JUDGMENT : G. Chandrasekharan, J. The prosecution agency laid a final report against the appellant/accused under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the appellant committed cruelty on his wife deceased Krishnaveni, demanded cash and jewellery for starting poultry farm. Not only that he was addicted to drinking, not regularly going for work and harassing his wife to get money from her parents, by physically assaulting her. Unable to bear the cruelty committed on her, the demand of dowry, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 27.10.2011. 2. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:- The marriage between the appellant and the deceased Krishnaveni was solemnised in 2005. They have son and daughter. PW.1 is the father, PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. After marriage, the appellant worked in abroad for two years, thereafter he was not regularly employed. The deceased was working in Chintamani Medical Stores' at Erode, later transferred to Bhavani Branch. The appellant sold the jewels given to the deceased and children and spent the money. He also pledged the gold chain of the deceased. He sent the deceased to PW.1 to get money for starting a business. He had beaten her and directed her to get money from PW.1. The physical harassment continued. The appellant made the deceased to resign her job. PW.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- for starting a poultry farm. Not satisfied with that, the appellant directed the deceased to get Rs.10,00,000/- or the title deed of the house from PW.1. One Thursday, the deceased came to the house of PW.1 and told him that the appellant asked her to get money else, she should not return home. On the same night, PW.1 received the information that his daughter was dead. He went to mortuary and saw the dead body of his daughter. Then he went to police station and gave Ex.P1-complaint. PW.2, the son of PW.1 and brother of the deceased corroborated the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the frequent demand of money, harassment of the deceased by the appellant and ultimately the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. PW.3 is the relative of PW.1 and PW.2. Then he went to police station and gave Ex.P1-complaint. PW.2, the son of PW.1 and brother of the deceased corroborated the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the frequent demand of money, harassment of the deceased by the appellant and ultimately the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. PW.3 is the relative of PW.1 and PW.2. He stated about convening panchayat in the dispute between the appellant and deceased and also the quarrel between the appellant and deceased on the date when the deceased committed suicide, his intervention and advice to them not to fight. 3. On receiving intimation from Government Hospital, Bhavani PW.7- Special Sub-Inspector of Bhavani Police Station and on receiving the complaint from PW.1 in the police station, he registered FIR in Crime No.609 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The FIR is Ex.P14 and sent the original FIR to Revenue Divisional Officer and the copy to the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. PW.9 was working as a Deputy Collector in Thanjore District Collector's Office. On 27.10.2011, he received First Information Report in this case and visited Bhavani Government Hospital and conducted inquest. He enquired the parents of the deceased, namely, Sengottiyan, Sivagami, Sibblings Subramanian, Chithra, the appellant Shanmugam, Rathinammal and panchayatdars and recorded their statements. As per enquiry and his Ex.P15 report, he came to the conclusion that the appellant harassed and committed cruelty on the deceased Krishnaveni demanding dowry and was responsible for her suicide and recommended to prosecute the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. 4. PW.6 – Dr. Sangeetha conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased as per Ex.P4 requisition of PW.9. During her examination, she found that, “A moderately nourished body of a female lying on its back, mouth opened, eyes opened, white frothy discharge from both nostrils and left side angle of mouth. Teeth complete. Tongue inside the mouth. Ligature mark : - Ligature mark seen from right side angle of mouth to left side angle of mouth middle of neck measures about 18cm x 2 cm. Lighting material not seen. No external injuries all over the body. Larynx-congested. Thorax – Heart- Chambers Full N Wt. Lungs – N wt. Congested. Abdomen – Stomach – contains 50 ml of partially digested food. Intestine – distended c gas. Liver – Congested N wt. Both kidneys and spleen – Congsted N.wt. Urinary Bladder – Empty. Uterus – Empty. Skull bone – Normal. Brain – Normal. 1. Larynx-congested. Thorax – Heart- Chambers Full N Wt. Lungs – N wt. Congested. Abdomen – Stomach – contains 50 ml of partially digested food. Intestine – distended c gas. Liver – Congested N wt. Both kidneys and spleen – Congsted N.wt. Urinary Bladder – Empty. Uterus – Empty. Skull bone – Normal. Brain – Normal. 1. Stomach and its contents 2. Intestine 3. part of liver 4. Right kidneys 5. Preservative 6. Hyoid bone c Larynx and 7. Skin c ligature mark. 1,2,3,4,5 sent for chemical analysis and 6,7 sent for HPE. PM concluded at 4.15 p.m.” The postmortem certificate is Ex.P10. Viscera report, pathology report, hyoid bone report are Exs.P8, P9 and P11 respectively. No poisonous substance was found in the viscera and hyoid bone was intact. The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased had died of asphyxia due to hanging. The final report with regard to the cause of death is Ex.P12. 5. PW.10 was the Investigating Officer in this case. He received the FIR in this case on 28.10.2011 at about 7.45 a.m. and visited the scene of crime at 8.00 a.m. He inspected the scene of crime in the presence of witnesses Rajasekar, Village Administrative Officer of Bhavani and his Assistant Sundarrajan and prepared Ex.P2–Observation Mahazar, Ex.P17– Rough Sketch. He recovered the orange colour saree used by the deceased for hanging in the presence of said witnesses through Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazar. PW.5-VAO Rajasekar corroborated the evidence of PW.10 with regard to attesting the Observation Mahazar and Seizure Mahazar. PW.10 altered the Section from 174 Cr.P.C to Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sent Ex.P18 alteration report to the Judicial Magistrate. At about 4.00 p.m. on the same day, he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, he filed final report in this case. 6. As narrated above, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.10 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P22 documents and M.O.1. No witness was examined on the side of the appellant/accused. Legal heir certificate was marked as Ex.D1. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found that there was no evidence to convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. No witness was examined on the side of the appellant/accused. Legal heir certificate was marked as Ex.D1. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found that there was no evidence to convict the appellant under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, learned trial Judge found that there is evidence to convict the appellant/accused under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly, convicted him under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Against this finding of conviction under Section 498-A IPC and sentence imposed thereon, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. We are concerned in this appeal to the narrow question of deciding whether the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellant was guilty under Section 498-A IPC for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and sentence imposed thereon are correct, in accordance with law and not vitiated by any infirmity or perversity? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted and drew the attention of the Court to various lapses, omissions and material contradictions in the prosecution case and in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. When the trial Court found that there is no material to establish the demand of dowry and therefore, there is no ground for convicting the appellant under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304-B of IPC, how can the appellant be convicted under Section 498-A IPC. She pointed out the following instances to draw suspicion in the case of prosecution:- (1) there is a delay in filing the FIR (2) the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and the alleged harassment on account of demanding Rs.10,00,000/- is not true for the reason that there is absolutely no hint in Ex.P1-complaint about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- by the appellant. There is also no mention about the demand of property. PW.1 admitted in his evidence that he did not mention in his complaint about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. (3) It is seen from the evidence of PW.2 that when the appellant was in police station, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was secured from appellant's friend and paid to PW.1. (4) Neither PW.9 nor PW.10 stated about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. PW.1 admitted in his evidence that he did not mention in his complaint about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. (3) It is seen from the evidence of PW.2 that when the appellant was in police station, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was secured from appellant's friend and paid to PW.1. (4) Neither PW.9 nor PW.10 stated about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. (5) There is contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 as to the fact that whether the deceased visited her father's house alone or with her children. (6) There is contradiction in the evidence of PW.3 as to who informed the death of the deceased, whether it was PW.1 or PW.2. (7) The deceased's mother and sister were not examined as witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Not only that all the witnesses examined by PW.9 were not examined before the Court. (8) The decision of the trial Court was mainly based on Revenue Divisional Officer's report. The Revenue Divisional Officer's report cannot be relied to base a finding on the charges made against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments for the proposition as to what constitutes cruelty and what are the ingredients required for proving the cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. (i) (2009) 13 SCC 330 (Manju Ram Kalita .vs. State of Assam); (ii) (2017) 11 SCC 176 (K.V. Prakash babu .vs. State of Karnataka); and (iii) 2010(1) MWN (Cr.) 310 (M. Sathiskumar ..vs.. State by the Inspector of Police, Erode District). Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not established the case of cruelty against the appellant and the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the Revenue Divisional Officer's report and contradictory evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and convicted appellant, which is impermissible in law. She prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and for acquitting the appellant/accused. 9. In response, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the learned trial Court has not based its decision on the basis of Revenue Divisional Officer's report. The finding was based on solid evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, father and brother of the deceased as to how the appellant caused harassment and cruelty on the deceased repeatedly demanding money for starting poultry business. Side) submitted that the learned trial Court has not based its decision on the basis of Revenue Divisional Officer's report. The finding was based on solid evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, father and brother of the deceased as to how the appellant caused harassment and cruelty on the deceased repeatedly demanding money for starting poultry business. The demand was not in one or two occasions, but it was a continuous and consistent demand with physical and mental harassment. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 clearly established the demand made by the appellant, harassment and cruelty. The contradictions pointed out are not material contradictions. It is not necessary to examine all the witnesses. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity that matters. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC and prayed for sustaining the judgment of the trial Court and for dismissal of this appeal. 10. Section 498-A IPC reads as follows:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 11. When discussing and interpreting the term “cruelty” appearing in Section 498-A IPC, (i) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 13 SCC 330 (Manju Ram Kalita .vs. State of Assam) held that “21. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of S. 498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. "Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of S. 498-A 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 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty. .... .... 