JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 31.03.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Case No. ST 49(NT/K) of 2011, whereunder learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer SI for two years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for six months. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. 3. Fact, leading to the prosecution and punishment of the appellants, in short, is that marriage between accused appellant, Md. Kudrat Ali and the victim deceased, Majlufa Khanam was solemnized as per Muslim customary rites and ceremonies about 10/13 years before the date of occurrence, i.e. on 11.04.2009. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.04.2009 at about 8.00 am the accused convicts Md. Kudrat Ali (husband of the deceased), Md. Kadar Ali, nephew of Kudrat Ali and Mst. Sirai/Chirai Begam, wife of Kadar Ali, all physically assaulted Majlufa in the matrimonial home, i.e. in the house of Kudrat Ali, and thereafter Majlufa consumed poison in front of the house of a neighbour, Ahamed Ali and while she was on way to hospital died due to poisoning. 3.1. Kailashahar PS U.D. Case No. 10/2009 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered and S.I., Madhabi Das(PW10) prepared inquest report over the dead body in the hospital and, thereafter forwarded the body for postmortem examination. While she was investigating the U.D. case, on 14.04.2009, on the basis of an FIR lodged by Mst. Ramsun Nehar(PW1), Kailashahar PS Case No. 83/2009 under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up. The records of U.D. case was tagged with the records of the FIR case. 3.2. The informant Ramsun Nehar, inter alia, alleged that her daughter Majlufa was given in marriage with accused, Kudrat Ali about 10 years ago and that Kudrat and Majlufa had three children. Before the birth of child, Kudrat, at the instance of other accused persons named in the FIR, started physical and mental torture on Majlufa demanding money. 3.2. The informant Ramsun Nehar, inter alia, alleged that her daughter Majlufa was given in marriage with accused, Kudrat Ali about 10 years ago and that Kudrat and Majlufa had three children. Before the birth of child, Kudrat, at the instance of other accused persons named in the FIR, started physical and mental torture on Majlufa demanding money. About a year before the date of occurrence once Kudrat dealt ’dao’ blow on the head of Majlufa and a case was lodged but subsequently it was mitigated at the instance of the village elders and Majlufa started living in the husband’s house. She has also alleged that about 3/4 months ago she gave ` 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to Kudrat to meet the demand of money but the total demand of ` 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) could not be fulfilled. She has also alleged that on 11.04.2009 at about 8.00 am in presence of the children of Majlufa, at the instance Kudrat, accused Kadar at first abused Majlufa with filthy words and thereafter accused Kudrat Ali and Chirai, both assaulted her and thrown her on the ground and, thereafter accused Kudrat poured poison in her mouth. She further alleged that Md. Raju Miah, minor son of Majlufa came to Iranibazar and informed the fire service to save her mother and while Majlufa was on way to hospital she died. 3.3. Based on that FIR, SI Firuj Miah(PW16), I.O. of the case, after investigation submitted charge sheet against accused appellant and others for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306read with Section 34 of IPC. 3.4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and on commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants and another Alima Begam for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also proved the FIR, seizure list, inquest report, postmortem examination report and the seized materials. Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and in their turn they adduced no defence evidence. Defence case is that of denial of the prosecution case. 3.5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also proved the FIR, seizure list, inquest report, postmortem examination report and the seized materials. Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and in their turn they adduced no defence evidence. Defence case is that of denial of the prosecution case. It is also suggested that Majlufa Khanam was never dealt with cruelty in the matrimonial home and the allegation that she was beaten on 11.04.2009 was false. 3.6. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC but found the appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Section498A read with Section 34 of IPC. The other accused Alima Begam was acquitted from both the charges. 