JUDGMENT & ORDER : This petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2012 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1(1) of 2011 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, No.5, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment and order dated 05.12.2012, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. has been affirmed but the sentence awarded by the trial court (the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.6, Agartala, West Tripura) by the order dated 10.12.2010 delivered in case No. GR 642 of 2003 has been modified. The sentence of 3(three) years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 6(six) months has been reduced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months. It is to be noted that the other accused namely, Sumana Das (Bhowmik) has been acquitted by the impugned judgment and order from the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case for purpose of considering this petition may be noted at the outset. On 03.07.2003, the wife of the petitioner namely, Nupur Debnath filed a written ejahar to Battala police outpost [under West Agartala Police Station] alleging that she had been subjected to torture by her father-in-law, elder and younger brothers-in-law on 29.06.2003 at about 9.30 am on demand of different articles to be brought from her paternal home. She had revealed that for last 10 years, she was subjected to such torture. About one year prior to lodging of the written ejahar, the Tripura State Commission for Women made an attempt to mitigate the matter but without any positive yield. She has alleged against the petitioner that he was not willing to provide proper food to her complainant and lastly on 29.06.2003 they all assaulted the victim-complainant by pulling her hair, pushing her head on the wall repeatedly and thereafter, kept her locked in a room. The accused persons gave false information to the Women Police Station against her. Based on her ejahar, Women P.S. Case No.40 of 2003 under Section 498-A of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. The accused persons gave false information to the Women Police Station against her. Based on her ejahar, Women P.S. Case No.40 of 2003 under Section 498-A of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and one Ambaresh Bhowmik, father-in-law of the victim, Mrinal Bhowmik, Pijush Bhowmik, Sanjib Bhowmik, the brothers-in-law of the victim and Sumana Das Bhowmik who is wife of the co-accused, Sanjib Bhowmik. On taking cognizance, the charge was framed against all the accused persons under Section 498A of the IPC. For purpose of reference, the charge as framed is reproduced hereunder: “That since then years after the marriage of the informant Nupur Debnath (Bhowmik) and lastly on 29.06.2003 around 9.30 am. You being the husband and relatives of the husband respectively of the informant namely Smt. Nupur Debnath (Bhowmik) subjected her to cruelty by causing harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand of all of you for cash money, colour TV, Fridge etc. by causing physical and mental torture on her and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 498(A) of the India Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that all of you be tried on the said charge.” All the accused persons pleaded total innocence and claimed to face the trial. 3. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 13 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-13) including the victim, two medical officers namely Dr. Swapan Kr. Chanda (PW-4) and Dr. Sarajit Debbarma (DW-5) and also the investigating officer, namely Ila Deb. For the defence, no evidence has been led. 4. For all purposes, the statement of the victim is highly material in this case. The victim namely, Smt. Nupur Debnath (PW-1) has stated in the trial that on 29.06.2003 at about 6.30 a.m. her son, namely Argha Bhowmik urinated through window as there was heavy shower. Her father-in-law, Ambaresh Bhowmik abused her for that act. Her husband came forward and he started beating her child. When her husband had been beating her child, she protested. Then her brothers-in-law, Mrinal Bhowmik, Pijush Bhowmik, Sanjib Bhowmik and her sister-in-law Smt. Sumana Das Bhowmik came out and started assaulting her. Her father-in-law by pulling her hair pushed her head against a wall. Her husband came forward and he started beating her child. When her husband had been beating her child, she protested. Then her brothers-in-law, Mrinal Bhowmik, Pijush Bhowmik, Sanjib Bhowmik and her sister-in-law Smt. Sumana Das Bhowmik came out and started assaulting her. Her father-in-law by pulling her hair pushed her head against a wall. She sustained injuries on her forehead and also at the backside of her head. She has further stated that her brother-in-law, Pijush Bhowmik and Mrinal Bhowmik also physically assaulted her by fist and blows indiscriminately. Her brother-in-law, Sri Sanjib Bhowmik also physically assaulted her. He assaulted her by giving fist on her head and then blood started oozing from her hand. Sumana Das Bhowmik at that time was standing near the door. Her brother-in-law, namely Sanjib Bhowmik told Sumana to give a lathi by uttering that he would kill her. Sumana threw her chappal and taking that chappal Pijush and Mrinal assaulted her on her cheek. After keeping herself and her son inside the room, they locked the door from outside. At that time her father-in-law uttered that she had no ability to bring ‘char ana’ (4 paise) from her parental home. At about 1.30 pm., one police officer came to their house and she heard that they were laughing in the room of her father-in-law. After that her father-in-law opened the door in which she was confined from the time being. However, she thought that the police personnel came to save her. She felt that she would be taken to the hospital for treatment. But one police officer, namely Bidya Debbarma, pulling her by holding her