C KANDAMMAL Vs. S CHELLAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in C.A.No. 85 of 1998; setting aside the conviction rendered by the judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli in C.C.No. 5 of 1997 of the respondents 1 to 3 of offences under Section 498-A, IPC and 498-A r/w 109 IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that P.W. 1 - Kandammal, is the wife of A-lChellaperumal and A-2 and A-3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of P.W.I. They were residents of Melakulam Village. The marriage between P.W.I and A-l, as per Hindu rites was performed on 4-1-1996 and at the time of marriage 7 sovereigns of jewels and Rs. 5,000/- in cash was given to A-l. Thereafter, they were living together as joint family in the said village. However, four days later A-2 and A-3 told P.W. 1 that the jewels and cash brought by her by way of dowry is not enough and hence demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in addition. When the same was reported by P.W. 1 to A-l, namely her husband, he had also given a stamp ofapproval to the demand made by his parents. At that juncture, P.W. 1 has expressed her in ability to demand her parents for such a huge amount stating that her parents were not so very rich. It is thereupon, on 10-1-1996 at about 12.00 noon, A-l by catching hold of the tuft of P.W. 1 beat her and in the course of the same, A-2 and A-3 sent her out of the matrimonial abode stating that unless she brings the money, she cannot live with them. It is further stated that at the time of ill-treatment, the neighbours questioned as to why they should treat P.W. 1 so badly, whereupon they were asked to mind their own business. The matter was then reported by P.W. 1 to her parents, consequent upon which, a complaint was given to the All Women Police Station, who on receipt of the same registered a case and took up investigation. After completion of the same, the final report was filed against the accused for the above-said offences.

(3.) The prosecution, among the witnesses examined to prove the case, mainly relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, the neighbours examined on the said of the prosecution have turned hostile. P.W. 1 in clear terms has stated about as to how the marriage took place and how she was treated. Though they have been crossexamined in detail, nothing material has been brought out on record to discredit her version. The learned Magistrate, believed the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and has convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. However, on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge took a different view and has acquitted the accused.