S.C. DAS, J - (1.)BY filing this criminal appeal, under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, the appellant, named above, challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.06.2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura District, in Sessions Trial No. ST 55(ST/B) of 2008 where -under learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - (one thousand) in default of payment to suffer further S.I. for 2(two) months.
(2.)HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. A. C. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P. Saha for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R. C. Debnath for the State -respondent.
Prosecution case may be summerised thus: -

3.1 Marriage between the accused -appellant Subrata Chakraborty and the deceased Smt. Arpita Chakraborty, the unfortunate young woman was solemnized on a day in the month of April, 2000 A.D. and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife in the matrimonial home with other members of the family. It is the case of the prosecution that since after marriage Arpita was subjected to torture and tormentation in the matrimonial home on demand of money. For a few months after marriage she was well and thereafter torture and tormentation started by the accused -appellant and his mother, Minu Chakraborty, on demand of money and Arpita on different occasions had to claim money to her parents but on all occasions her parents because of their poverty, could not fulfill her claim to satisfy the demand of the accused persons and as a result, Arpita was always subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home as a result of which she consumed poison on 17.03.2008 in the morning and she was thereafter shifted to Belonia Hospital where she died. Parents of the deceased was informed by the accused -appellant saying that Arpita was ill and the relatives from the paternal home of the deceased also came to hospital and found her dead.

3.2 A Unnatural Death (U.D.) case was registered after the incident vide U.D. Case No.11 of 2008 of Belonia P.S. and it was investigated by woman A.S.I. Jharna Chetri Acharya of Belonia P.S.

3.3 On 20.03.2008, a written FIR was lodged by Ranjit Chakraborty (P.W.14), father of the deceased Arpita, alleging that since after a few months of marriage, Arpita was subjected to cruelty on demand of money on different occasions at different points of time on different pretext and since the demand could not be fulfilled, Arpita was badly treated and subjected to physical and mental torture and that she was killed by the accused persons on 17.03.2008.

3.4 O.C., Belonia P.S. on receipt of that FIR from Ranjit Chakraborty, registered Belonia P.S. Case No. 32 of 2008 under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC and S.I. Nityananda Sarkar of Belonia P.S. was entrusted with the charge of investigation who after completion of investigation, submitted charge -sheet against accused -appellant Subrata Chakraborty and his mother, Smt. Minu Chakraborty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC.

3.5. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and on commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused -appellant Subrata Chakraborty and his mother Smt. Minu Chakraborty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498(A) of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.6. To prove the charges, prosecution examined 16 witnesses namely : -

P.W.1 Shri Badan Baidya; P.W.2 Smt. Putul Baidya;

P.W.3 Smt. Jharna Chetri (Acharjee); P.W.4 Shri Nepal Sarkar; P.W.5 Dr. Sankar Chakraborty; P.W.6 Shri Matilal Datta; P.W.7 Shri Subhas Datta;

P.W.8 Shri Krishnadhan Das; P.W.9 Smt. Paramita Datta; P.W.10 Smt. Chitra Datta;

P.W.11 Smt. Bijali Chakraborty; P.W.12 Smt. Anima Chakraborty; P.W.13 Shri Sudip Chakraborty;

P.W.14 Shri Ranjit Chakraborty; P.W.15 Shri Pranjit Chakraborty; & P.W.16 Shri Nityananda Sarkar.

Out of them P.Ws 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are all neighbourers of the accused persons. P.Ws. 11 and 14 are the mother and father of deceased Arpita. P.Ws 12 and 13 are the relatives of the deceased. P.W.15 is the paternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.4 is the scribe of the FIR. P.W.3 is the woman Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police who prepared inquest report over the dead body and conducted investigation of the U.D. Case. P.W.8 is the O.C. of the P.S. who formally registered the case. P.W.5 is the medical officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.16 is the I.O. of the case.

3.7. Prosecution also proved the FIR lodged by P.W.14, the inquest report prepared over the dead body of the deceased, postmortem report and the seizure list of wearing apparels of the deceased.

3.8. After closure of the prosecution evidence accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and in their turn the accused persons declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case so far ascertained from the trend of cross examination as well as from the statement made by the accused in course of his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is that there was no demand of dowry or money at any point of time and there was no question of any torture or tormentation of the deceased. The accused is the sole bread earning member of his family and they were very poor. Because of the poverty, Arpita might have committed suicide consuming poison.

3.9 Learned Addl. Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Section 306 of IPC holding that there is no evidence of abetment to commit suicide. However, he has found the accused -appellant and his mother Minu Chakraborty guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced them as stated hereinbefore. Hence this appeal.

(3.)LEARNED Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has argued that according to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. Prosecution led evidence that she was subjected to torture and tormentation in the matrimonial home on demand of money. She was conscious when she was taken to hospital. She did not make any statement to the neighbourers complaining torture or tormentation on her by the accused -appellant immediately before consuming poison. There is no evidence of abetment as defined in Section 107 of IPC. Admittedly, the deceased died after 8 years of her marriage, and submits learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik, there is no iota of legal evidence to prove the exercise of cruelty as defined in Section 498(A) of IPC. The parents of the deceased and some of the neighbourers who are inimical to the accused -appellant made some hearsay statements which do not prove the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. The statements are vague and omnibus in respect of the demand of money and while the father of the deceased i.e. the informant was also a poor man as stated by himself, no prudent man can believe that the accused who was hand to mouth working in a electrician's shop as an ordinary worker, had no reason to demand money to his poor father -in -law through his wife. The parents and relatives of the deceased, submits learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik, did not lodge the FIR immediately after the occurrence and after 3 days, out of shock, for the death of their kin Arpita, initiated the criminal proceeding against the accused. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for an order of acquittal.