The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborating material parts of the victim's testimony and the recognition of societal challenges in speaking the truth in court.

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned Amicus Curiae who has been engaged by this court for presenting the case of the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state.

2. This is a petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., questioning the legality of the judgment and order dated 02.06.2007, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.52(3) of 2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2, affirming the finding of conviction as returned by trial court, however, with modification in the sentence from three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000 to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000 with the default sentence, under Section 498A of the IPC.

3. The victim, Sutapa Chakraborty (PW.1) lodged the complaint (Exbt.1), disclosing that after 89 months of her marriage, her fatherinlaw started pressurising her for fetching Rs.25,000 from her parents and her husband also participated in such act for bringing cash. In order to coerce her in realising that unlawful demand from her parents, she was often subjected to physical torture by her husband, the petitioner herein. When she desperately informed the matter to her sister in law, elder brotherinlaw and fatherinlaw, in order to protect her from physical assault, they asked her to fulfil the demand. Even they indicated that, otherwise they would arrange marriage of the petitioner somewhere else. Her fatherinlaw, elder brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw also asked the petitioner to set her ablaze. They also asked her husband not to bring rice and pulses for her food. In the year 2002, she became pregnant, but her husband and sisterinlaw assaulted her for fetching cash. In the course of such assault, when her husband, in particular, pushed her, she fell down and there had been abortion of the foetus. Again in the year 2003, she became pregnant, but she was forced to abort the pregnancy on 02.01.2004 at the instance of her husband, who was instigated by her fatherinlaw. The victim disclosed that she has suffered physical assault, mental torment and serious indignity from the behaviour of the inmates. When her father visited her matrimonial home for bringing peace in their conjugal life, he was humiliated by her fatherin law and her husband. There had been an attempt to conciliate the discord in presence of 34 village elders. She has also complained that the petitioner expressed his remorse in that meeting and assured that he would take all sorts of care of the victim. Thereafter, the victim for proper care stayed considerable time in her parent’s house, but during that period, not for once the husband (the petitioner herein) visited her. During the time, she got information that the petitioner had developed an illicit relationship with one woman at a place called Indira Colony at Hapania. On 11.09.2005 at about 1230 hours when she visited the house of one Gopal Chakraborty alongwith her mother, younger sister and a friend, they found a woman had been sharing bed with the appellant. As the appellant found her inside the room, he rose up from the bed and pushed her. When she screamed, people from the locality rushed there and insulted the appellant. They handed over the articles which were given by her father at the time of her marriage. On 18.09.2005, a village meeting was held in the said locality and it was decided that, if the appellant continue the said relation, he would be socially boycotted. She has explained that since she made sincere attempts to reconcile the marriage, there had been some delay in lodging the written ejahar.

4. Based on the said ejahar, Amtali P.S. Case No.94/2005, under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. After investigation, the police filed the chargesheet under Sections 498A/34 of IPC. On taking cognizance, the charge was framed against the petitioner and other coaccused, namely Amar Chakraborty, Pradip Chakraborty and Smt