JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Ms S Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 378(1) (b) of the CrPC from the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.01.2015 as delivered in Criminal Appeal No.40(3)/2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. For purpose of record, it may be noted that by the said judgment, the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Udaipur, South Tripura delivered in GR 207 of 2009 dated 08.09.2014 has been set aside. 3. Prosecution against the respondent was initiated by a written complaint filed by one Ruma Banik (Debbarma), wife of the respondent alleging that the respondent and his parents used to torture her on unlawful demands. At the time of marriage, from the parental house of the complainant, the respondent received cash of Rs.60,000/-, Motorcycle, big size television, refrigerator, furniture, gold ornaments, etc. On the very night of marriage, the respondent made a remark that the complainant’s father by not giving him a car has committed “offence”. The complainant did not take that seriously considering the same as a joke. On the following day, when they reached in front of the house of the respondent at Suparibagan, Agartala then he started shouting at her. From the neighbourhood, many people gathered there as a result of such hue and cry. The complainant has stated further that the respondent was abetted by Smt. Suniti Debbarma (Majumdar) and Sri Dipak Debbarma (the parents of the respondent). The respondent had demanded a car. The complainant informed the said incident to her father but her father expressed inability to meet such demand and as a result she was continuously tortured. 4. On 19.03.2007 when the respondent was deputed in the PTC for four months training, she was not provided with proper food in the matrimonial home. Even on the demand of car, the accused persons forced her to go for abortion. Her further allegation is that “violating rules” everyday her husband used to come to their residence. Her father tried to pacify the respondent but it did not have any effect whatsoever. Even on the demand of car, the accused persons forced her to go for abortion. Her further allegation is that “violating rules” everyday her husband used to come to their residence. Her father tried to pacify the respondent but it did not have any effect whatsoever. When they knew that the complainant’s father had a share at a house at Ramnagar, they started pressurizing him to get the land partitioned and after such partition the complainant’s parents would give by sale of that land the required money for purchasing a car and other materials. 5. On 21.09.2007 the respondent went to Delhi for six months training. During his absence when she proposed to go to her parent’s house she was not permitted to go by her parents-in-law. The respondent did not pay any maintenance to her. She has alleged that after drinking liquor he used to indulge in cruel treatment and the complainant had apprehension of her life. 6. On 19.03.2009 a meeting was convened for conciliating the problem of their matrimonial life. In that meeting, the relatives of both sides were present. There the entire thing was discussed and the complainant and the respondent were counseled to live together by making necessary adjustment. According to the complainant, on 05.04.2009, 06.04.2009, 16.04.2009, 27.04.2009 and 28.04.2009 the respondent intimidated her by stating that he would destroy all the bridal properties. 7. Based on the said complaint filed on 30.04.2009 the Officer-in-charge of the RK Pur P.S., Udaipur (Exhibit-2) registered the RK Pur P.S. Case No. 144/2009 under Section 498A/34 and took up for investigation. After investigation, the police report was filed chargesheeting the respondent and his parents for committing offence under Section 498A. On taking cognizance thereof, the charge was framed against all the accused persons, but they denied to have committed such offence by pleading innocence and hence, the trial commenced. 8. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses including the complainant [Ruma Banik (Debbarma)]. In order to rebut the evidence made by the prosecution the respondent introduced two witnesses, DWs 1&2 and both the parties had occasion to introduce the documentary evidence including the hand sketch map, the resolution taken by the Family Counseling Centre where on the complaint of the respondent a conciliation was sought to be arrived at. The conciliation report was also made part of the record. 9. The conciliation report was also made part of the record. 9. On recording the evidence led by the prosecution, the accused persons including the respondent were examined under Section 313 CrPC when they again reiterated the plea of innocence by stating that they had been falsely prosecuted. 10. Having appreciated the evidence, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur acquitted the parents of the respondent but convicted the respondent under Section 498A of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) of the CrPC in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, South Tripura (now Gomati District) contending that the evidences led by the prosecution does not satisfy the requirement of proving the charge under Section 498A of the IPC. The evidence is scattered here and there and there is hardly any corroboration, definiteness and above all, the allegations are of general nature of sweeping remarks. The prosecution did not take any care to prove the cruelty as explained under Section 498A of the IPC. 11. The appellate court [the court of the Sessions Judge] by the judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 allowed the said appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 40(3) of 2014 holding inter alia, that for returning the finding of conviction the trial court had relied on the evidence of PW4, the victim and PW6, her uncle. By placing heavy reliance on those testimonies, the observation as made by the trial court that the domestic violence occurs within the four walls of the domestic space and only the close relatives are situated to know such offences, as such it will be an attempt in vain to find out so called “independent witnesses” the said appellate court has observed: “ ……..But in this instant case the very close relatives, parents, did not support the fact of torture on the demand of money in connection with marriage. Demand of car or parental land definitely is illegal demand. But to substantiate this allegation there should be specific evidence. There is nothing in the evidence to support that specific amount was demanded for purchasing car. There is nothing in the evidence that specific area of land in a certain location was demanded. It is true that cash and articles were given in the marriage but those were not given on demand but those were gifted only. There is nothing in the evidence to support that specific amount was demanded for purchasing car. There is nothing in the evidence that specific area of land in a certain location was demanded. It is true that cash and articles were given in the marriage but those were not given on demand but those were gifted only. It is true that PW2, Prativa Chakraborty, maid servant, is independent witness as mentioned by learned Magistrate. But she is a hear say witness in regard to illegal demand. She heard the fact from Ruma but Ruma never stated that she communicated such demand of her husband to PW2 at any point of time but learned Magistrate relied on this hear say evidence to come to the findings.” 