Malai Subramanian, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is the wife of one Abdul Rahim and she filed a case against her husband three others for offences under Sections 98 -A IPC. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 I.P.C. A case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police. City Crime Branch in EX. Crime No. 4/93 and final report was filed against all the four accused. The III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town Madras, who tried the case in C.C. No. 2542/1994 chose to acquit A2 to A4 and convicted the husband of the Petitioner alone for the offences under Act and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - for the offence under Section 498 -A and in default of payment of fine to undergo one more month rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - for an offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two more months and the first accused namely. Abdul Rahim was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for both the offences at one and the same time concurrently. As against the judgment pronounced by the learned Magistrate, the first accused namely, the husband of the Petitioner went on appeal and the VI Additional Judge, who heard the appeal in C.A. No. 103/95 acquitted the accused by setting aside the Order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision has been filed by the aggrieved prosecution witness No. 1.
(2.) THE Prosecution case against the first accused husband is that 25 sovereign of jewels and a cash of Rs. 20,000/ - were given to the first accused during marriage and the first accused pledged 17 sovereigns of jewels belonging to the Petitioner and spent the pledge amount and also ill -treated the Petitioner by demanding more jewels. He also demanded a further amount of Rs. 75,000/ - as dowry and ill -treated on that account also.
(3.) ACCORDING to the trial court, the demand of dowry and ill -treatment was proved by P. W. 1 and P.W.2. P.W.2 being the father of P.W.1 . It was the case of P. Ws.1 and 2 that though 17 sovereigns of jewels were pledged by the first accused P.W.2 redeemed the same after paying Rs. 18,000/ -. This fact was corroborated by the pledged, Mr. Prakash Chand. who was examined as P.W.4. It is the case of P.W.4 that the first accused pledge one necklace, one chain and two bangles for an amount of Rs. 15.000/ - and P.W.2 who is the father -in -law of the first accused paid the amount and redeemed the jewels. The trial Court believed the evidence of P.W.4 because, he is an independent witness and has no motive or mallice against the first accused to implicate him in a false case. It is the case of P. W. 1 that the first accused demanded her Thali also and in case she refused to give thali, he would pour kerosene on her and subsequently, thali was also handed over to him. P.W.3 corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 to the extent that it was she who pledged the thali in the pawn broker shop on behalf of the first accused for an amount of Rs. 800/ - and give the amount to the first accused. The trial court believed the version of P. Ws. 1 and 3. In so far as the thali episode is concerned. Therefore, according to the trial court it amounts to harrasing of P.W.1. The Appellant Court after hearing both the parties and after going through the records discussed the evidence and held that the offence against the first accused was also not made out and therefore acquitted the accused. The persons given by the appellate Court are that there is a discrepancy with regard to the number of sovereigns between the evidence of P. Ws.l, 2 and 4. According to P.W.2, 27 sovereigns of Jewels were pledged and 15 soverings of jewels were redeemed by him whereas P.W.4's evidence is, 16 sovereigns of jewels were pledged by the first accused and redeemed by P.W.2. This discrepancy appears to be very minor but what weighed much in the mind of the appellate Court is that P.W.4 did not produce any receipt to prove the pledge of jewels and subsequent redemption. The reason given by P.W.4 before the investigating agency appears to be that the incident took place one year prior to his examination by the police. The learned Additional Judge after going through the evidence came to a conclusion that the accused used the pledge amount only for the purpose of improving his business and according to him nowhere it was said that the amount was demanded and received by the first accused by way of dowry.;