4. Let us first have a glimpse to the evidence on records: 4.1. PW1, the informant, mother of deceased Majlufa in her deposition stated that before 4/5 days of her death she gave rupees four/five thousand to meet the demand of the accused but after four days of payment, on a Saturday Kudrat Ali, his nephew Kadar Ali, wife of Kadar Ali, namely Chirai Begam and Alima Begam assaulted her daughter jointly and murdered her and that she learnt about the occurrence from her grandson, Raju Miah. She also stated that on the date of incident at 9.00 am Raju came to her house and told her that his father Kudrat, Kadar and wife of Kadar, namely Chirai and Alima had beaten her daughter and put poison after killing her. She heard that her daughter was taken to hospital by fire service vehicle and she rushed to the hospital and found her dead. Darogababu went there and prepared inquest report over the dead body and she signed on it. She took the dead body from the hospital and arranged for the funeral. She also stated that her daughter died on 11th and she submitted the FIR on 14th. FIR was written by Hussein Ali(PW13) and she signed it. She proved her signature and also identified the accused persons in the dock. In her cross-examination, she stated that she informed the PS earlier about the torture and demand of money. At the time of preparation of inquest report she told ’darogababu’ that the accused caused death of her daughter. FIR was written by Hussein Ali(PW13) and she signed it. She proved her signature and also identified the accused persons in the dock. In her cross-examination, she stated that she informed the PS earlier about the torture and demand of money. At the time of preparation of inquest report she told ’darogababu’ that the accused caused death of her daughter. She denied the suggestion that she did not pay ` 4/5,000/- (rupees four/five thousand) to her son-in-law and also denied the suggestion that her daughter took away ` 24,000/- (rupees twenty four thousand) kept by her husband and proceeded towards her house. 4.2. What the informant, i.e. PW1 stated in her deposition has no corroboration with the allegation made by her in the FIR. In the FIR she stated that about 3/4 months ago she gave ` 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to meet the demand and the entire demand of ` 15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) she could not fulfill. But in her deposition she stated quite contrary that about 4/5 days before the death of Majlufa she gave ` 4/5,000/- (rupees four/five thousand). There is no other corroborating evidence in respect of her payment of such amount to accused, Kudrat, i.e. the husband of Majlufa. The other allegation about assault and killing as stated by her is hearsay in nature since she stated that she was reported by PW2, Raju Miah but Raju Miah in his deposition stated nothing of the sort. 4.3. Raju Miah(PW2), the minor son of deceased Majlufa and accused Kudrat was declared hostile by the prosecution and his evidence is not supporting the evidence of PW1 that he reported about the incident to PW1 that the accused persons assaulted Majlufa. So, the evidence of PW1 except that she lodged the FIR carries no other material at all for consideration. 4.4. PWs 3, 4, 5 and 11 are all neighbours of the accused persons and are eyewitnesses of the occurrence. PW3 stated that the deceased and the accused persons were her neighbours and marriage between Majlufa and Kudrat was solemnized about 13 years ago. The relation between the husband and wife was bitter. She saw Kudrat beating Majlufa always. She also saw Kudrat Ali, Kadar Ali and wife of Kadar Ali beating Majlufa on several occasions. PW3 stated that the deceased and the accused persons were her neighbours and marriage between Majlufa and Kudrat was solemnized about 13 years ago. The relation between the husband and wife was bitter. She saw Kudrat beating Majlufa always. She also saw Kudrat Ali, Kadar Ali and wife of Kadar Ali beating Majlufa on several occasions. On 31.04.2009 at about 8.00 am there was huge quarrel in the house of the accused persons and she went there and found Kudrat, Kadar and Sirai beating Majlufa and Alima Begam was trying to disperse them but failed. Kudrat pressed her mouth, caught hold her hair and Kadar was beating her with ’lathi’. Wife of Kadar also had beaten her. Kudrat Ali took away her ’saree’ and when she was going forward Kadar Ali caught her blouse and torn it. She fell down and Kadar kicked her. Thereafter in half-dressed condition she went inside the room but Kudrat again entered in the room and kicked her on her chest. Kudrat tried to assault with a spade. She resisted Kudrat and he went out. Thereafter Majlufa gave her ` 5,402/- (rupees five thousand four hundred two) in a pot and told her to disburse the amount after her death. Thereafter, she(witness) left for her house. After a few minutes Kudrat came to search Majlufa and at that time he was holding a ’lathi’ in his hand. After sometimes younger son of Majlufa, namely Saju was weeping and her(witness) daughter told her that Majlufa was dead. She(witness) went to the house of Ahamed Ali and found Majlufa in dying condition in front of the house of Ahamed Ali. The neighbourers called fire service vehicle and auto-rickshaw. On the way to hospital Majlufa died. She came to learn that Majlufa died taking poison. In cross-examination, she stated that police recorded her statement after four days of the occurrence. She did not tell ’darogababu’ that quarrel was for dowry. The quarrel on the date of occurrence was over kerosene. The huts of Kadar and Kudrat were separate. She told ’darogababu’ that Kudrat searched his wife in her house and she resisted Kudrat when he tried to assault Majlufa with a spade. Attention was drawn to her previous statement under Section 161 of CrPC and that statement was not found. She denied the suggestion that Majlufa gave her ` 24,000/- (rupees twenty four thousand). She told ’darogababu’ that Kudrat searched his wife in her house and she resisted Kudrat when he tried to assault Majlufa with a spade. Attention was drawn to her previous statement under Section 161 of CrPC and that statement was not found. She denied the suggestion that Majlufa gave her ` 24,000/- (rupees twenty four thousand). She also denied the suggestion that she did not see the accused persons assaulting Majlufa. 