Judgment Dipak Saha Ray, J. The instant appeal arises out of an application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah on 27.6.2005 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 118 of 2002 arising out of Jagacha P.S. Case No. 6 of 2000 dated 14.1.2000 (GR Case No. 70 of 2000). 3. The said case was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Prasanta Das on 14.1.2000 before the Officer-in-Charge of Domjur Police Station, Howrah. The defacto complainant has alleged that his daughter Purnima Das was given in marriage to Tarun Das on 15.8.1999. After marriage, his daughter, whenever visited his house, informed him that her husband Tarun Das had illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Boudi) Dalia Das. It is also alleged in the written complaint that his daughter had first raised protest to her husband about the matter and thereafter she informed him (the defacto complainant) and also all the members of his family. His daughter also informed that her husband told her that she had to accept the said relation between her husband and his boudi and then only she would be allowed to live with him and for that reason she was mentally perturbed and thereafter she left her matrimonial house and came to his house as she could not bear such mental torture of her husband. But, his son-in-law Tarun Das thereafter did not come to his house. Nor did he take any information about her. Ultimately, his daughter committed suicide on 14.1.2000 at about 2.30 P.M. at his house as she failed to bear such mental torture of her husband, Tarun Das and his boudi Dalia Das. 4. The Police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet in this case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and other relevant materials, both the accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34/304B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused persons, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when the said charges were read over and explained to them. 6. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and other relevant materials, both the accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34/304B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused persons, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when the said charges were read over and explained to them. 6. As against this, the defence case as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and the statements made during examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was denial of the prosecution allegations and plea of innocence. 7. The prosecution in order to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused persons examined as many as 23 witnesses. 8. After taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the learned trial court found the accused persons not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/306/34B IPC and the accused persons were acquitted accordingly. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State of West Bengal as appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 10. The grievances of the appellant may be capsulated in a few sentences as follows: 11. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and approached the case from a wrong angle and this has resulted in failure of justice. The learned trial court without taking into consideration the entire subject matter of Ext 5, only relied upon the portion of the contents of Ext. 5 which were in favour of the accused persons. 12. After taking into consideration all relevant facts and materials on record and giving due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, we think, the only point requiring adjudication is whether or not the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court are liable to be set aside. 13. Now, the question to be determined as to whether the accused persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. There is no controversy that the deceased Purnima Das, the daughter of Prasanta Das (PW 1), was married to Tarun Das and their marriage was solemnized on 15.8.99. There is also no controversy that the victim came to her father’s house 20/29 days before her death. 14. There is no controversy that the deceased Purnima Das, the daughter of Prasanta Das (PW 1), was married to Tarun Das and their marriage was solemnized on 15.8.99. There is also no controversy that the victim came to her father’s house 20/29 days before her death. There does not appear to be any controversy that Purnima Das committed suicide at her father’s house on 14.1.2000 at about 2.30 P.M. by setting fire on herself. 15. The controversy mainly relates to the question as to i) whether any demand was actually made to the deceased or her father for cash of Rs.25000/- or in lieu of cash, one motorcycle; ii) whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons. 16. To substantiate the allegations brought against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses in all. 17. PW 1 is the father of the deceased who lodged FIR. PW 2 is the mother of the deceased. PW 3 is the sister of the deceased. PWs 4 and 6 are the neighbours of PW 1. PW 5 is the friend of accused Tarun Das. PW 8 is the cousin of the deceased. PW 9 is the Superintendent of Kharagpur S.D.Hospital. PW 10 is an Assistant Director of the Chemistry Division of State F.S.L. PW 11 is a retired Police Personnel. PW 12 is the Head Mistress of the School where the victim was Assistant Teacher. PW 13 is the Gurubhai of PW 1. PW 14, an Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the victim. PW 15 is the brother of the victim. PWs 16 and 17 are the sons-in-law of PW 1. PW 18 is the uncle of the deceased. PW 19 is the family priest of PW 1. PWs 20 and 21 are the constables of Police. PW 22 is the Investigating Officer of the case and PW 23 is a Police Personnel who brought and identified G.D. Entries. 18. In the instant case, it appears that PWs 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,12,13,15,16,17 and 18 have adduced evidence supporting the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the accused persons at her matrimonial home. 19. We shall first examine the evidence of this prosecution witnesses one by one subjecting to their testimony to strict scrutiny. 20. 18. In the instant case, it appears that PWs 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,12,13,15,16,17 and 18 have adduced evidence supporting the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the accused persons at her matrimonial home. 19. We shall first examine the evidence of this prosecution witnesses one by one subjecting to their testimony to strict scrutiny. 20. At the very outset, we would like to point out that since in such cases of torture and harassment are confined in four walls of matrimonial home of the bride, direct evidence is hardly available. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors. reported in 1991 CrLJ 1897 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that “it must be remembered that since such crimes are generally committed in the privacy of the residential house and in secrecy, independent and direct evidence is not easy to get.” So what has been deposed by the PWs in respect of torture, ill-treatment on Purnima Das was actually heard by them from Purnima either during her visits to her parental home or during visit of any witness to her matrimonial home. 21. PW 1, Prasanta Das, father of the deceased is the defacto complainant in this case, has corroborated the prosecution case in details. PW 2 is the mother of the deceased who has also corroborated her earlier witness and thereby supported the prosecution case. PWs 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 have also stated the prosecution case in details and thereby corroborated the evidence of their earlier witnesses in support of the prosecution case. 22. It is a settled principle of law that F.I.R can only be used as a previous statement for the pupose of corroboration or contradiction of its maker. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. No. 1 with reference to cross-examination of PW22 (Investigating Officer) it appears that PW-1 has stated many facts during his evidence before the Court implicating the accused persons which have not been incorporated in his written complaint. Thus the earliest document the F.I.R. does not corroborate the oral evidence which has been adduced by the F.I.R maker, the P.W-1. Similarly PW-2 has also disclosed many facts during her evidence before the Court which she never stated made before the Investigating Officer during investigation. Like PW- 1 and 2, other P.Ws. Thus the earliest document the F.I.R. does not corroborate the oral evidence which has been adduced by the F.I.R maker, the P.W-1. Similarly PW-2 has also disclosed many facts during her evidence before the Court which she never stated made before the Investigating Officer during investigation. Like PW- 1 and 2, other P.Ws. 3,4,5,6,8,12,13,15,16,17 and 18 have also adduced evidence before the Court stating many new facts implicating the convicts/appellants in the alleged crime; but they in their earlier statements during investigation made before the Investigating Officer did not state the said facts. So, it appears that the defence has been able to elicit major contradictions and/or omissions in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimonies. Accordingly, we find that the credibility of the said witnesses have been seriously impeached and they stand thoroughly discredited. 23. PWs 12 and 13 are not related to the victim. They are said to be the independent witnesses of this case. The said witnesses have stated that they came to know from the victim that there was illicit relation between the husband of the victim and his ‘boudi’ for which she was mentally disturbed and was not happy with her marital life. 24. P.W. No. 19 is the family priest of P.W. 1 and he conducted the marriage of the victim and Tarun Das. This witness has only stated that he came to know from Purnima that she was no happy with her marital life. 25. P.W-7 has displayed unfriendly attitude towards the prosecution for which he has been declared hostile. The said witness has not supported the prosecution case at all and has resiled from his earlier statement altogether. So, his credibility has been seriously impeached and he stands thoroughly discredited. Accordingly, his evidence is rejected in toto. 26. Now, on careful scrutiny of the evidence of all the said witnesses it appears that the said witnesses in their respective evidence have stated that they came to know from the victim that Tarun Das had illicit relation with his Boudi and that Tarun Das asked Purnima Das (victim) to accept such relation between him and his Boudi and thereby inflicted mental torture on her. 27. Considering the aforesaid evidence with reference to Ext. 5, the diary admittedly written by the victim lady, it appears that Ext. 27. Considering the aforesaid evidence with reference to Ext. 5, the diary admittedly written by the victim lady, it appears that Ext. 5 does not disclose anything to establish that there was any illicit relation between Tarun Das and his Boudi and that the victim ever stated the said facts in the matter of illicit relation between Tarun Das and his Boudi to anybody else. We also find some contradictory observations of the victim in respect of Tarun Das and his Boudi in the said document (Ext. 5). 28. Admittedly, 28/29 days after coming to her father’s house, the victim committed suicide. No evidence is forthcoming to establish that during her (victim) stay in her father’s house, the convicts/appellants herein inflicted any physical and/or mental torture on her and that they also instigated and/or abated her to commit suicide. 29. After careful consideration of the evidence on record we are inclined to hold that there are major inherent inconsistencies and antagonistic contradictions so as to raise doubt as regards the genuineness of the evidence of the witnesses (P.Ws.). It is well settled that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless, the evidence is good enough to warrant a clear finding as to the facts and as to the guilt of the accused, no conviction under these Sections can be arrived at. 30. From the above discussions, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused person under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal code beyond all reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court. 31. Considering all aspects of the matter we find no rational justification for having any difference of opinion with the learned Trial Court. Having regard to all such facts and circumstances we find no merit in the present appeal which accordingly must be dismissed. 32. So, the Government appeal fails. 33. The Government appeal being G.A No. 20 of 2007 is accordingly dismissed on contest. 34. The Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court on 27. 6. 2005 in Sessions Trial Case No. 118 of 2002 are hereby affirmed. 35. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the LCR be sent to the learned court below at once for information and necessary action. 36. 34. The Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court on 27. 6. 2005 in Sessions Trial Case No. 118 of 2002 are hereby affirmed. 35. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the LCR be sent to the learned court below at once for information and necessary action. 36. Upon appropriate Applications being made, urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject usual terms and conditions. Tapen Sen, J., I agree.