JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This petition filed under Section 397 read Section of 401 of the Cr.P.C. has questioned the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 07.08.2013 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, hereafter referred to as the appellate court. By the said judgment dated 07.08.2013, the judgment dated 22.03.2013 delivered in case No. GR No. 163 of 2011 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura, hereafter referred to as the trial court, convicting the petitioners under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC has been affirmed. It is to be noted that in consequence of that judgment of conviction, the petitioners were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 2(years) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2(two) months each. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the written complaint filed by the victim in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar, North Tripura on 24.10.2011 disclosing that the victim married one Goutam Chandra Debnath, the petitioner No. 1 herein, on 11.03.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. After 10 months of their marriage, the petitioners started pressurizing to bring Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) from her parental house on selling her father’s landed property. The said amount was demanded for purpose of doing business. When the victim expressed her inability, she was abused and thereafter, the petitioner No. 2, the brother-in-law of the complainant, the petitioner No. 3, the father-in-law of the victim and the petitioner No. 4, the mother-in-law of the victim assaulted her physically. The victim bore all such atrocities. Even when she was carrying pregnancy of 5(five) months, she was physically tortured by the petitioner No. 1. Before one month of delivery, she was again tortured by the petitioner No. 1, aided by other three petitioners. She disclosed that one person namely, Smt. Parul Debnath (PW-4) witnessed the said occurrence which occurred on 24.04.2011. One ‘ASHA’ worker namely, Shanta Rani Nath came to know of such assault from the victim. Even the newly born baby was snatched from her in order to cause mental cruelty. The said newly born baby died on 30.08.2011. She disclosed that one person namely, Smt. Parul Debnath (PW-4) witnessed the said occurrence which occurred on 24.04.2011. One ‘ASHA’ worker namely, Shanta Rani Nath came to know of such assault from the victim. Even the newly born baby was snatched from her in order to cause mental cruelty. The said newly born baby died on 30.08.2011. On 30.08.2011, the victim was put under serious duress to give consent to the petitioner No. 1 for contracting another marriage. As she declined to do so, she was again physically tortured on 31.08.2011. She overheard that the petitioners were planning to kill her through one person namely, Sabita Nath. On apprehension of life, she sent that information to her paternal home. Having received the said alarming information, father of the victim namely, Dayananda Nath (PW-6) along with one person namely, Uday Debnath (PW-7) appeared in the village where her matrimonial home is situated. They informed that occurrence to the local elders but they expressed their inability in taking any role for holding any dialogue. At that time, Sri Harihar Nath (PW-5) advised the complainant’s father to take her to her parental home. When they reached to her matrimonial home, the victim had shown the marks of violence on her person. On 20.09.2011, the victim left the matrimonial home in order to save her. After a month i.e. on 24.10.2011, the said complaint was filed which was sent for investigation by the trial court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the case being Kanchanpur P.S. case No. 96 0f 2011 under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the final police report charge-sheeting the petitioners was filed and on taking cognizance, the charge was framed under Section 498-A of the IPC against all the petitioners to which the petitioners pleaded total innocence and claimed to face the trial. 3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 9 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-9) including the victim, Smt. Sabitri Rani Nath and Sri Bhabotosh Talukder (PW-9), the investigating officer. The prosecution has also admitted 7 (seven) documentary evidence. In order to rebut, from the defence one witness namely, Smt. Anjali Chakma (DW-1) was examined. 3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 9 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-9) including the victim, Smt. Sabitri Rani Nath and Sri Bhabotosh Talukder (PW-9), the investigating officer. The prosecution has also admitted 7 (seven) documentary evidence. In order to rebut, from the defence one witness namely, Smt. Anjali Chakma (DW-1) was examined. It is to be noted that after recording of the evidence as laid by the prosecution, all the petitioners were examined separately under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating materials and repeated the plea of innocence. 4. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court by the judgment dated 22.03.2013 returned the finding of conviction against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the IPC on holding that: “From the evidences on record, it is crystal clear that in this case the fact of cruelty and mental cruelty, dowry demand by the accused persons as a whole were there. There are clear evidence that accused persons also committed assault, beating upon victim lady and all the witnesses of the prosecution systematically disclosed about the fact.” 5. The said judgment and order of conviction dated 22.03.2013 was challenged in the appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2013. By the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2013, the appellate court has observed that: “..........I find that there is no material infirmity in the judgment of the Ld. trial court in so far as he has convicted the appellant u/s 498(A)/34 of IPC. As such I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Ld. trial court does not suffer from any infirmity and so it does not call for any interference in this appeal.” This revision petition questions that judgment whereby the appeal has been dismissed outright. 6. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has emphatically submitted that the evidence against the petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 does not constitute any offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. That apart, the evidence in respect of ‘unlawful demand’ and ‘harassment’ is so inadequate, that the conviction as returned by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is rendered unsustainable. As corollary, it requires interference from this Court. According to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel, even if it assumed that the money as demanded by the petitioner No. 1 for business that cannot be treated as unlawful demand. As corollary, it requires interference from this Court. According to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel, even if it assumed that the money as demanded by the petitioner No. 1 for business that cannot be treated as unlawful demand. In support of that contention, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 , where the word cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC had fallen for consideration: “21. ‘Cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498- A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of S. 498-AIPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/ inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498- A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 7. It has been further contended that ‘cruelty’ can be said to have been established, when a demand can be called and attributed to be unlawful demand. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel to elucidate that aspect of the matter has referred a decision of the apex court in Vipin Jaiswal vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 684 , where it has been enunciated as under: “6. We have perused the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4, the father and mother of the deceased respectively. We find that PW 1 has stated that at the time of marriage, gold, silver articles, ornaments, T.V. fridge and several other household articles worth more than Rs. 2,50,000/- were given to the appellant and after the marriage, the deceased joined the appellant in his house at Kagaziguda. He has, thereafter, stated that the appellant used to work in a xerox cum type institute in Nampally and in the sixth month after marriage, the deceased came to their house and told them that the appellant asked her to bring Rs. He has, thereafter, stated that the appellant used to work in a xerox cum type institute in Nampally and in the sixth month after marriage, the deceased came to their house and told them that the appellant asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from them as he was intending to purchase a computer and set up his own business. Similarly, PW4 has stated in her evidence that five months after the marriage, the appellant sent her away to their house and when she questioned her, she told that the appellant was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and that the demand for money is to purchase a computer to start his own business. Thus, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 is that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant was made six months after the marriage and that too for purchasing a computer to start his own business. It is only with regard to this demand of Rs. 50,000/- that the Trial Court has recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offence under Section 304B, IPC and it is only in relation to this demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a computer to start a business made by the appellant six months after the marriage that the High Court has also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court with regard to guilt of the appellant under Section 304B, IPC. In our view, both the Trial Court and the High Court failed to appreciate that the demand, if at all made by the appellant on the deceased for purchasing a computer to start a business six months after the marriage, was not in connection with the marriage and was not really a 'dowry demand' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 10. This Court has held in Appasaheb and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 : “In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India vs. Garware Nylons Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 558 ).” 8. In the last lap of his submission, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has emphatically submitted that it has been trend in the society, on a frivolous matter in the backdrop the marital discord to launch a criminal proceeding against the husband and his close relatives without proper deliberation. In this context, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , where the apex court held as under: “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the victim that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the victim resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 9. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has in order to refute the submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that from the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), PWs. 2 & 3, the element of physical torture has been well established by the prosecution. Even they have narrated what they had heard as the cause of such physical assault. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that from the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), PWs. 2 & 3, the element of physical torture has been well established by the prosecution. Even they have narrated what they had heard as the cause of such physical assault. Their transferred statements have been supported by the originator, PW-1. Even PW-5 who is a man of 80 years has stated that the victim approached him to mitigate her harassment by her husband but for obstinacy of the petitioners, no amicable settlement was at sight. Thus, the ‘initiative’ as taken by the Panchayat was frustrated. According to Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., PW-6 has corroborated the narrative of the victim. PW-6 being the father of the victim has disclosed that on overhearing. The discussion between his daughter and Gobinda Nath, the father-in- law of the victim, he went to her matrimonial home and found her in a battered condition. Even PW-7, according to Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has corroborated the prosecution’s case and he narrated that he conceived a design when such harassment was aggravated that the victim’s husband was intending to marry again. PW-8 also stated that the victim had narrated to him how for unlawful demand she was harassed by the petitioners. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has further submitted that the dowry is a form of unlawful demand but unlawful demand does not end in the form of dowry only. The character of the demand whether is lawful or not, has to be determined by assessing the entire transaction. Further, he has submitted that more could be said of social the trends why the prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC is to be rigorously pursued but the evidentiary materials in a particular case are the premises for drawing an inference of innocence or guilt. As Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. while making response to the assessment or probative value of the testimonies, as some of the vital testimonies are from the related witnesses, he has submitted that usually revelation of cruelty is made to the related person and hence, their testimonies cannot be rejected as of interested witnesses. In this regard, he has referred a decision of Bombay High Court in Nandkishore alias Kishore Bhimrao Kshirsagar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cri. L.J. 3706, where it has been held as under: “Taking up Mr. In this regard, he has referred a decision of Bombay High Court in Nandkishore alias Kishore Bhimrao Kshirsagar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cri. L.J. 3706, where it has been held as under: “Taking up Mr. Ovelekar's first contention first, we would like to emphasis that it would be only natural to except that a wife would disclose allegations of such a nature against her husband only to her close relations. This is because the apprehension is that the person who is told about such a thing should be dependable enough to keep it to himself. Apart from it, the question of self respect of the person who makes such a disclosure is also involved and therefore such disclosures are only made to near relations. We may further mention that the norms of appreciation of evidence only warrant that the evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized with caution. It is not the law that such evidence should be mechanically rejected.” 10. For purpose of appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the State, it would be apposite that a brief survey of the evidence recorded is taken up by this Court. PW-1, namely Sabitri Rani Nath filed the complaint based on which Kanchanpur P.S case No. 96/2011 under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC was registered. She admitted the complaint (Exbt.1) in the evidence. As there is no dispute in respect of the marriage, this Court will not make any note on that aspect. She stated in the trial that on demand of Rs. 1.5 lac which amount was proposed to be brought from her parents, she was subjected to physical assault and other forms of harassment. She has categorically stated that ‘my husband started assault and other in laws instigated with the work and misdeed.’ She had informed the matter to Shanta Nath @ Shanta Rani Nath (PW-3) who was working as the ‘ASHA’ worker. As at the relevant time she was attending PW-1 as she was carrying pregnancy. She was put to continuous harassment. After delivery of the child, she was completely segregated. Her new born child died. She was taken to her parental home at that time. On her return, she heard her mother-in-law was suggesting remarriage of her husband, in the subsistence of the marriage with PW-1. She was put to continuous harassment. After delivery of the child, she was completely segregated. Her new born child died. She was taken to her parental home at that time. On her return, she heard her mother-in-law was suggesting remarriage of her husband, in the subsistence of the marriage with PW-1. When she raised her serious objection, the petitioner No. 1 attempted to kill her at the instance of her mother-in-law, as she was the main initiator. However, the father-in-law had informed the matter to her father. Then her father came to her matrimonial home. That resulted in a village meeting presided by one Harihar Nath (PW-5). But PW-5 did state in the trial differently. The suggestions as made to her in the cross-examination were all denied, but she has admitted that she did not visit any doctor for physical assault. But she had volunteered to state that after she went to her paternal home, she was attended by the doctor. But no injury report has been furnished from the prosecution. According to her, the proposal for second marriage was also discussed in the said village meeting. 