JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. 1. Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 7th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Hooghly in S.T. No. 09 of 2010 wherein the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the appellants, learned Trial Court wrongly held that there was torture upon the victim. He also categorically submitted that soon before her death, she was never tortured nor there was any iota of evidence to that effect. Learned Trial Court, according to him, failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives. Ventilating his such grievance he has prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 3. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there are enough ingredients of Section 498A and the judgment of the learned Trial Court is quite unimpeachable. 4. In the interest of effective adjudication, prosecution case has to be revisited. The prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that victim's marriage was held with Satyajit Bakshi and that was a love marriage. Soon after the marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her in-laws. The victim herself has lodged complaint against the appellants in Chinsurah Police Station under the Protection of Women Act. Thereafter the victim as well as her husband were forced to leave that place and they began to reside at their maternal aunt's house at Bhatshala Police Station Haringhata. On 19/6/2006 at or about 8 pm. The de-facto complainant got an information over telephone from his son-in-law that victim breathed her last by way of hanging. First Information Report was lodged and in this way the law was set into motion. 5. The defence case as appears from the trend of examination and cross-examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is their innocence and that they have been falsely implicated. It is the specific case of the defence that for the last seven to eight months there was no torture because they were in separate mess. 6. 5. The defence case as appears from the trend of examination and cross-examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is their innocence and that they have been falsely implicated. It is the specific case of the defence that for the last seven to eight months there was no torture because they were in separate mess. 6. However, pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. the learned Trial Court has framed the charges under Section 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Since the witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice, so we should scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses very meticulously. 8. At the very threshold it can be said that the learned Trial Court did not find any material under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. State has also accepted that because there is no such prayer for conviction against acquittal of Section 306. 9. Let us listen to the witnesses. 10. P.W. 1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that during the victim's stay at her in-law's house the appellants did not behave well with his daughter. They inflicted physical and mental torture upon her. At the same time, it has been admitted by the P.W. 1 in his evidence-in-chief that before seven to eight months of alleged incident his daughter left the place of abode and had been residing in the house of Lakshi Majumder (maternal aunt) at Bhatshala village under Haringhata Police Station. 11. In course of cross-examination he has stated that at the time of marriage of his daughter her husband Satyajit Bakshi used to do some business, but he failed to say the income of his son-in-law. He categorically stated that he never visited the business place of his son-in-law. He also admitted that after the said so-called marriage his son-in-law has taken his daughter to Gandhi Colony at Bandel where the appellants had been residing. They were residing there for about one year. During this period he never visited the victim's matrimonial home. He also admitted that he never accompanied his daughter in his house while the victim had been residing in Gandhi Colony. They were residing there for about one year. During this period he never visited the victim's matrimonial home. He also admitted that he never accompanied his daughter in his house while the victim had been residing in Gandhi Colony. Therefore, a question may arise if he did not have any opportunity to see the victim or meet the victim from 2003 to 2006, then how he could come to know about the alleged torture that was perpetrated upon the victim. He also admitted that his daughter had been residing in a rented house in Haringhata, but he did not know the name of the said landlord nor he could recollect how many days the victim had been residing with her husband there. In course of cross-examination he became very specific and stated that in the year 2003 after giving birth of a male child he met last with the victim. He could not give any detailed discussion on which date his daughter was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellants. The victim died by committing suicide in 2006. So there was no communication between the P.W. 1 and the victim during this period. 12. P.W. 2 is the son-in-law of the P.W. 1. He has supported the prosecution case. His evidence is admixture of half-truth and untruth. According to him, in 2001 his sister-in-law (Boudi) and brothers inflicted torture upon the victim. Curiously enough, till her death there was no FIR in respect of the alleged torture which took place in 2001. He has made out a new story that his mother used to torture to the victim where he had been residing with his wife and at the same time his mother took money in his absence. No other witnesses has said so. He has stated something which is neither in the FIR nor in any where. He wanted to say that there are other criminal cases also between him and the brothers who are appellants here. He also submitted that there was a mass petition from the villagers against the appellants but no document has come before the Trial Court. He has stated something which is neither in the FIR nor in any where. He wanted to say that there are other criminal cases also between him and the brothers who are appellants here. He also submitted that there was a mass petition from the villagers against the appellants but no document has come before the Trial Court. Most interesting thing is such that after getting the news of hanging he had been to the house where the victim committed suicide and found the victim was hanging herself with a read coloured saree, but the inquest report says that it was a purple coloured saree. So whether he at all had seen the victim or not is also create a doubt. Police has recovered two suicidal notes which are undated. Learned Trial Court did not believe the said suicidal notes wherein, in one suicidal note the victim had blamed all the appellants, but in other suicidal note she has exonerated two others. These are undated. From the last seven to eight months since the fateful day there was no communication between the victim and the witnesses. Therefore, how the torture was inflicted or at all it was inflicted remains still a mystery. 13. P.W. 2 cannot be believed on the ground that time to time he has tried to improve the case by making false statements. In one occasion he has stated that in 2003 he was financially sound and earning Rs. 16,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month whereas in cross-examination he has admitted that his income was Rs. 7,000/- only per month at that period. 14. P.W. 3 is the maternal aunt. In her house the victim as well as the P.W. 2 had been residing till the victim breathed her last. She has made some statement which does not support the prosecution. In course of cross-examination she has admitted that while the victim had been residing at Gandhi Colony she was very happy with her husband. She categorically stated that "there was no such occasion to be unhappy in the life of Anita Bakshi while she started residing in my house. During this span of seven to eight months while she resided in my house she was almost all happy in her coupled life". This goes to show that there was no occasion of her unhappiness during that period. During this span of seven to eight months while she resided in my house she was almost all happy in her coupled life". This goes to show that there was no occasion of her unhappiness during that period. There is neither any extenuating circumstances nor any mitigating circumstances to drive her to commit suicide between that period. Learned Trial Court could not consider this aspect. 15. The other independent witnesses mostly are hostile. 16. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, I do not find that any physical or mental torture was inflicted upon the victim within seven to eight months in such a fashion as is likely to drive her to commit suicide. The main ingredients of Section 498A explanation clauses (1) and (2) are lacking. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned judgment does not sustain. The appeal is allowed. 17. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges leveled against them. They are hereby discharged from their respective bail bonds. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent down to the learned Court below at once. 19. Let a Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all usuala formalities.