12. The said appellate court without finding any reliable evidence in the records, acquitted the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the State. 13. Ms Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor appearing for the appellant has submitted that the acquittal is wholly uncalled for and appreciation of evidence is grossly perverse. From a fair appreciation, it would be apparent that the evidence has been laid down to such an extent to completely form an opinion that the charge framed under Section 498A has been established by the prosecution. 14. Ms Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor has further contended that the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence on record the order of acquittal should be reversed. The appellate court may give the proper weight and consideration to the matters as well: (i) The views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. A presumption certainly is not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial or the appeal. (iii) Right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt. (iv) The lawlessness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had advantage of seeing the witness. 15. A presumption certainly is not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial or the appeal. (iii) Right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt. (iv) The lawlessness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had advantage of seeing the witness. 15. On the basis of that, Ms Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor has submitted that the trial court’s observation were not given due weightage by the said appellate court while reversing the finding of conviction. 16. Ms. Deb (Gupta) has urged this Court to re-appreciate the evidence of PW2 (Smt. Prativa Chakraborty), PW3 (Sri Dipak Lodh), PW4 (Smt. Ruma Banik (Debbarma), the victim, PW6 (Sri Pran Kirshna Banik) uncle of the victim, and PW10, (Smt. Uma Gon Choudhury). According to her, if the testimonies of these witnesses are analyzed, it would be apparent that the order of acquittal is wholly unjustified. 17. According to learned counsel for the appellant, “cruelty” is a well defined offence. This Court in Shefal Debnath Vs. State of Tripura, reported in (2015) 1 TLR 728 has observed: “22. “Cruelty” for the purpose of section 498A, IPC is to be established in the context of section 498A, IPC 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 498A, IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 18. The continuity of the offence and the graveness of the hurt are the two limbs of the same offence. If both the limbs are proved, then there will be irresistible conclusion that the cruelty has been established. 19. Ms Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor has submitted that the demand for a car has been established and for realizing that demand torture on the victim (PW4) has also been established by independent witnesses. If both the limbs are proved, then there will be irresistible conclusion that the cruelty has been established. 19. Ms Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor has submitted that the demand for a car has been established and for realizing that demand torture on the victim (PW4) has also been established by independent witnesses. As such the interference by this Court for ends of justice is called for. 20. From the other side, Mr. S Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that while passing the finding of conviction the trial judge has not taken into consideration the various materials such as the Minutes of the conciliation proceeding in the Family Counseling Centre at Udaipur. Mr. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court that it has been recorded that the complaint against the victim (PW4) was filed by the respondent No.4 for her rude and unpalatable harsh activities. 21. In the Minutes, it has been clearly reduced in writing that the victim was indulging in such activities which is not liked by the respondent. It appears from the said resolution that the victim used to resist the respondent from meeting his parents. A lot of resolutions were taken in the meeting and one of the resolutions is important to note. The said resolution says that in the family affairs of the respondent and the victim, the parents of both the families shall not interfere. In that meeting itself, the victim expressed her opinion that if that conciliation does not work, there will be no other alternative but to go for divorce. From bare reading of the said document (Exhibit-B) it would be further apparent that the conjugal life of the respondent and the victim was facing a rough weather for the stubborn differences in the attitude and approach to life. The complaint is a vengeful act by PW4 as a measure to humiliate the respondent herein. 22. Mr. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has further submitted that what PW2 has testified in the trial, cannot be believed as she was not a witness to any direct act. The complaint is a vengeful act by PW4 as a measure to humiliate the respondent herein. 22. Mr. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has further submitted that what PW2 has testified in the trial, cannot be believed as she was not a witness to any direct act. The said fact was transferred to her by the victim and in the circumstances, as gathered from the aforesaid records, it is obvious that the relation was on the brink of collapse and as such when someone states something to the maid servant it can be understood in two different ways: (a) There is no future in the relation and as such whatever would suit for the future action such allegation would be made against the respondent and (b) It was an unbearable mental cruelty and the victim forgot the context and even stated to her own maid servant; 23. In this case, it has been observed in the resolution adopted in the conciliation that the victim has threatened that if the conciliation does not last she would go for divorce. From this very statement the perspective of tension and the state of relation can be conceived well. This perspective cannot be oblivious of, while assessing the testimony of PW4. 24. This Court at the instance of Ms Deb (Gupta) has meticulously studied the testimonies of PWs 2, 4, 6, 10 and also PWs 3 & 5 but in those testimonies except some general allegations made by the victim, this Court does not find any material for use to disturb the finding of acquittal. This Court does not find any perversity as the view as taken by the said appellate court is a probable view and as such even if there is existence of another view, the court should go to adopt the view that favours the accused person. 25. Having observed thus, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs.