The presumption of cruelty must be based on solid evidence, avoiding generalizations about women's experiences.

1. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.

2. This is an appeal under S.374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.02.2017 delivered in Crl. App. No.20(2) / 2014 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under S.498(A) of the IPC for committing cruelty against his wife namely, Smt. Shuili Paul (Shil) (hereinafter, referred to as the victim).

3. Pursuant to the said conviction under S.498 (A) of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. By means of this appeal the said judgment and order has been challenged.

4. The genesis of prosecution is rooted in the complaint filed by the victim in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur, as it then was, revealing that the victim got married on 24th Magha, 1424 BS corresponding to 11.02.2008 with the appellant. After solemnization of the marriage, the victim had started to live with the appellant in a rented house. After 15-16 days of the marriage, the appellant started pressurizing the victim to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her parental home. It has been also revealed by the victim that the appellant had illicit relation with the other accused who has been acquitted from the charge by the trial court and that acquittal has not been disturbed by the appellate court (Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur).

5. According to the complaint, the victim was subjected to serious physical torture both by the appellant and the other accused. On 13.11.2009 the appellant physically tortured the victim and drove her out from the matrimonial home. Finding no other alternative, she took shelter in her brother's house. His brother had informed the matter to Lawgang Panchayat at Satirbazar.

6. In the Panchayat, the appellant had committed that he will not repeat such torture and after assurance, the victim was taken back to matrimonial home. But within a few days the torture recurred on demand of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. On three to four occasions, the victim was driven out from the matrimonial home on demand of money. On 23.04.2010, the accused persons, whose names have appeared in the complaint (Exhibit - 01), the accused No.2 and 3 had brutally tortured the victim. But this time no settlement could be brokered after that occurrence. It has also been alleged that the victim was denied food, clothing and shelter by the accused persons.

7. Based on the said complaint, which was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur to the concerned police station, a case being RK Pur PS, case No.457/2010 was registered under S.498(A) and taken up for investigation. Having completed the investigation, the final report was submitted and the appellant and the other accused person was sent up for facing the trial.

8. On taking cognizance, the Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge under S.498 (A) of the IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, as many as 12 witnesses including the victim (PW - 01) were examined. That apart, the prosecution adduced four documentary evidence including the complaint (Exhibit - 03). After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the appellant was examined under S.313 of the Cr.P.C. when he reiterated his plea of innocence and contended that the evidence as led by the prosecution are all concocted and fa