The main legal point established in the judgment is that to prove cruelty under Section 498A of IPC, the evidence must demonstrate conduct that is distressing or painful to the woman and may cause grave injury to her mental or physical health. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for consistent and specific evidence to support allegations of cruelty.

This criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No.5), West Tripura, Agartala in respect of the accused-convict-appellant Smt. Jhuma Das, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 02/2012 under Section 498A of IPC, sentencing her to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further RI for one month.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the appellant and learned Addl. PP, Mr. RC Debnath for the State respondent.

3. The prosecution case in short is that Ashalata Das (Dey) @ Soma, daughter of PW4, the informant Binod Dey & PW5, Smt. Tripti Paul (Dey) got married with accused Sanjib Das and after marriage they had been living in the matrimonial home along with other accused persons as named in the FIR, i.e. Premananda Das (father-in-law), Smt. Chanu Das (Mother-in-law) and the accused-appellant Smt. Jhuma Das. The deceased Ashalata @ Soma lived with accused Sanjib Das as husband and wife for about five years. On 17.10.2011 her dead body was found with bleeding head injuries in the nearby field of the house of accused persons and the matter was reported to P.S. After making GD Entry No.785 at Amtali P.S., police officer went to the spot and conducted inquest over the dead body and, thereafter, forwarded the dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination.

4. At about 1205 hrs PW4, Binod Dey, father of Ashalata, lodged a written FIR alleging murder of Ashalata by the accused persons named in the FIR and accordingly, Amtali PS case No. 131/2011 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered. It was also alleged in the FIR that the accused Jhuma Das was involved in illicit activities and the other accused persons were supporting her. That Jhuma Das tried to introduce/engage Ashalata also to such illicit activities of her to which Ashalata did not agree and therefore, she was tortured by the accused persons. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused Sanjib Das for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/302 and 201 of IPC and under Section 498A against the accused Smt. Chanu Das, Smt. Jhuma Das and Sri Premananda Das.

5. In course of trial, separate charges were framed against the accused persons. Against the accused Sanjib Das charges were framed under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and against all the accused persons including the accused-appellant Jhuma Das charge was framed under Section 498A of IPC.

6. In course of trial, prosecution examined 24 witnesses and proved 22 documents and 5 material objects. After recording of evidence of prosecution was over, all the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC and in their turn they did not adduce any defence evidence.

7. By the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2013 learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the accused Sanjib Das guilty of the charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.

8. The accused-appellant Jhuma Das was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced her as stated hereinbefore. The two other accused persons namely, Premananda Das and Smt. Chanu Das were acquitted.

9. Felt aggrieved, the convict-appellant Jhuma Das preferred the present appeal.

10. It is argued by learned counsel, Mr. Deb that only allegation made against accused Jhuma Das is that she was engaged in prostitution and that she also tried to engage Ashalata in such illicit activities and Ashalata since did not agree, as alleged, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons. Mr. Deb, learned counsel submitted that there is nothing in the evidence as to how the alleged cruelty was exercised. He has raised a point of law that even if it is accepted that Jhuma Das asked Ashalata to involve in the illicit act of prostitution whether such act amounts to mental or physical cruelty as defined in the explana