S.P. Talukdar, J.:

Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, by judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007 acquitted the accused, being O.P. No. 1 from charges under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by such judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant, as petitioner, filed the instant revisional application.

The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:-

The present petitioner, as defacto complainant, submitted a written complaint on 9th February, 2006 at about 18:55 hours. It was submitted therein that his daughter, Poulami Hazra, got married to Sauvik Hazra and such marriage took place on 17th November, 2005 and it was duly solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. On 8th of February, 200 at about 18 hours, he was informed over phone that his daughter, Poulami, had committed suicide. He being accompanied by others rushed to the matrimonial home of Poulami and came to know that Poulami had been taken to People’s Meditreat Pvt. Ltd. Nursing Home. They rushed to the said place and came to know that Poulami had committed suicide by hanging. The present petitioner, as complainant, alleged that the O.P. No. 2, being his son-in-law, used to torture Poulami – both physically and mentally, for her failure to do domestic work. He claimed that Poulami even requested them over telephone to take her back from her matrimonial home. He was informed by Poulami over phone that on 3rd of February, 2006, her husband, Sauvik, assaulted her at noon resulting in breaking of her conch. The complainant, thus, alleged that continuous physical and mental torture upon his daughter, Poulami, compelled her to bring her life to an end.

On the basis of such complaint, the police authority started a case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 498A/306 of I.P.C. Learned Court by order dated 13th October, 2006 framed charge under Sections 498A/306 of I.P.C. against accused Sauvik. He, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and faced the trial.

Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused person examined as many as 17 witnesses and also relied upon as many as 23 exhibits.

Learned Trial Court after taking into consideration all such evidence by the impugned judgment held the accused person not guilty of the offence under Sections 498A/306 of I.P.C. The accused person was acquitted accordingly and was directed to be released from his bail bond.

Being aggrieved by such judgment and order of acquittal, the defacto complainant, as petitioner, approached this Court with the instant revisional application. Mr. Sudipto Moitra, appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reading the impugned judgment in between the lines, submitted that the learned Trial Court could not have had any justification for insisting upon the evidence of any other witness. According to him, parents are the best witnesses in a case of alleged domestic violence. After all, relatives or the members of the family of the husband cannot normally be expected to substantiate the prosecution case.

Attention of the Court was invited to the fact that except the husband, being O.P. No. 2 of the victim, since deceased, no other member of the family had been implicated. It was submitted that this by itself reflects the complainant’s regard for truth and speaks about the genuineness of the grievances. Mr. Moitra then submitted that learned Trial Court was largely swayed by the facts that there had been no statement at the time of inquest by any member of the family and that there had been no mark of injury in the body of the victim. Leaned Trial Court also took into consideration that there had been delay of 24 hours in intimating the police. On behalf of the petitioner it was then submitted that in the event of glaring perversity, an order of acquittal can very well be set aside and if even one reasoning offered suffers from perversity, it can demand s