JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. Talapatra, J. This is an appeal by the state against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.10.2015 delivered in S.T. 45 (ST/B) of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia [as he then was]. The respondents, hereinafter referred to as the accused, were acquitted by the said judgment and order from the charges framed under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. 2. The genesis of prosecution is rooted in the written ejahar [Exbt.2 & Exbt.6] filed by one Asish Saha [PW-1] disclosing that his sister Khela Saha was married with the accused No.1 namely Sri Khokan Saha. In the wedlock, two children were born. The younger child died three years prior to the day of occurrence when the first born child [male] was of 11 years of age. According to the complainant, after 6 to 7 months of marriage his sister was subjected to mental and physical torture on unlawful demand. Even the accused No.1 attempted to kill her by way of pressing a pillow on her mouth. His sister failing to bear such torture left the matrimonial home and took shelter in the house of the complainant. Thereafter, she filed a pre-litigation complaint in the Lok Adalat at Belonia. At that time, the accused No.1 took back his wife after tendering an assurance supported by affidavit to lead a conjugal life with his sister. After some peaceful days the said accused person started again inflicting torture on her to realize a sum of Rs.50,000/-. On 24.08.2012 in the evening at around 7 - 7.30 o’clock the complainant was informed by his sister that she was beaten by the accused person and threatened to bring Rs.50,000/-. The complainant informed the accused No.1 that there was no such money to provide them. On the same night at about 12 o’clock the accused No.1 namely Khokan Saha informed the complainant that his sister had been undergoing treatment in the Santirbazar Hospital. On that very night the complainant could not go to the hospital but in the following morning he had rushed to the hospital but he was informed that her sister had expired. In the meanwhile, his sister was transferred to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. The complainant found the dead body in the said hospital in a burnt condition. On that very night the complainant could not go to the hospital but in the following morning he had rushed to the hospital but he was informed that her sister had expired. In the meanwhile, his sister was transferred to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. The complainant found the dead body in the said hospital in a burnt condition. Though the occurrence took place in the intervening night of 24.08.2012 and 25.08.2012 the complainant lodged his complaint on 26.08.2012 as he stated that he was busy for cremation of his sister. 3. Based on the said ejahar, Santirbazar P/S Case No.62/2012 under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, the final police report was filed charge sheeting the accused under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. Since the case under Section 306 of the IPC is triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia. On taking cognizance, against all the accused persons the charge under Section 498A was framed whereas against the accused person No.1 the charge under Section 306 of the IPC was framed. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined as many as 14 witnesses including the complainant [PW-1] whereas from the defence the accused No.1 examined himself as DW-1 to explain the circumstances in which his wife namely Khela Saha was engulfed by fire and got fatal burn injuries. 5. After recording the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court examined the accused persons separately under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to record their response in respect of the incriminating materials that surfaced in the record of evidence. During that examination, the accused persons repeated their plea of innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Thereafter the defence extended the evidence of the accused No.1. 6. On appreciation of evidence, by the impugned judgment and order, the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia recorded the acquittal of the accused persons on observing as under: “From the evidence of DW-1 as well as evidence of PW-2, the son of the deceased I find corroborative evidence. From the evidence of DW-1 it appears that the deceased was a mental patient and she was suffering from frustration. From the evidence of DW-1 it appears that the deceased was a mental patient and she was suffering from frustration. So, on appreciation of both evidence of prosecution as well as defence, I am of the opinion that, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons.” 7. Ms. P. Dhar, special public prosecutor appearing for the state has submitted that the Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and he was entirely swayed by the evidence of PW-2, the witness of tender age [the son of the accused No.1] who came from the custody of the accused No.1 to testify in the trial and by the testimony of the accused No.1 in order to discard the evidence of the other witnesses including the complainant. Ms. Dhar, learned special public prosecutor has laid great emphasis to hold that the witness of tender age (PW-2) is always susceptible to circumstantial venerability. That apart, Ms. Dhar, learned special public prosecutor has submitted that PW-1 has testified that the fact that her sister was subjected to torture was known to the respectable persons of the locality. PW-1 even informed a member of Belonia Nagar Panchayat. In the Lok Adalat, the accused No.1 tendered the assurance in writing to the effect that he would not torture his wife any more but the said truce did not last long. Again the victim faced torture on unlawful demand. Finally she died at G.B.P. Hospital. After two days, the written ejahar was lodged. 