4.5. PW4 in his deposition stated that Majlufa was her neighbour. Two and half years ago she saw quarrel between Majlufa and her husband Kudrat, Kadar and wife of Kadar, namely Sirai Begam. She also saw Kudrat, Kadar and Sirai assaulting Majlufa. She saw ’lathi’ in the hand of Kudrat. Kudrat told Kadar Ali and his wife Sirai to beat Majlufa Khanam. ’Saree’ was torn out. Inside the room she was again beaten, and thereafter Majlufa Khanam went out towards south with her son Saju. After fifteen minutes she died and she(witness) heard that Majlufa died taking poison. After marriage she used to see quarrel and beating between Kudrat and his wife. Quarrel was on different matters. There is nothing material in her cross-examination. 4.6. PW5, Md. Alauddin also stated that he was an adjacent neighbour of the deceased and the accused persons. Majlufa Khanam died about one year nine months ago. He saw Kudrat, Kadar and Sirai beating Majlufa Khanam. Mother of Kadar tried to disperse them. After assault she ran away with her minor son. Sometimes thereafter she died and he heard that she died by taking poison. For about two and half years Kudrat used to beat her regularly. After her death Kudrat again married. In connection with the case police visited the house of Kudrat on 14.04.2009 and Raju Miah, son of Kudrat produced a ’lathi’ and what was seized by the police. She signed the seizure list prepared by the police officer. She proved her signature i.e. Exbt. 2/2. 4.7. PW11, Abdul Wahid also stated that he saw the incident that Kudrat and his nephew Kadar assaulting Majlufa Khanam with ’lathi’. He could not resist them since the accused persons were violent. Sometimes thereafter he heard that Majlufa Khanam died taking poison. 4.8. She proved her signature i.e. Exbt. 2/2. 4.7. PW11, Abdul Wahid also stated that he saw the incident that Kudrat and his nephew Kadar assaulting Majlufa Khanam with ’lathi’. He could not resist them since the accused persons were violent. Sometimes thereafter he heard that Majlufa Khanam died taking poison. 4.8. PWs 6 and 7 are also adjacent neighbours of the accused and they stated about the death of Majlufa taking poison and they did not notice any quarrel between Majlufa and Kudrat. PW6 stated that relation between Kudrat and his wife was good. 4.9. PW14 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Majlufa Khanam and opined that death was caused because of taking organic phosphorous poison. 5. It is an admitted position that Majlufa Khanam lived and cohabited with accused Kudrat for about 10/13 years and they had three children and one of them was Raju Miah(PW2), aged about 10/12 years at the time of death of Majlufa, i.e. on 11.04.2009. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC arriving at a conclusion that the evidence on records do not support prosecution case that the accused persons abated the deceased to commit suicide but the learned trial Judge has arrived at a definite conclusion based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the accused persons and that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 11.04.2009 and thereby she was dealt with cruelty by the accused persons in the matrimonial home. 6. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has submitted that the incident occurred on 11.04.2009 but the FIR was lodged on 14.04.2009. Delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained and on this ground the prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved. 6.1. It is an admitted position that the FIR was lodged on 14.04.2009 and no explanation was given by the prosecution about the delay in lodging the FIR. In the evidence of PW10 we find that after the death of Majlufa, U.D. Case No. 10 of 2009 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered and she was investigating the case. She prepared inquest report over the dead body and it is an admitted position that PW1, the informant signed the inquest report. On that day PW1 did not lodge any FIR. She prepared inquest report over the dead body and it is an admitted position that PW1, the informant signed the inquest report. On that day PW1 did not lodge any FIR. But PW1 in her cross-examination stated that she told the police officer, at the time of preparing the inquest report, that the accused persons caused the death of her daughter. This contention of PW1 is not supported by PW10, the I.O. of the U.D. case. 6.2. No doubt, the delay in lodging FIR has not been explained in any manner and for such non-explanation of delay, whether the prosecution case is liable to be thrown overboard, in the given facts and circumstances of the case? 6.3. PW1, the mother of the deceased is not an eyewitness of the occurrence of 11.04.2009. A U.D. case was under investigation. After investigation of the U.D. case the police officer also did not lodge FIR if it was found that some cognizable offence was committed in connection therewith. Matrimonial offences are normally committed within four walls of the matrimonial home. PWs 3, 4 and 5 are close door neighbours of the accused and the deceased. They are eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Their evidence has not been shaken in any manner. Since their evidence has not been shaken, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground of delay in lodging FIR, I find no reason at all to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has further submitted that PW3 stated about an occurrence of 31.04.2009, whereas, the alleged incident occurred on 11.04.2008. So the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5 as well as PW11 are liable to be disbelieved. Accused persons and the witnesses are all residents of a remote village and are semi-literate. We cannot expect that the witnesses will be able to say the exact date of occurrence, but they have narrated the fact of the case vividly. PW3 stated about the date of occurrence as on 31.04.2009. Accused persons and the witnesses are all residents of a remote village and are semi-literate. We cannot expect that the witnesses will be able to say the exact date of occurrence, but they have narrated the fact of the case vividly. PW3 stated about the date of occurrence as on 31.04.2009. If PW3 was the lone witness of the occurrence, she would have been disbelieved for that discrepancy regarding the date but while there are other evidence of the eyewitnesses, her evidence also gets corroboration with that of the evidence of the other witnesses, i.e. PWs 4, 5 and 11 and therefore relying on the principles of separation of the grains from the chaffs, the evidence may be appreciated and accepted for the purpose of the prosecution case. On that ground I do not find any reason to discard the entire evidence of the prosecution. 8. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has further submitted that Ahamed Ali, in front of whose house, the deceased died taking poison has not been examined. Saju, son of the deceased, who was with her has also not examined and such non-examination vitiated the prosecution case. Ahamed Ali is not a witness to the occurrence. There is no evidence that Ahamed Ali was present at the time of death of Majlufa. There is also no evidence as to whether Saju was a grown up child or merely an infant. So, under such circumstances, Saju also cannot be said to be a very material witness to prove the prosecution case. This argument also does not inspire any confidence for consideration. 9. Section 498A of IPC has been inserted and brought into effect with a view to curb the vices of cruelty to a married woman by her husband and other relatives of the husband. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. The basic facts from which cruelty is to be inferred are to be alleged and proved. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. The basic facts from which cruelty is to be inferred are to be alleged and proved. For the purpose of an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, cruelty has been defined in the Explanation to the section which reads: (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 account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 10. The Supreme Court in the Case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 5 SCC 177 has considered as to what constitutes cruelty, as defined in Section 498-A of IPC. In Para 3 of the judgment, the Court has observed:- 3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: Whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz., (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms of Section 498(A). 11. In the present case, the neighbourers made specific statement that they often found accused Kudrat to physically assault his wife, the victim Majlufa. 11. In the present case, the neighbourers made specific statement that they often found accused Kudrat to physically assault his wife, the victim Majlufa. PWs 3, 4, 5 and 11 made clear and categorical statement that on the date of death of Majlufa at about 8.00 am the three convict-appellants physically assaulted Majlufa and thereafter Majlufa went out of the house with her minor son and she committed suicide taking poison in front of the house of Ahamad Ali. 12. The act of the accused persons clearly comes within the purview of Explanation(a) to Section 498A of IPC and I find justification in the finding of the trial Court in holding that the accused persons are guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. However, considering the fact that the deceased left behind three children who are with the accused Kudrat and the two other accused convicts are the nephew and wife of nephew of Kudrat, I think the sentence may be reduced. 13. Considering all aspects, the convicts Kudrat Ali and Kadar Ali are sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further SI for one month. Accused convict Sirai Begam, being a woman be released on probation on her execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge on condition to appear and receive sentence within a period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and to be of good behavior. During the period of probation she shall remain under the supervision of the probation officer of the district, who shall submit report time to time to the learned trial Judge about the conduct of the convict. 14. With this modification of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed. Send down the L.C. records along with a copy of the judgment. The convicts are directed to surrender and serve out the sentence.