25. The High Court considered the issue and reached the conclusion : "The offence u/S 498 A IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto three years only and as such the prosecution is barred u/S468, Cr.P.C. In view of the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, the law is well settled that offence of cruelty to wife is a continuing offence. Hence the fact that the wife was not living with the husband since 1993 is immaterial and mental and other cruelty may be committed even after the parties living separately." (ii) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 11 SCC 176 (K.V. Prakash Babu .vs. State of Karnataka) held as follows:- “10. The said provision came up for consideration in Giridhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra, where the Court dwelling upon the scope and purport of Section 498-A IPC has held thus:- “The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid 'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before. The said provision came up for consideration in Giridhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra, where the Court dwelling upon the scope and purport of Section 498-A IPC has held thus:- “The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid 'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the legislatures : Whereas explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz., (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury : whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrance the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of Section 498-A.” (iii) This Court, in a judgment reported in 2010(1) MWN (Cr.) 310 (M. Sathiskumar ..vs.. State by the Inspector of Police, Erode District), has held that, “10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the act of the accused would fall within the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A, IPC. But, I am not persuaded by the said arguments. In my considered opinion, a close look into the evidences of PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 would go to show that though the conduct of the petitioner would amount to harassment, the same would not fall within the definition of cruelty in terms of Section 498-A, IPC, since the conduct of the petitioner was not in the nature of likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. As I have already stated, misunderstanding between the husband and wife and the consequent domestic quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” in terms of Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, the conviction under Section 498-A IPC also cannot be sustained.” 12. It is seen from Ex.P1-complaint that the marriage between the appellant and deceased had taken place in 2005. As I have already stated, misunderstanding between the husband and wife and the consequent domestic quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” in terms of Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, the conviction under Section 498-A IPC also cannot be sustained.” 12. It is seen from Ex.P1-complaint that the marriage between the appellant and deceased had taken place in 2005. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, deceased was provided with 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles. The appellant finished ITI and was working as Electrician. He was not regular in going to work and addicted to drinking. He frequently picked quarrel with the deceased, asking her to go and get money and jewellery from her father for starting a poultry business and also physically assaulted her. PW.1 paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- four months prior to the occurrence. On 27.10.2011, the deceased came to his house and demanded money as instructed by the appellant. On 28.10.2011 morning at about 01.00 a.m., PW.1 was informed by Ranganathan about the hanging of the deceased. This is the crux of the allegations we found in the complaint. 13. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no mention about the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- by the appellant from PW.1. However, the reading of evidence of PW.1, at the risk of repetition, shows that the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- for going to abroad. After coming from abroad, he was unemployed for two years. Appellant sold the jewels presented to his daughter and grandchildren and spent the money. He directed the deceased to get money from PW.1. He pledged the gold chain of the deceased. When PW.1 questioned the appellant as to why did he pledge the jewel, the accused retorted saying that he would do whatever he liked. Again the appellant physically beaten the deceased and directed her to get money from PW.1. He gave Rs.1,00,000/- for starting a poultry. The appellant told that Rs.1,00,000/- is not sufficient and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- or the title deed of the house. Finally, on one Thursday, the deceased came to his house and told PW.1 that the appellant asked her to get money from PW.1, else she should not come home and on the same night, he got the message that his daughter committed suicide. 14. Finally, on one Thursday, the deceased came to his house and told PW.1 that the appellant asked her to get money from PW.1, else she should not come home and on the same night, he got the message that his daughter committed suicide. 14. The reading of evidence of PW.1 shows that many things with regard to the demand of money, selling and pledging the jewels, physical assault on the deceased, which had not been stated in Ex.P1-complaint, were narrated in detail in chief-examination. PW.2 had also corroborated his father's evidence with regard to repeated demand of money by the appellant. When PW.1 narrated in detail about various instances of demand of money, physical harassment, strangely the evidence of PW.1 with regard to those aspects had not been challenged during the course of cross-examination. Some of these things had not been stated in the complaint and might not have been stated in 161Cr.P.C statements. However, it is the duty of the defence to demonstrate before the Court that the witnesses had given evidence about facts which were not stated in the complaint or at the time of enquiry before the police and therefore, amounts to contradiction and not admissible in law. Improvement and omission will also amount to contradiction. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to repeated demand of money, physical assault, which constituted cruelty had not been challenged and contradicted by the defence during the course of cross-examination. If there are material improvements or contradictions or omissions which amount to contradiction found in the deposition, then it would be necessary for the defence to bring the earlier statement made before the police on record and to prove it in accordance with the manner prescribed under section 145 of Indian Evidence Act. It is only after such contradictions brought on record and thereafter proved the question of evaluating the testimony would arise. 15. The Supreme Court in the judgement of V.R. Mishra .Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588 has reiterated the procedure for bringing the contradiction on record in a trial. “17. Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as under: 145. 15. The Supreme Court in the judgement of V.R. Mishra .Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588 has reiterated the procedure for bringing the contradiction on record in a trial. “17. Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as under: 145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.-witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. 18. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross-examination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need to further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring to the police statement will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction”. 16. Unfortunately, the improvements and omissions which amount to contradictions have not been proved as indicated above. The material parts of evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the relevant facts to establish the fact in issue remain unchallenged necessitating the court to place reliance on this evidence. 17. May be that the appellant was acquitted from the charges under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground demanding money to start a business will not amount to demand of dowry. The State, it is informed that has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant from the charges under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is seen from the ruling reported in (2004) 9 SCC 157 (Kaliyaperumal and another .vs. State of Tamil Nadu) that a person acquitted under Section 304-B IPC can be convicted under Section 498-A IPC because both the sections are mutually exclusive. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- “....... It is to be noted that Sections 304B and 498A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of 'cruelty'. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498A under which 'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304B it is 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. Under Section 304B it is 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. ......” As discussed above, there is unchallenged evidence available as found by the learned Mahila Court Judge to conclude that the appellant harassed the deceased with an unlawful demand of money frequently to start poultry business and also physically assaulted her. 18. It is true that there is contradiction with regard to the fact that whether the deceased was seen alone or with her children on the date of occurrence in the evidence of PW.3 and that who had informed him about the death of the deceased. His evidence supports the case of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to the dispute between the appellant and the deceased. He stated that he mediated the dispute between the appellant and deceased and on the date of the occurrence, he saw the deceased with her two children and she informed him about the persisting problem. He also stated that on the date of occurrence, he found a crowd in front of the house of the deceased and when he enquired with the deceased, she informed about the demand of money by the appellant. Thus, it is clear that his evidence supports the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to demand of money and frequent dispute between the appellant and deceased with regard to demand of money. It is his evidence that PW.1 made the call for PW.2 to inform him about the death of the deceased. The aforesaid contradictions are not material contradictions to create suspicion in his evidence or discredit his evidence. Moreover, these contradictions have not been proved as contemplated under section 145 of Indian Evidence Act and as indicated above. 19. With regard to the allegation of delay in registering the FIR, it is seen that the occurrence had happened at 01.00 hours on 28.10.2011. FIR was registered at 06.00 a.m. on the same date. Therefore, it cannot be considered as delay. 19. With regard to the allegation of delay in registering the FIR, it is seen that the occurrence had happened at 01.00 hours on 28.10.2011. FIR was registered at 06.00 a.m. on the same date. Therefore, it cannot be considered as delay. Even assuming that there is delay in registering the FIR, the appellant has not shown any prejudice on account of delay. 20. The reading of the judgment of the learned Family Court Judge shows that she has not based her decision only on the basis of the finding of PW.9–Revenue Divisional Officer. She used his finding only to corroborate the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3. Even in the absence of the report of PW.9, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 which are, on most occasions, unchallenged proves the case of the prosecution that the appellant frequently demanded money unlawfully from the deceased's father P.W.1 through the deceased to start a poultry business and caused harassment and cruelty to her, which act(s) certainly amounts to cruelty as defined under Explanation (b) to Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned trial Judge has rightly found the appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced him. Cruelty differs from person to person and case to case. What one may perceive as cruelty may not be cruelty to another. We have to decide what amounts to cruelty in a particular case on the basis of facts and circumstances, the educational, social, cultural and economic background of the victim and the accused and on the broad definition given in section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The facts, situation in the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is entirely different from this case. Therefore, this court finds that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 21. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only the appellant is looking after his two minor children. Considering the fact that he is the father and taking care of the two minor children, this Court is of the considered view that some leniency can be shown to the appellant in the matter of punishment. 21. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only the appellant is looking after his two minor children. Considering the fact that he is the father and taking care of the two minor children, this Court is of the considered view that some leniency can be shown to the appellant in the matter of punishment. In this view of the matter, while confirming the conviction recorded under Section 498-A IPC, the sentence is modified from three years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default to pay the fine, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The trial Court is directed to issue warrant against the appellant, to undergo remaining period of sentence, if any.