8. This version of PW-1 was not supported by PW-2, the son of the deceased, as he testified in the trial that at the time of fire incident, his father was sleeping in another room of the same hut and his mother “brought kerosene drum from the kitchen and poured kerosene on herself and put fire by match.” He called his father and he came to rescue his mother. His father covered the body of his mother by a blanket and extinguished the father. His mother was taken to the hospital. Two/three days before the occurrence his maternal uncle visited them and advised his parents to run a peaceful life. In the cross examination he has stated that his mother was a lady of “loose temper”. Smt. Lilu Saha [PW-3] is the mother of the victim. His mother was taken to the hospital. Two/three days before the occurrence his maternal uncle visited them and advised his parents to run a peaceful life. In the cross examination he has stated that his mother was a lady of “loose temper”. Smt. Lilu Saha [PW-3] is the mother of the victim. She has stated that the victim was subjected to cruelty by her husband. She bore all such cruelty and gave birth two children. The accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to her son [PW-1] for constructing a new hut. Her son [PW-1] gave the accused No.1 a sum of Rs.12,000/- and the said accused constructed a hut and started residing there. She testified that PW-1 told her that before the fire incident her daughter informed PW-1 that she was beaten on unlawful demand. 9. Sri Pranjit Mallik [PW-4] is an auto rickshaw driver who accompanied PW-1 to the house of the victim and in his presence PW-1 stated the accused No.1 not to create problem in their family life. On several occasions PW-1 sent money to the accused No.1. 10. Sri Mohan Chhetri [PW-5] has stated that he had received the CDR (Call Details Report) and handed over the same to Krishnadhan Sarkar. He identified his signature on the seizure list of the CDR. 11. Sri Maran Chakraborty [PW-6] who was the scribe of the written ejahar but he did not state anything of material importance. 12. Dr. J.S. Reang [PW-7] did treat the victim in Santir Bazar PHC. After providing the primary treatment he referred the victim to TSD Hospital at Udaipur. 13. Sri Basudeb Saha [PW-8] is a next door neighbour and distant relative of the victim. He has stated that Khela told him that her husband assaulted her frequently on demand of money from her father and she showed the marks of injury on her neck. In the cross examination he acceded that he did not informed anyone of the assault on Khela Saha [the victim]. 14. Sri Krishnadhan Dutta [PW-9] did state nothing of material importance but he supported the seizure by the investigating officer of a mobile phone, one kerosene drum, one half burnt pillow cover and one match box. 15. Dr. Pradipta Narayan Chakraborty [PW-10] is one of the postmortem doctors. He has testified that 97% surfaced area was burnt. 14. Sri Krishnadhan Dutta [PW-9] did state nothing of material importance but he supported the seizure by the investigating officer of a mobile phone, one kerosene drum, one half burnt pillow cover and one match box. 15. Dr. Pradipta Narayan Chakraborty [PW-10] is one of the postmortem doctors. He has testified that 97% surfaced area was burnt. The cause of death in their opinion was shock as a result of the burn injury. 16. Smt. Hemalata Debbarma [PW-11] was working as the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, GBT O.P. and on 25.08.2012 she conducted the inquest over the dead body of Khela Saha in the G.B.P. Hospital Morgue in reference to GBT O.P. GDE No. 698 dated 15.08.2012. She identified the inquest report [Exbt.12]. 17. Sri Subal Roy [PW-12] vice-chairman of Belonia Nagar Panchayat testified in the trial and stated that the mother of the victim told him that the accused No.1 assaulted Khela on demand of money on several occasions and she came to him and complained of the physical torture on demand of money. PW-12 requested the local Panchayat Pradhan to look into the matter. The victim also on the subsequent visit stated him that she was not happy. Later on, the said unfortunate event took place. 18. Sri Sushanta Pal [PW-13] is related to the accused person and he was declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case in the trial. 19. Sri Krishnadhan Sarkar [PW-14] investigated the case and he elaborately stated how he conducted the investigation by seizing the material objects including one Airtel sim. He has also stated that he seized Call Details Report [CDR]. He submitted the charge sheet on culmination of the investigation as he found a prima facie case against the accused persons. But his cross-examination is very material. The relevant part of his testimony may be reproduced hereunder: “At the time of recording the statement of Asish Saha he has not stated to me that he has given Rs.12,000/- to the accused, Khokan Saha out of his demand of Rs.50,000/-. But his cross-examination is very material. The relevant part of his testimony may be reproduced hereunder: “At the time of recording the statement of Asish Saha he has not stated to me that he has given Rs.12,000/- to the accused, Khokan Saha out of his demand of Rs.50,000/-. Smt. Lilu Saha also has not made such statement to me at the time of recording her statement U/S 161, Cr.P.C. Smt. Lilu Saha has not given specific statement to me at the time of recording her statement that she came to know from her son Asish that before commission of suicide her daughter was assaulted by her husband on demand of Rs.50,000/- but she made statement to me that after taking my daughter and her son from my house thereafter few days her husband pressurized her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her. Basudeb Saha and Pranjit Mallik voluntarily came to the P.S. and gave statement in connection of this case. I have verified the statement of Basudeb Saha and Pranjit Mallik but not recorded in my Case Diary. It is not a fact that I have not verified the statement of Basubeb Saha and Pranjit Mallik. Pranjit Mallik has not given specific statement to me that Asish gave him Rs.200/- with request to give the same to accused Khokan then on that day he has given the said amount to his nephew in presence of his father accused Khokan. I have recorded the statement of Pranjit Mallik on 10.9.12 though ejahar was lodged on 26.8.12.” 20. Ms. P. Dhar, learned special Public Prosecutor has submitted that DW-1, the accused No.1 has stated that the victim was behaving abnormally. He had taken her to Agartala for her treatment and consulted one Dr. Ashim Chowdhury. During the spell of treatment she was behaving properly. For her violent behavior DW-1 left the parental residence and started living in a rented house. The victim was under the regular treatment of Dr. Ashim Chowdhury. Even she was under treatment in Hapania Hospital at Agartala. 21. DW-1 has stated that his appearance before the Lok Adalat was in connection of a complaint filed by the victim at ill-advice of PW-1. At the time of incident, he was sleeping in his house. On hearing the alarm of his son [PW-2], he covered the body of the victim by a blanket. He submitted the prescription given by Dr. DW-1 has stated that his appearance before the Lok Adalat was in connection of a complaint filed by the victim at ill-advice of PW-1. At the time of incident, he was sleeping in his house. On hearing the alarm of his son [PW-2], he covered the body of the victim by a blanket. He submitted the prescription given by Dr. Ashim Chowdhury [Exbt. A & B]. He denied the suggestion contrary to what he had stated. According to Ms. Dhar, learned special Public Prosecutor that mere submission of prescriptions [Exbt. A & B] cannot prove that the victim was behaving incoherently. 22. From the other side, Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that against the respondents No.2 and 3, no iota of material exists in the record of evidence. So far the respondent No.1 is concerned he has submitted that in the cross examination what PW-1 has stated is really relevant, as PW-1 has categorically stated that he gave no statement to the Investigating Officer after lodging of the written ejahar. He has clearly admitted as under : “Perhaps I have not written in my ejahar that accused Khokan Saha started residing in a rented house along with my sister near Santirbazar Market. I have stated at the time of writing my ejahar that I have given Rs.12,000/- out of demand of Rs.15,000/- of the accused at the time of construction of his house.” 23. PW-3, as pointed by Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the accused, in her cross examination has stated that she did not make any statement to the Investigating Officer. She has further stated that she did not state to the investigating officer that before the death of the victim she was assaulted by her husband on demand of Rs.50,000/- by them. She did not even state to the investigating officer that at the time of construction of hut the accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her son, Asish. She did not state that the accused No.1 gave Rs.12,000/-. Even PW-12 did not firmly state whether he did request the local Panchayat Pradhan to look into the matter. Even he has admitted that he did not state that the victim told him that her husband had not changed and continued to torture her like earlier. 24. Mr. She did not state that the accused No.1 gave Rs.12,000/-. Even PW-12 did not firmly state whether he did request the local Panchayat Pradhan to look into the matter. Even he has admitted that he did not state that the victim told him that her husband had not changed and continued to torture her like earlier. 24. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has thereafter submitted that when the order of acquittal is recorded by the trial court, the presumption of innocence is further consolidated even though the court has the power to re-appreciate the evidence but if the re-appreciation does not lead the court to an unflinching inference that the evidence is adequate enough to hold the accused guilty, ordinarily this court will not debase the finding returned by the trial court. The high court may certainly interfere if it finds that the judgment is manifestly erroneous and the trial court has acted with material irregularity or its appreciation of evidence lacks coherence. It has made assumptions which are unwarranted or its evaluation of evidence is such as to shock the conscience of justice. [see Narinder Singh and Another versus State of Punjab reported in (2000) 4 SCC 603 ]. 25. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has further submitted that the trial court has given cogent reasons for acquittal and no further view is possible. Even if it surfaces that an alternative view probably can be inferred, the apex court in the State of Maharashtra versus Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble and Others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 627 has observed that the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered even when two views are possible. 26. We have re-appreciated the evidence and on such re-appreciation we are of the view that the prosecution’s case suffers from serious incongruities or incoherence. The testimony of DW-1 has got substantive corroboration from PW-2. PW-2 was confronted but he did not show any fluctuation from his statement. True it is that the child witnesses can be very easily tutored when they are in the shelter of the person who is maintaining their custody. But for this reason prosecution shall lead the evidence in such a manner that the charge can be established by brushing aside the testimony of the child witness and beyond reasonable doubt. 27. Mr. True it is that the child witnesses can be very easily tutored when they are in the shelter of the person who is maintaining their custody. But for this reason prosecution shall lead the evidence in such a manner that the charge can be established by brushing aside the testimony of the child witness and beyond reasonable doubt. 27. Mr. Roy, learned counsel is rightly pointed out that the high court’s jurisdiction is not bridled but the evidence must overwhelmingly show that the appreciation as advanced by the trial court is grossly perverse. This is not the case here. 28. Having held so, we are constrained to observe that this appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.