hair, brought her outside from the room. Other police personnel were also present at that time. But none except Bidya Debbarma assaulted her. In order to save her, she held a grill of the verandah. At that time Sumana Das Bhowmik taking a piece of stone caused hurt on the wrist of her right hand. When the police had taken her forcibly, she appealed her father-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband to save her but they did not pay any heed to her request. At that time, her child was crying and the accused father-in-law uttered that the police would teach her a lesson. She was brought to the East Agartala police station by a police vehicle where she was also assaulted by the police. At that time, her child was crying and the accused father-in-law uttered that the police would teach her a lesson. She was brought to the East Agartala police station by a police vehicle where she was also assaulted by the police. Even thereafter, S.I namely, Sima Biswas and ASI Bidya Debbarma assaulted her again by stick on different parts of her both legs and she sustained injuries and she was crying. At about 3.30 to 4 pm her two elder sisters, namely Rita Debnath and Swapna Debnath came to the police station after receiving a telephonic information given by somebody. In their presence also, the police assaulted her by a stick. Seeing that her two sisters raised objection and enquired why they were beating her. Thereafter she was put in the lock-up in presence of her two sisters. Around 10 pm. the police released her from lock-up. Her two elder sisters shifted her to the IGM hospital where she treated for some time. Thereafter, she was referred to the GBP hospital but she refused to be taken in that hospital as the child was alone in the home. At about 11.30 pm. her two elder sisters brought her to her father’s house. Nobody from her in-laws house inquired about her. On 03.07.2003, her two elder sisters informed the matter to Tripura State Commission for Women, Agartala and they provided a vehicle by which she went to the office of the Commission. She narrated the story to the officers and members of the Tripura State Commission for Women. Then they advised to lodge an FIR at Battala police outpost. Accordingly, she lodged a written ejahar narrating all the incidents to the police officer. She has added in her deposition that at the request of the police officer she did not add what happened in the police station about the torture. On 04.07.2003, one police officer came to her father’s house when she narrated all the incidents and she had also shown the injuries to the said police officer. She was brought to the IGM hospital by an ambulance and from there to the GBP hospital where she was admitted as an indoor patient for about 5(five) days. On 04.07.2003, one police officer came to her father’s house when she narrated all the incidents and she had also shown the injuries to the said police officer. She was brought to the IGM hospital by an ambulance and from there to the GBP hospital where she was admitted as an indoor patient for about 5(five) days. She further narrated that she was given marriage in the year 1993 with the petitioner and after few months of their marriage, her husband started demanding one scooter, colour TV, fridge, washing machine and cash money from her father’s house. She used to inform about such demand to her elder sisters. In the year 1996, the accused persons raised further demands. Her husband, the petitioner herein, asked her to bring Rs.25,000/- from her father’s house to construct a house building. Her two sisters somehow managed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and thereafter, her husband had withdrawn the divorce petition. All the accused persons according to the victim used to harass her for such unlawful demand. But about one year back from the date of the said incident, Tripura Commission for Women was informed and the Commission tried to settle the matter amicably. The accused persons again told her that she would be taught a lesson by the police personnel. She has stated in the trial as follows: “Yesterday I met with Ld. A.P.P. who refreshed my memory by stating my statement recorded by I/O and at that time I could realize that what I stated to I/O are not recorded properly. I also lodged a separate complaint against police personnel before the court.” In the cross-examination, the victim has admitted that she and her husband were living in a separate mess. When she was referred to her statement made in the examination-in-chief as regards that she received the bleeding injuries caused by the accused persons, on showing her said statement as recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer and the ejahar, she could not find such statement there. Similarly, she could not find her statement that she was assaulted by her father-in-law, brothers-in-law namely, Mrinal Bhowmik, Pijush Bhowmik, Sanjib Bhowmik and sister-in-law Smt. Sumana Das Bhowmik. Similarly, she could not find her statement that she was assaulted by her father-in-law, brothers-in-law namely, Mrinal Bhowmik, Pijush Bhowmik, Sanjib Bhowmik and sister-in-law Smt. Sumana Das Bhowmik. She has admitted that she did not state to the scribe while writing the ejahar that her father-in-law opened the lock of the door and thereafter, the police forcibly brought her to the police station from her in-law’s house. Even the complaint she has claimed to have filed against the police was not recorded in the previous statement. Her statement in the examination-in-chief that while her husband had been beating her child, she raised protest and for that her brothers-in-law, Mrinal Bhowmik, Pijush Bhowmik, Sanjib Bhowmik and her sister-in-law Sumana Das Bhowmik rushed and started assaulting her-was not found in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Even her statement that she was pulled by her hair by her father-in-law or that he pushed her head against a wall for which she sustained injuries on her forehead and on the backside of her head she could not find in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Further, the statement that her brothers-in-law, Mrinal Bhowmik and Pijush Bhowmik assaulter her physically by fist and blows indiscriminately was not found. Further, the statement in the examination-in-chief as regards that Sanjib Bhowmik physically assaulted her was not found but she has stated that she made such statement against the brother-in-law, namely Sanjib Bhowmik. The incident of Sanjib asking Sumana to bring lathi was not found in her previous statement. Even the incident that Sumana had thrown her chappal or that Pijush and Mrinal assaulted her on cheek was also not found in her previous statement. Even in the previous statement, the victim could not find that Sumana had thrown a piece of stone causing hurt on her wrist of the right hand or the utterance as made relating to the police as referred in the examination-in-chief could not be located by the victim in her previous statement. Even in the previous statement, the victim could not find that Sumana had thrown a piece of stone causing hurt on her wrist of the right hand or the utterance as made relating to the police as referred in the examination-in-chief could not be located by the victim in her previous statement. What she stated in the examination-in-chief that one police officer, namely Bidya Debbarma kicked her or Bidya Debbarma and Sima Biswas assaulted her by stick on different parts of her body was also not found in the previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Even her statement that unless she withdrew her statement against the police officer she would not get the justice, could not be found in her previous statement. Even her statement that in presence of Rita Debnath and Swapna Debnath, the police assaulted her was not found or that she was put up in a lock-up thereafter was not found in her previous statement or in the written ejahar she lodged. Her statement as to taking her to the IGM hospital on the said night was also not found in her previous statement. She denied the suggestion that no demand was raised by her husband. Even her statement made in the examination-in-chief that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.25,000/- was not found in her previous statement. Even her statement that she informed previously to the Tripura State Commission for Women is not available in her previous statement. She has denied the suggestions that on 03.07.2003 Sumana Das Bhowmik lodged a complaint against her or Sanjib Bhowmik lodged a similar complaint on 30.06.2003. She denied the suggestion that she was not assaulted in the matrimonial home by the accused persons. 5. At this juncture, it may be noted that the omissions as pointed out during the cross-examination of the victim (PW-1) has been affirmed by the Investigating Officer, namely Ila Deb (PW-13) in her cross-examination and re-cross-examination and thus, the omission stood confirmed by the Investigating Officer. It would be appropriate to note the relevant part of the ejahar related to Agartala Women P.S. case No.40 of 2003 under Sections 498-A/109 of the IPC. It would be appropriate to note the relevant part of the ejahar related to Agartala Women P.S. case No.40 of 2003 under Sections 498-A/109 of the IPC. In the written ejahar made to the Officer-in-Charge of Battala Police Outpost on 03.07.2003, i.e. after four days of the alleged occurrence, the victim has stated as under: “Her husband namely Pranab Bhowmik and other inmates, namely father-in-law, brother-in-laws and wife of one of the brother-in-laws, namely Sumana Das Bhowmik subjected her both mental and physical torture for brining various articles from her paternal house or from the house of married sisters. She was subjected to such torture for 10 years. She even informed to the Tripura State Commission for Women. The Commission tried to bring out a settlement. She had expressed her desire to live in the matrimonial home but at the same time she has stated that she was not welcomed by her husband and other inmates. Her husband did not provide her proper food. On 29.06.2003 she was physically assaulted by the inmates. She was pushed to the grounds and her head was thrashed against a wall and she lost her sense at that point of time. At that time, she was locked in a room. Thereafter, a false allegation was filed against her to the Women Police Station.” She named all the accused persons in her written ejahar (Exbt.1). 6. PW-2, namely Ashim Debnath claims to be the brother of the victim. He has stated that her sister (the victim) had been subjected to torture on demand of dowry. According to him, the accused persons demanded fridge, one filter, one colour TV and cash money of Rs. 25,000/-. They also demanded washing machine. He has stated that he saw the petitioner committing torture on her sister. The victim also informed his elder sister, Rita Debnath and Swapna Debnath. However, he has admitted that on 29.06.2003, her sister Nupur was detained by the police and was taken to the police station. It has been also alleged that before the victim was taken to the police station, she was tortured by the petitioner and other inmates. The statement made by this witness in the trial as regards the unlawful demand could not be located by PW-2 in his previous statement. Similarly, his statement that he witnessed the torture was not found in his previous statement. The statement made by this witness in the trial as regards the unlawful demand could not be located by PW-2 in his previous statement. Similarly, his statement that he witnessed the torture was not found in his previous statement. Even his statement that the victim narrated the incident to her elder sisters was not found in his previous statement. The statement that he informed the police on 29.06.2003 that the accused persons tortured the victim physically was also not available in his previous statement. He denied the suggestion made by the defence. But in the cross-examination, he has made a positive statement as follows: “I cannot say whether any complaint was lodged against my sister by her husband, Pranab Bhowmik and her brother-in-law, Sanjib Bhowmik.” 7. PW-3, namely Smt. Basabi Dutta confirmed that on 16.02.2002, the victim lodged a complaint to the Commission where she was employed as an LDC. She wrote the ejahar which was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge, Battala Police Outpost and that was written as per dictation of the victim. In the cross-examination, she has also confirmed that on 05.12.2003, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the Commission against the victim. She has also admitted that on 03.01.2003, Sumana Das Bhowmik lodged another complaint against the victim. 8. PW-4, namely Dr. Swapan Kr. Chanda has stated that he found one bruise and two hematomas. PW-4 identified his report as Exbt.2. After perusal of the report in the trial, he has stated that the injuries can be self inflected. PW-4 revealed an important piece of fact that in the report there is no reference to history of assault to the injured. 9. PW-5, Sri Sarajit Debbarma is another medical officer. He had examined the victim on 23.06.2003 and found multiple bruises over the right and left arms. But he has specifically opined that these types of injuries can be caused by self infliction. 10. PW-6, namely Smt. Rita Debnath has replicated the story what PW-1 stated in the trial, even though admittedly she is not an eye witness. But she has stated that she accompanied the victim to Battala Police Outpost for lodging the ejahar. In the cross-examination, she stated that the petitioner was not part of the joint family and he used to live separately with the victim and their minor son. She denied the suggestions made by the defence. 11. PW-7, Anjan Kr. But she has stated that she accompanied the victim to Battala Police Outpost for lodging the ejahar. In the cross-examination, she stated that the petitioner was not part of the joint family and he used to live separately with the victim and their minor son. She denied the suggestions made by the defence. 11. PW-7, Anjan Kr. Bhowmik is the husband of PW-6. He has narrated what he had witnessed after the alleged occurrence. He has stated that his wife rushed to the police station after receiving a phone call. On the following day, when he visited his in-laws’ house, he found the victim there, when she had shown injury marks on her person. According to PW-7, the victim told that she was physically tortured by the accused persons. His statement that he stated to the police officer that the victim was physically assaulted by the accused persons is not borne in his previous statement. 12. PW-8, namely Smt. Minakshi Sen Bandopadhaya, who was the Member Secretary of the Commission at the relevant point of time did not ascribe to genuineness of the statement made to the Commission but she had asserted that the Commission conducted counseling to mitigate the problem. According to her, despite counseling, torture continued but she did not state the source of her knowledge. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the petitioner filed one compliant against the victim on 05.12.2002. She has admitted that there was allegation and counter-allegation about their matrimonial life. Even one of her in-laws filed one complaint to the Commission on 03.01.2003. He made a significant statement that she stated to the police officer that the other accused persons used to instigate her husband to commit such torture, but no such statement is borne in her previous statement. She denied the suggestions as advanced by the defence. 13. PW-9, Sri Arghya Bhowmik, son of the victim and the petitioner is a witness of tender age. After examining veracity, his statement was recorded. He has stated that he has been living with her mother separately as his father (the petitioner) assaulted him and his mother. He in the cross-examination has stated that he was also brought to the court by the victim and her elder sisters. The statement that he made in the examination-in-chief is not borne in his earlier statement recorded by the police officer. 14. He in the cross-examination has stated that he was also brought to the court by the victim and her elder sisters. The statement that he made in the examination-in-chief is not borne in his earlier statement recorded by the police officer. 14. PW-10, Smt. Sima Saha has stated that on the day of the occurrence, she heard hue and cry and when she came out of her house, he saw two police personnel taking away the victim. She has also categorically stated in the cross-examination that the victim never made any complaint to her. 15. PW-11, Sri Himanghsu Debnath has stated nothing material but he has stated that there was some matrimonial discord for which he attended reconciliatory meeting. He denied to have any personal knowledge about the families. 16. PW-12, namely Debabrata Datta Chowdhury is a neighbour of the petitioner. He has also stated that though he is a closed door neighbour. The victim never complained against her husband or any member of her husband’s family. 17. PW-13, Smt. Ila Deb, the investigating officer, has given an elaborate narration how she conducted the investigation by visiting the place of occurrence, recording the statements of the victim and other witnesses collecting the injury report and thereafter, on 18.09.2003, she filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. She has stated that on 29.06.2003, one of the accused namely, Sumana Das Bhowmik (Das) reported that victim threatened her of dire consequences. Even the victim assaulted her. The information was lodged to the police for peace and tranquility. Referring to the relevant GD entry No.544 dated 29.06.2003 she made a statement that Bidya Laxmi Debbarma one ASI went to the place of occurrence at Dhaleswar, Agartala. As stated earlier, she has confirmed the statement in her re-examination. All the accused persons except the petitioner are acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A/109 of the IPC. The trial court however by the judgment 10.12.2010 delivered in case No. GR 642 of 2003, emanating from the said investigation, on the purported appreciation of the evidences on record, convicted the petitioner and Sumana Das Bhowmik under Section 488-A of IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 3(three) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default imprisonment for 3(three) months. Both the petitioner and said Sumana Das Bhowmik filed two separate appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 1(1) of 2011 [Pranab Kr. 10,000/- each with default imprisonment for 3(three) months. Both the petitioner and said Sumana Das Bhowmik filed two separate appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 1(1) of 2011 [Pranab Kr. Bhowmik vs. State of Tripura] and Criminal Appeal No.2(1) of 2011 [Sumana Das Bhowmik vs. State of Tripura]. By the common judgment dated 05.12.2012, conviction of Sumana Das Bhowmik was interfered with and she was acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. However, the conviction of the petitioner under Section -498-A of the IPC has been maintained by the appellate court. 18. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the contradiction and the omissions as brought in the record of evidence are so vital in nature, both the courts have failed to appreciate those in the context. He has submitted that regarding the delay in lodging the FIR the courts below did not consider in the perspective as emerged in this case. The victim and her sisters were in the police station but they did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner and his inmates. From the GD entry and the allegation made to the Commission, it is apparent on the face of record that the victim had been making troubles in the matrimonial life of the petitioner. What is interesting, according to Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, is that the victim had been changing the statement about the occurrence every now and then and those are manifest on the records. Regarding the demand, there are deviant statements and it is so, so far the injuries are concerned. The victim had made two contradictory statements about her injuries. According to her, the police tortured the victim in the custody and the victim again subscribed that she was tortured by her inmates. The victim has asserted that she was taken to the police station, she did not claim that she made any complaint against the petitioner or his inmates of the police. It appears clearly that the victim was bent to take retribution against the entire family of the petitioner. Nobody from the neighbourhood came forward to say single word against the accused persons. Even the statement made by the Member Secretary and another officer of the Commission appeared to be superficial and hence, no value can be added to their statements. 19. From the other side, Mr. Nobody from the neighbourhood came forward to say single word against the accused persons. Even the statement made by the Member Secretary and another officer of the Commission appeared to be superficial and hence, no value can be added to their statements. 19. From the other side, Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P. appearing for the State has however submitted that it cannot be denied that serious contradictions have been successfully brought and recorded in the evidence which strike at the root of the probative value of the testimonies but if all the circumstances as narrated by the witnesses are brought together, it would be apparent that the victim was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A, Explanation B of the IPC and as such, no interference in the impugned judgment and order is called for. 20. This Court has securitized the records afresh. Thereafter, having due regard to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and the State it is of the view that the exaggeration and improvements have been made a galore by the victim and her related witnesses. If the disclosures are considered from the point of filing of the ejahar to the statements made in trial, it would be amply clear that in the circumstances it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The allegation in the ejahar against the petitioner is a casual reference and there is no specific allegation at all against the petitioner in the occurrence on 29.06.2003. However, there is an allegation of continuous cruelty. PW-13 has categorically stated that on 29.06.2003, they received a complaint from Sumana Das Bhowmik that one of the accused stating about the violent behaviour of the victim. Without repeating the relevant part of the testimonies, it can safely be said that the standard of proof i.e. beyond reasonable doubt could not be conformed by the prosecution. Moreover, the courts below acquitted the other accused persons against whom there are much serious allegations. Mere status of being a husband cannot be treated as an additional piece of evidence to return the finding of conviction. Moreover, the courts below acquitted the other accused persons against whom there are much serious allegations. Mere status of being a husband cannot be treated as an additional piece of evidence to return the finding of conviction. This Court is constrained to observe that when the accused persons are entitled to be assessed by similar tools of appreciation but in this case, the same did not happen. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to such benefit. As such, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2012 is interfered with and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge on benefit of doubt. In the result, this petition stands allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.