in (2009) 9 SCC 368 , the Supreme Court observed:- 20. ... an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the Court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases. 21. In the case of Arulvelu (supra), the Supreme Court observed:- 36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments leads to the definite conclusion that the appellate Court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial Court judgment can not be set aside because the appellant Court's view is more probable. The appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside the trial Court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial Court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. 22. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Supreme Court observed:- 1. An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 2. 22. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Supreme Court observed:- 1. An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. 3. Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong sand circumstances', 'distorted conclusions,' 'glaring mistakes,' etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. 4. An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favor of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 23. In the case of C. Magesh & Ors. 5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 23. In the case of C. Magesh & Ors. etc., v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2010 SCW 3194, the Supreme Court, laying down the principles of interference with the finding of acquittal, observed:- it is true that High Court has ample powers to go through the entire evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion but before reversing the finding of acquittal, following conditions should be always kept in mind namely, (i) the presumption of innocence of the accused should be kept in mind; (ii) if two views of the matter are possible view favorable to the accused should be taken; (iii) the appellate Court should take into account the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of witness; and (iv) the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. But the doubt should be reasonable that is the doubt which rational thinking man with reasonable honesty and consciously entertained. 24. In view of above principles laid down by the Supreme Court and keeping in mind the statutory provisions prescribed by Section 498A IPC, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge considered the entire evidence on record and recorded the acquittal by giving reasons. Therefore, I find no sufficient force, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there exists no ground for entertaining an appeal against the order of acquittal. 25. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this petition for leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. 26. Accordingly, the Criminal Leave Petition is dismissed. Return the Lower Court Records. Petition dismissed