JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. To challenge the judgment and order dated 04.03.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal 50(4) of 2013 this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the convict, herein after referred to as the petitioner. By the said judgment dated 04.03.2014, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.09.2013 delivered in P.R.C. 1100 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Agartala, West Tripura, Court No.7 has been partly affirmed. By the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2013 the petitioner and his mother Smt. Kalpana Ghosh was convicted and sentenced under section 498A of the IPC. But by the impugned order the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has reversed the finding of conviction of the petitioner’s mother and quashed the sentence. However, the conviction and sentence as returned by the trial court in respect of the petitioner has been affirmed by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by the said judgment. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. For having the perspective of the challenge, the prosecution’s case may briefly be introduced at the outset. The petitioner’s wife filed a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Radhapur police station [Exbt-1] disclosing that after her marriage with the petitioner she was subjected to mental and physical torture ‘over petty issues’. The petitioner and other inmates started harassing her for realising unlawful demand of a huge sum. The complainant’s father paid Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in the year 2009. For the few days, there was no on instigation of his mother, the petitioner started assaulting her again few days before the Durga puja of the year 2009. The cruel acts of the petitioner were informed to the local Panchayat and the State Commission for Women. At the advice of the State Commission for Women, the petitioner and the complainant started living in a rented house. But she was also not happy there. They stayed in the rented house for about 3(three) months. The mother-in-law of the complainant used to come to that rented house often-times on and started assaulting the victim for coercing her to bring hard cash from her father as dowry. Since the complainant’s father is a daily labourer, he expressed his inability to pay the money. They stayed in the rented house for about 3(three) months. The mother-in-law of the complainant used to come to that rented house often-times on and started assaulting the victim for coercing her to bring hard cash from her father as dowry. Since the complainant’s father is a daily labourer, he expressed his inability to pay the money. Both the accused person [the petitioner] and his mother started physically assaulting her by with fists, slapping and kicking her on keeping the door bolted from inside on the night of 24.09.2011. The complainant somehow saved her and took shelter on the following morning in the house of her father. After about 20(twenty) days, the complainant lodged the ejahar in the police station i.e on 17.10.11. Based on the said written ejahar, Radhapur P.S. Case No.17 of 2011 under Section 498A of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, against both the accused persons chargesheet was filed under Section 498A of the IPC. On taking cognizance, the trial court framed the charge against the accused persons under Section 498A of the IPC, to which both the accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the complainant [PW-1], her father [PW-3] and her mother [PW-6]. After the prosecution evidence was recorded by the trial court both the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., when they repeated their plea of innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The trial court thereafter on appreciation of the evidence returned the finding of the conviction against both the accused persons under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year. The prosecution has not challenged the said sentence, even though the sentence prescribed for commission of the offence under Section 498A is ‘imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine’. The sentence is apparently not in conformity to the provision of law. 4. Mr. R. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that from scrutiny of the records it would appear that there is no reliable evidence against the petitioner except some general statement without reference to day and time of those occurrences. The sentence is apparently not in conformity to the provision of law. 4. Mr. R. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that from scrutiny of the records it would appear that there is no reliable evidence against the petitioner except some general statement without reference to day and time of those occurrences. Further, he has stated that only for non-compatibility the allegations have been made against the petitioner and it has been hyped by way of concoction adding a narrative of unlawful demand. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution withheld the minutes of the counselling that was carried out by the Tripura State Commission for Women. 5. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the saga of cruelty in continuum has been established by the prosecution by the clinching evidence to satisfy the standard of proof-beyond reasonable doubt. On due appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court upheld the finding of conviction. According to him, the evidence as led by the prosecution is adequate, leaving no space for doubt. The victim [PW-1] has been corroborated by PW-3, her father, and PW-6, her mother. Apart that, PW-5, the Panchayat member has clearly stated that there was a meeting and they could amicably settle the dispute. Even thereafter the complainant was assaulted for realisation of unlawful demand and she was sent to the parental house in the injured condition and hence, no inference is called for. 6. For appreciating the projected pleas by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to revisit the evidence having due regard to the context of the challenge. The question that substantially falls for consideration is that whether there is evidence against the petitioner of committing cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC. 7. PW-1, Smt. Sadhana Ghosh, wife of the petitioner who stated in the trial that after her marriage in the year 2008 for few months she did not have any difficulty. But after about 2(two) months, the petitioner and his mother started torture on the complainant physically and mentally on one or other pretext. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- when she informed the matter to her parents, they managed to arrange a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The parents of the complainant had given the said sum to the petitioner. But after about 2(two) months, the petitioner and his mother started torture on the complainant physically and mentally on one or other pretext. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- when she informed the matter to her parents, they managed to arrange a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The parents of the complainant had given the said sum to the petitioner. For 15 to 20 days, the accused persons were behaving normal. But they embarked on the same course again on the demand of money. Her father had brought the matter to the notice of the Women Commission and the local Panchayat. An approachment was struck out and the petitioner and the victim started living separately in a rented house, After 3- 4 months of their staying in the said rented house the petitioner started torturing her physically and mentally and on 24.09.2011, the accused persons had thrown her out from the rented house after assaulting her badly. She had take shelter in her parent’s house on the following morning. Thereafter, she filed the ejahar. In the cross-examination, she failed to find her that statement that after two months the accused persons started torture on her physically and mentally in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Even in the testified statement it would not be found that after 6-7 months’ as by her, again the petitioner started afflicting cruelty on the complainant on demand of money. Some other statements were also not found in the previous statement, but those statements however were not very material and as such those would not form the contradiction within the meaning as provided by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. The victim also denied the suggestion that she wanted that the petitioner should stay with her in her parent’s house. The other suggestions were denied by the victim. 8. PW-2, Bhajan Modak since did not support the prosecution case was declared hostile. No part of his statement can be used for corroboration. 9. PW-3, Bhanu Ghosh is the father of the victim. He has however stated that he paid Rs.15,000/- not 20,000/- as stated to be given by the victim [PW-1]. However, in the subsequent part he has stated that his daughter was tortured by the accused person for bringing Rs.80,000/- as the accused person demanded totally Rs.1,00,000/- from him. 9. PW-3, Bhanu Ghosh is the father of the victim. He has however stated that he paid Rs.15,000/- not 20,000/- as stated to be given by the victim [PW-1]. However, in the subsequent part he has stated that his daughter was tortured by the accused person for bringing Rs.80,000/- as the accused person demanded totally Rs.1,00,000/- from him. No such statement was also found in his previous statement that he gave 15,000/- to the petitioner. But at the same time the demand for the remainder of the sum i.e. Rs.80,000/- was also not admitted by PW-3. 10. PW-4, Sri Tapash Bhowmik is the Officer-in-Charge of the Radhapur police station at the relevant point of time, when the victim filed the written ejahar. He recorded the first information report [Exbt-3] and entrusted the same to be investigated by Samir Kanti Das, Sub-Inspector of that police station [PW-7]. 11. PW-5, Samsul Haque Miah is an independent witness and as such his statement is of considerable importance. He has stated that: “After the marriage Sadhana Ghosh is well residing with her husband but after some time a quarrel occurred on the demand of dowry. Thereafter we the member of Panchayat amicably settled the matter, then the said Sadhana Ghosh and her husband resided in a rented house. After some time I heard that again some quarrel arises between them on demand of dowry. I also heard that accused persons brought said Sadhana Ghosh to her parents house in illness condition. At present Sadhana Ghosh has been residing in her father’s house.” No part of his statement could be dented by way of cross-examination. 12. PW-6, Smt. Lalita Ghosh is the mother of the victim and wife of PW-3. She has stated that the petitioner demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of the victim and they paid the petitioner a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Even after that, in the rented house the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture on the demand of money. The victim started residing with her parents. 13. PW-7, Sri Samir Kanti Das was the Investigating Officer of the case and he after completion of the investigation filed the chargesheet against both the accused persons. He has stated briefly how he had conducted the investigation by recording the statement of the witnesses, preparing the site map and seizing some material objects. 13. PW-7, Sri Samir Kanti Das was the Investigating Officer of the case and he after completion of the investigation filed the chargesheet against both the accused persons. He has stated briefly how he had conducted the investigation by recording the statement of the witnesses, preparing the site map and seizing some material objects. He has confirmed that Bhajan Ghosh had stated to him what he has recorded in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 14. From appreciation of the evidence, it surfaces that the victim was harassed by the petitioner on unlawful demand. The victim was subjected to physical and mental torture constituting the cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A, [Explanation(b)] of the IPC. The occurrence of 24.09.2011 is not an isolated incident, but it is the culmination of continuous cruelty. The insignificant mistakes made while making statements in the trial particularly by PW-3 cannot be treated as fatal to dislodge his entire statement. Thus, whether he paid Rs.15,000/- or 20,000/- is immaterial to the court. The prosecution has established their case beyond reasonable doubt that PW-1 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner. As consequence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. However, on considering the age (27years) of the petitioner (27 years) and nature of the executing the offence, this court is of the view that 6(six) months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer 15(fifteen) days simple imprisonment would be adequate. Accordingly, the sentence as imposed by the trial and the appellate court, is interfered with and substituted by the said sentence. The petitioner shall surrender in the trial court by 31.03.2017 to suffer the sentence, else the trial court shall take all coercive measures to make the petitioner suffer the sentence. 15. In the result, the revision petition stands partly allowed with modification in the sentence, as stated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.