11. PW-2, Smt. Sabita Nath admitted to be a distant relation of PW-1. She has categorically stated that she heard some hot altercation between the victim and the accused persons. One day about one year back from the day when she deposed in the court, she was called by the younger brother of Goutam Debnath, husband of PW-1, to pacify PW-1 as she was crying. Thereafter, she stated in the trial as under: “I found her crying on the verandah and all the bungles were broken up. I found some bruises in the face of the victim. She disclosed on my query that she was badly assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law. On earlier occasion, Smt. Sabitri disclosed to me that her husband had a constant unlawful demand of money from the victim possibly for the non-fulfillment with the demand the assault was committed.” In the cross-examination, which was also pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the petitioners that PW-2 admitted that her house is not in an audible distance from the house of the accused persons. But PW-2 has volunteered that she went to the house of the accused persons on request of the brother of Goutam Debnath. 12. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the petitioners that PW-2 admitted that her house is not in an audible distance from the house of the accused persons. But PW-2 has volunteered that she went to the house of the accused persons on request of the brother of Goutam Debnath. 12. PW-3, namely Shanta Rani Nath who had attended the victim for her pregnancy as the ‘ASHA’ worker as she hailed from the same locality, she knew the victim and the petitioners. She has stated that ‘Nearly 1 and ½ years back one day there was assault upon the victim Smt. Sabitri Nath and after her delivery of child I went to the house of victim with iron tablets. I went for health care activities for the victim wife but she disclosed that she was assaulted by the APs. She also shown me some mark of injury on her legs and different parts of the body. I did not ask why she was assaulted. I suggested her to digest those misdeeds for her greater interest of the family life.’ 13. PW-4, Smt. Parul Nath is a close neighbour and used to visit frequently to the matrimonial home of the victim. She saw the victim crying one day but she did not divulge anything more. 14. PW-5, namely Harihar Nath, the village elder who has stated to have presided over the meeting for mitigating the discord has testified as under: “Nearly 02 years back the father of victim went to my home at about 1 pm in the noon. He requested me to go with him in the house of Gobinda Debnath for giving her daughter. At that time victim girl Smt. Sabitri was residing in her matrimonial home. He also disclosed that Smt. Sabitri was harassed and assaulted by her husband and in laws. I expressed my inabilities to go there. I expressed my inability due to the fact that APs Goutam and Gobinda Debnath etc. are adamant are not obedient to the Panchayet directions.” In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not arrange for any salish earlier. 15. PW-6, Dayananda Nath, the father of the victim (PW-1). He has corroborated that there was a demand of Rs. 1.5 lac and that demand was made by Goutam Debnath, husband of the victim. are adamant are not obedient to the Panchayet directions.” In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not arrange for any salish earlier. 15. PW-6, Dayananda Nath, the father of the victim (PW-1). He has corroborated that there was a demand of Rs. 1.5 lac and that demand was made by Goutam Debnath, husband of the victim. As she could not fulfill that demand for financial constraint, the accused started physical and mental torture for realizing the unlawful demand. PW-6 testified that Gobinda, the father- in-law of the victim complained of her daughter that she was unruly. He heard that her daughter Sabitri would be killed by the accused persons. After two days after hearing the uttering, he visited his daughter’s matrimonial home, when PW- 1 disclosed that Goutam has been planning to marry for the second time. When PW-1 raised objection, she was tortured further. From that incident, after about 6 months, PW-1 called him up and narrated her vulnerable situation. Then again, he visited the matrimonial home or his daughter and found her badly assaulted by the petitioners. Then he took his daughter in his home and made arrangement for treatment. Thereafter, PW-1 never visited the matrimonial home. The incident of having a call from her daughter has been pointed out to have been not stated to the police officer who recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 16. PW-7, namely Udai Debnath is the uncle of PW-1. He has stated that when he came to learn that on demand of money to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs his niece was being assaulted, he suggested his younger brother (PW-6) to arrange some money. But he flatly denied as he was under serious financial constraint. When the child was born, the situation went worse. At the age of 6 month, the new born child died. He has testified that he learnt that the husband of PW-1 was planning to marry second time. Thereafter, he has stated thus: “One day Gobinda (one of the accused) made a phone call to me that Smt. Sabitri has creating problem in her matrimonial home. I heard some shouting that she was going to be killed by the APs at the time of discussion over phone by me with Goutam Debnath. Smt. Sabitri also made a phone call to us and we accordingly, went to the house of matrimonial home. I heard some shouting that she was going to be killed by the APs at the time of discussion over phone by me with Goutam Debnath. Smt. Sabitri also made a phone call to us and we accordingly, went to the house of matrimonial home. We went to the village headman, Harihar Nath but he expressed his inability as APs were aggressive and unruly. We accordingly, took Smt. Sabitri for treatment in our home.” 17. PW-8, namely Uttam Debnath is a distant nephew of the victim. He has stated that from the inmates of the victim, from whom he came to know that on demand of Rs. 1.5 lacs, she was being continuously assaulted as her father declined to pay the demanded sum. He did not reveal anything further of material importance thereafter. 