Judgment : This criminal revision case is filed by P.W.1 in the case who had given a complaint against the accused for an alleged offence punishable under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the complainant (P.W.1) the first accused is her husband, second accused is her father-in-law, third accused is her mother-in-law, fourth accused is the brother of the first accused and fifth accused is the wife of the fourth accused. According to the complainant after her marriage with first accused he demanded her to a sum of Rs.3,000 from her parents and her father (P.W.2) gave that amount to them and again later they demanded another sum of Rs.10,000 to be obtained from the. parents for P.W.1 and they also threatened her saying that they would pour kerosene and set fire to her if the amount is not brought. On these allegations she gave a complaint to the police on 27. 1988 and the police after investigation filed the charge sheet. 3. The accused denied the charge. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, who tried the case, on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that even though the accused have denied that P.W.1 was married to first accused there is no evidence to prove the marriage, and further that there is no evidence to prove the alleged harrassment of demand of dowry. On these findings the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge and therefore he acquitted them. It is against this order of acquittal P.W.1 has filed this criminal revision case. The State has not filed any appeal. 5. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-complainant and on going through the evidence I find that even if it can be held that P.W.1 is the wife of first accused there is no reliable evidence at all in proof of the allegation that there was harrassment by demand of dowry as alleged against the accused. 6. It is stated that after the marriage the accused wanted P.W.1 to get a sum of Rs.3,000 from her parents. As regards this the learned Magistrate has found contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and her father P.W.2. 6. It is stated that after the marriage the accused wanted P.W.1 to get a sum of Rs.3,000 from her parents. As regards this the learned Magistrate has found contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and her father P.W.2. when according to P.W.1 when the accused wanted Rs.3,000 from her parents she herself went to Madras and got the amount, in Ex.P-1 complaint it has been stated that P.W.2 himself came from Madras and paid that amount. P.W.2 also has stated that he himself went to Kuchikulam and gave the money. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no other evidence in this regard. Therefore only on the basis of the said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it cannot be believed that there was really a demand for Rs. 3,000 by the accused. 7. Then according to P.W.1 later the accused demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000 to be obtained from her parents. It is the further case of P.W.1 that she had written a letter to her father. P.W.2 regarding this and her father also had written to her. But no such letter has been filed in the court, P.W.1 of course has deposed of such demand of Rs.10,000, but P.W.2 has not stated one word about such a thing. This is a very strong circumstance show causing that this allegation of P.W.1 cannot be believed as true. 8. P.W.3 either of P.W.1 has spoken that the accused demanded Rs.10,000. But when P.W.2 has not spoken about that the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be believed as true. As stated above, P.W.3 is none other than the own sister of P.W.1. P.W.4 has not supported the case of P.W.1 and therefore he has been treated as hostile. Then P.W.5 and P.W.6 have only stated that they were told by others that P.W.1 was harrassed for dowry. Therefore there evidence is hear-say evidence and that cannot be relied on. P.W.7 another witness examined has also been treated as hostile witness because he also did not support the case of P.W.1 No other evidence has been let in. 9. Thus considering, there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which the case of the complainant-P.W.1 can be believed that she was harrassed for dowry by way of the accused. Therefore, it would appear that correctly the court below had acquitted the accused. 9. Thus considering, there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which the case of the complainant-P.W.1 can be believed that she was harrassed for dowry by way of the accused. Therefore, it would appear that correctly the court below had acquitted the accused. It must also be remembered that it is a criminal revision against an acquittal by a private person. In such a case unless there is some material error in the conduct of the case on account of which injustice is caused the order of the court below cannot be interfered with. 10. In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed.