JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J.:- Heard Mr. J. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant, the State of Tripura as well as Mr. H. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.06.2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2007 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur. 2. A complaint filed by Mamata Ghosh (P.W. 8) has disclosed that at the time of her marriage with the accused person, namely Arabinda Ghosh @ Shankar, her parents gave the said accused person, some valuable materials including cash of ` 50,000, golden ornaments and wooden furniture's. The complainant has stated in the complaint further that after 1-2 days of the marriage, the said accused person had started inflicting physical and mental torture on her for realising more Rs. 50,000 from her parents for purpose of starting a shop. Her mother-in-law, namely Smt. Bimala Rani Ghosh, the other co-accused had taken part or participated in such kind of torture alongwith the husband of the complainant. She had informed her parents about the torture, but the demanded money could not be provided for incapability of her parents. According to the complainant there was a village meeting in the house of one Ranjit Ghosh at Manik Bhander to amicably settle the dispute. In the said meeting the accused persons confessed their guilt and promised not to repeat such action in future. But, on 29.07.2006 at night, her mother-in-law and husband had started torture on her on demand of Rs.50,000 and driven her out from the room. She fell down on her knees and earnestly begged to allow her to stay in the hut for the night, but without any avail. Then she had to sleep on the open varandah of the hut. On the following morning she had returned to her parents house. Her brothers got her medically treated and thereafter she had lodged the complaint. She has also explained in the complaint that "delay has been caused by me in lodging the case (FIR) as I was waiting for the Panchayat. As the accused side did not attend the Panchayat, the Panchayat advised (me) to take resort to law. So 4 days delay has been caused in lodging the case". 3. She has also explained in the complaint that "delay has been caused by me in lodging the case (FIR) as I was waiting for the Panchayat. As the accused side did not attend the Panchayat, the Panchayat advised (me) to take resort to law. So 4 days delay has been caused in lodging the case". 3. What has surfaced from the complaint is that immediately after 1/2 days of their marriage, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture on demand of money quantified to be Rs. 50,000 and for inability of providing that money the torture continued unabated and ultimately on 29.07.2006 at night the complainant was physically tortured, tormented and driven out from her room. She was compelled to sleep in the open varandah for the remaining hours of the night and thereafter on the day break she had to return to her parents house. She was medically treated. Thereafter she had also approached the Panchayat for settlement of the matter. Since the accused persons did not turn up in the Panchayat, she had to file the complaint petition. 4. Based on the said complaint, Amtali P.S. Case No. 39/2006 was registered under Section 498A of the IPC and was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons, namely Arabinda Ghosh and Smt. Bimala Rani Ghosh under Section 498Aof the IPC. Accordingly, the charge was framed against them under Section 498A of the IPC, to which both the accused persons pleaded total innocence and claimed to face the trial. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has adduced as many as 13 witnesses including the complainant Mamata Ghosh (P.W. 8), her two brothers, namely Babul Ghosh (P.W. 5) and Sadhan Chandra Ghosh (P.W. 7) as well as her father Manindra Ghosh (P.W. 6). Even though from the neighborhood, four persons, namely Nirmal Paul (P.W. 1), Chunilal Deb (P.W. 2), Sushital Paul (P.W. 3) and Heera Paul (P.W. 4) were examined in the trial by the prosecution, but they did not state anything about the torture on P.W. 8. Even there is no dispute that P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the witnesses from the close neighborhood of the matrimonial home of P.W. 8. Even there is no dispute that P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the witnesses from the close neighborhood of the matrimonial home of P.W. 8. Sri Rakhal Deb Roy (P.W. 11), another witness from the village of P.W. 8, has stated that P.W. 8 had approached him for initiating the negotiation. Sri Tapash Kumar Das (P.W. 12) is the Investigating Officer. He did not elaborate much on the situs of the offence and the residences of the P.Ws. 1 to 4. Neither did he give any explanation under what circumstances a contingent of police had brought P.W. 8 and her husband to the Amtali Police Station, even though P.W. 1 has categorically stated that Arabinda and his wife Mamata were arrested by the police and taken to the Ambassa Police Station. Now, it has surfaced that the entire prosecution case is set up on the testimonies of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8. There cannot be any doubt that these witnesses are not only related witnesses, but P.Ws. 8, 5 and 7 are the full-blood brothers and sister whereas P.W. 6 is their father. 6. Mr. J. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.12.2007 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamalpur, North Tripura on two grounds : (i) all the witnesses are the interested witnesses and as such based on their testimonies the judgment and order of conviction cannot be returned and (ii) the victim (P.W. 8) did not inform in respect of the torture to the neighbouring people. Mr. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor has strenuously argued that the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur has completely ignored the settled position of law as regards the appreciation of the testimonies of the related witnesses. Apart that, he has succinctly submitted that when the offence is committed within the precincts of matrimonial home, in usual course those matters will not be taken out of the four corners of the matrimonial precincts and as such the impugned judgment and order requires interference from this court. 7. To rebut such submission of Mr. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. 7. To rebut such submission of Mr. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. H. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the primary consideration for appreciating the related witnesses is not to discard them on the face of their testimonies, but the court shall exercise adequate caution while appreciating their testimonies. If the court finds that those testimonies can be relied as a whole or in part, there is no legal bar to use such testimonies or their part for returning the conviction. But, Mr. Debnath, learned counsel did not forget to mention that in the circumstances of the case those witnesses cannot be believed for the simple reason that even though the place of occurrence and the parental home of the complainant situate in a long distance apart, but no other person had come forward to corroborate their assertions in the trial. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further submitted that the deposition of P.W. 8 is fraught with several irreconcilable contradictions. For illustration, Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has pointed out that P.W. 8 has stated that both the accused persons had resolved not to torture the complainant any further on demand of money, but in the cross-examination she has stated that "My mother-in-law did not participate in the negotiation meeting". Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further submitted that P.W. 8 cannot be trusted as a whole as she has shown her propensity to exaggerate things against the respondents. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also submitted that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, this court should rigidly apply the rigours of law. Unless perversity in appreciating the evidence is demonstrated the court shall not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal. 8. In rejoinder, Mr. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that P.W. 9 has categorically stated that the respondent No. 1, namely Arabinda Ghosh had resolved not to torture Mamata any further. 9. For appreciating the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are required to be re-appreciated. 10. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that P.W. 9 has categorically stated that the respondent No. 1, namely Arabinda Ghosh had resolved not to torture Mamata any further. 9. For appreciating the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are required to be re-appreciated. 10. P.W. 5, as it appears from the statement of Chunilal Deb (P.W. 2) had also visited the house of P.W. 2 for informing that on the previous night, Arabinda, one of the respondents and his wife were arrested by the police and taken to Ambassa Police Station, but neither P.W. 5 nor P.W. 7 did corroborate such statement. P.W. 3 has stated that in the month of August, 2006, one night Arabinda and Mamata were detained and taken by the police to the Ambassa Police Station. He has further submitted that P.W. 6, father of P.W. 8 had made a complaint against Arabinda for torturing his daughter, Mamata (P.W. 8). 11. P.W. 5, Sri Babul Ghosh, the full-blood brother of P.W. 8 has stated that her sister stayed with her husband for about seven months. During this period of her stay she used to inform them about her torture by her husband and mother-in-law on demand of money. At the instance of the village elders there was a negotiation meeting at Kalachari, where both the accused persons had resolved that they will not torture his sister any further. P.W. 5 also did not mention about the incident on 29.07.2006. 12. P.W. 6, Sri Manindra Ghosh, father of P.W. 8 has stated that after marriage P.W. 8 stayed with her husband for about 3/4 months and thereafter one day she came to his house and stated that her husband and in-laws had demanded ` 50,000, but she clearly stated of inability of her father providing that amount of money. Though P.W. 8 did not state about the incident of 29.07.2006, but she has stated that one day she came to the house of P.W. 6 and stated that on the previous night she was beaten by her husband and mother-in-law. 13. P.W. 7, Sri Sadhan Chandra Ghosh is another brother of P.W. 8. This witness however has referred the incident which took place on 29.07.2006 at night. He has stated that he was informed by P.W. 8 over phone. 13. P.W. 7, Sri Sadhan Chandra Ghosh is another brother of P.W. 8. This witness however has referred the incident which took place on 29.07.2006 at night. He has stated that he was informed by P.W. 8 over phone. P.W. 8 had informed him that she was beaten up by the accused persons and was made to remain outside the house for the whole night. On the next morning she returned their house, narrated the story and subsequently filed a complaint before the Ambassa Police Station. But, none of P.W. 5 or P.W. 6 did state about making arrangement of medical treatment of P.W. 8 as stated by P.W. 8 in her complaint. 14. The most vital witness in this case is the complainant, P.W. 8. She has stated that on 02.03.2006 her marriage was solemnised with Arabinda Ghosh at her father's house as per their rites and customs. She has further stated that she stayed with her husband for about 4/5 months and subsequently her in-laws had started asking money from her, to be realised from her father. On 29.07.2006 at night, both the accused persons beat her, made her to remain outside the house for the whole night and on the following morning she had returned to her parental house. Subsequently, she had filed the complaint in the Ambassa Police Station. However, in the cross-examination she had denied that the police had arrested her or taken to the police station. As stated, she has categorically stated that her mother-in-law did not participate in any negotiating meeting. 15. What is apparent from the testimonies of P.W. 8 is that she has substantially deviated from her statement as made in the complaint. She did not tell anything that she was tortured physically or she had returned to her parental house at Manik Bhander. Neither did she state anything about demand of Rs. 50,000 for purpose of starting a shop nor having the negotiation in the house of Ranjit Ghosh where Smt. Shilpi Das (P.W. 9) was present, nor that "on 29.7.06 A.D. last at night, my mother-in-law and my husband started inflicting physical torture upon me for that Rs. 50,000.00 and drove me out from my room". She has not stated that her brothers got her medically treated. As already observed, none of her brothers, P.Ws. 50,000.00 and drove me out from my room". She has not stated that her brothers got her medically treated. As already observed, none of her brothers, P.Ws. 5 and 7 did state in the court that they had arranged medical treatment of P.W. 8. 16. On aggregate consideration of the testimonies of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8, it would appear that there is substantial embellishment, exaggeration and improvements. More so, if such incident had occurred on 29.07.2006, it was only expected that immediately thereafter a complaint would be filed in the police station, but almost after four days such complaint was filed in the police station. However, there had been a feeble attempt to explain such delay in the First Information Report, but it would be apparent from the evidence that the fact related for such delay has not been proved by the prosecution at all. 17. Even though the analogy that has been provided by the appellate court for quashing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial court cannot be accepted for their irrelevancy, but for the reasons as discussed above, this court does not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. For lack of coherence in the statements of the vital witnesses, the benefit is bound to go to the accused persons. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.