18. PW-9, namely Bhabotosh Talukdar was the investigating officer. He has narrated how he conducted the investigation by preparing the hand sketch map and recording the statements of the witnesses etc. In the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he cannot say whether the victim took any medical assistance in her matrimonial home as in this regard, nothing has transpired in the investigation. According to him, the delay was caused as there was an endeavour to settle the matter amicably. 19. It is to be pointed out that in order to rebut the evidence, from the defence one Smt. Anjali Chakma was examined as DW-1. She has simply testified that the victim did never whisper anything of assault on her by the accused. In the cross-examination, however she has admitted that she was not free with Smt. Sabitri Nath in respect of marital problems and she was not a regular visitor in the house of the accused persons. But she has admitted that there was a ‘boithok’ in the house of a village elder. 20. On appreciation of the facts, the trial court, the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura passed the judgment of conviction against the petitioners under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC on termination of trial [Case No. GR 163/2011]. On returning the finding that from a wholesome assessment, it transpires that the victim herself has stated how she was treated in the matrimonial home for non realization of demand of Rs. 1.5 lacs. For non-realization, the victim was treated by physical assault and harassment. On returning the finding that from a wholesome assessment, it transpires that the victim herself has stated how she was treated in the matrimonial home for non realization of demand of Rs. 1.5 lacs. For non-realization, the victim was treated by physical assault and harassment. Even for such serious matrimonial discord, some attempts were made by the father of the victim for mitigation. It is on records that intervention of the villagers was sought, but without any avail. PW-2 is one of the witnesses who visited immediately in the aftermath of one of such assaults. PW-3 has also witnessed the marks of injuries on the person of the victim. Having found the corroboration to the victim’s narrative, finally it has been observed that the evidence is overwhelming to establish the charge. Accordingly, the petitioners were convicted under Sections 498-A of the IPC holding that in such cases testimonies of related cases cannot be unceremoniously rejected. The petitioners were sentenced to suffer two years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 498-A of the IPC. When challenged in an appeal filed under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C. being criminal appeal No. 10 of 2013 in the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, the said judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2013 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed even without modification in the sentence. 21. From appreciation of the evidence, this Court did not find any cogent evidence to convict the petitioner No. 2, Uttam Debnath, the petitioner No. 3, Sri Gobinda Debnath and the petitioner No. 4, Smt. Minia Debnath under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC inasmuch as, even PW-1 did not state that any of those petitioners did assault her on unlawful demand or at all. Even to saddle them with a liability of offence under Section 34 IPC no element of common intention, even for realization of the unlawful demand has been placed in the evidence. As such, those petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, their conviction and sentence as challenged in this petition are interfered with and set aside. To that extent, the impugned judgment is quashed. Their sureties are also discharged from their respective obligations. However, this Court finds sufficient materials to affirm the finding of conviction against the petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, their conviction and sentence as challenged in this petition are interfered with and set aside. To that extent, the impugned judgment is quashed. Their sureties are also discharged from their respective obligations. However, this Court finds sufficient materials to affirm the finding of conviction against the petitioner No. 1. Thus, the conviction and sentence as awarded against the petitioner No. 1, Goutam Debnath is not warranted to be disturbed and accordingly, the same is affirmed. The petitioner No. 1 shall surrender in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura to suffer the sentence within a period of 30 days from today. In the event of non-compliance, stern coercive action shall be taken by the trial court to ensure that the petitioner No. 1 suffer the sentence imposed by the order dated 22.03.2013. 22. In the result, this petition is allowed in part, to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.