Judgment : This criminal revision petition is by the second accused of the five accused who has been convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram for an offence under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused 3 to 5 sisters of the second accused were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Along with this revision petitioner-second accused the first accused-his mother also was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the convicted accused filed an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari acquitted the first accused, but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the second accused. It is against this the second accused has come up with this revision. 2. The case against the accused is that the second accused was married to P.W.1. Lissi on 111. 1984. At the time of marriage, P.W.1’s father P.W.2 gave the second accused a dowry of Rs.20,000 and he also gave his daughter jewels of 38 sovereigns. Apart from this, as the accused demanded more dowry of Rs.30,000 on 11. 1984, i.e. two days before the marriage, P.W.2 executed a mortgage deed for a sum of Rs.30,000 in favour of the second accused and his daughter P.W.1. on the understanding that on payment of Rs.30,000 by P. W.2 the mortgage shall be cancelled. 3. P.W.1. was in the house of the accused for three months happily, but thereafter on account of the. instigation by the first accused-mother of the second accused began to ill-treat P.W.1 demanding to get Rs.30,000 from her parents. First accused as well as accused 3 to 5 also used to abuse P.W.1. On one occasion the second accused stabbed P.W.1 in her left hand with a knife and on another occasion the accused kept P.W.1. in a room in wrongful confinement for five days and they did not give her any food or water and finally on the first accused telling the second accused that P.W.1. failed to bring Rs.30,000 and she should not be allowed to be in the house, the second accused took her away to her parents’ house and left her there. Without any other go P.W.1. gave a complaint Ex.P-1 to the police. 4. The accused all denied the charge. 5. failed to bring Rs.30,000 and she should not be allowed to be in the house, the second accused took her away to her parents’ house and left her there. Without any other go P.W.1. gave a complaint Ex.P-1 to the police. 4. The accused all denied the charge. 5. Now in the revision it is argued that both the courts below were in error in holding that the second accused is guilty when there is no sufficient evidence to prove the charge. On a careful consideration of the evidence in the case, I find that it is difficult to sustain the finding of the courts below. 6. It is the prosecution case that with a view to extract a sum of Rs. 30,000 which according to the prosecution the accused demanded as more dowry in respect of which the father of P.W.1., i.e. P.W.2 had executed a mortgage deed Ex.P-2, the accused all began to ill-treat P.W.1. As two instances of such ill-treatments, it is according to the prosecution that on 25. 1985 the second accused caused a stab injury in the hand of P.W.1. and subsequently she was confined in a room for five days and she was not given any food or water. 7. As regards the first instance that she was inflicted a stab injury, apart from the evidence of P.W.1. herself there is no direct corroborating evidence. P.W.3 Ponnaiah who claims to be a relation of both sides has only stated that he was told by a boy that second accused caused a stab injury to P.W.1. and then he went to P.W.land took her to P.W.5 Doctor. He has not stated which boy told him so and no such boy has been examined as a witness. An important thing is that the Doctor has stated in his evidence that P.W.1. herself has told him that she sustained injury while doing cooking work, and the Doctor has stated in his evidence that P.W.1. was brought by two ladies and he has not stated anything about P.W.3 taking her to him. Of course, the courts below have stated that may be because P.W.1. was afraid that the police may take action against her husband she did not disclose that it was the second accused who inflicted injury on her. was brought by two ladies and he has not stated anything about P.W.3 taking her to him. Of course, the courts below have stated that may be because P.W.1. was afraid that the police may take action against her husband she did not disclose that it was the second accused who inflicted injury on her. But since she has stated to the Doctor that she sustained injury while doing cooking work, and apart from her evidence there is no other corroborating evidence, and especially when the Doctor has not stated that P.W.3 accompanied P.W.1. to him, it is difficult to believe that on the evidence of P.W.1. and P.W.3 alone that the second accused inflicted the stab injury as alleged. It is in evidence that even after the incident of sustaining injury P.W.1. continued to live in the house of second accused. This is rather unlikely because such an incident being very serious one she would have in the normal course gone to the house of her parents. 8. Coining to the next instance that she was wrongfully confined in a room for five days by the accused, according to the prosecution witnesses as can be seen from their evidence, this happened just a few days earlier to 19. 1985 the date of complaint. It must be remembered that the second accused himself given evidence as D.W.1 in the case. As a witness he has denied that P.W.1 was ill-treated in any way, and he has also denied that she was wrongfully confined as alleged. While it is the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that second accused himself after the alleged wrongful confinement had taken P.W.1. to her parents’ house and left her there on 19. 1985,itis the evidence of second accused, i.e. D.W.1 that it was P.W.1’s father who last took her to his house. He has further deposed that he has sent a lawyer’s notice Ex.R-3 to P.W.1.. This notice is dated 28. 1985. He has also deposed that P. W.1 refused to receive this notice. Looking at Ex.R-3, it is seen that there is an endorsement of refusal. Therefore, it is apparent that, as stated by second accused in his evidence, he has sent a notice to P.W.1. dated 28. 1985. As per the recitals of this notice P.W.2 had taken away P.W.1. to his house even earlier to the date of the notice. Looking at Ex.R-3, it is seen that there is an endorsement of refusal. Therefore, it is apparent that, as stated by second accused in his evidence, he has sent a notice to P.W.1. dated 28. 1985. As per the recitals of this notice P.W.2 had taken away P.W.1. to his house even earlier to the date of the notice. Therefore, it looks clear that the prosecution case that the second accused took P.W.1 from his house and left her in parents’ house on 19. 1985 is difficult to believe as true. 9. These two instances of cruelty alleged by the prosecution have not been proved satisfactorily. Here, it must be remembered that the charge is under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. cruelty to a married woman by her husband or relations and the charge is not for demanding dowry. It is the prosecution case that P.W.2 had given dowry to his daughter and because the accused wanted more dowry he executed a mortgage deed Ex.P-2. But this mortgage deed is two days earlier to the date of the marriage. So, what all happened at the time of marriage and prior to it, even if they are true cannot be relevant to the charge under Sec. 498-A. 10. According to the prosecution itself only three months after the marriage the second accused began to ill-treat P.W.1. The trial court do not seem to have considered the evidence of the accused as D.W.1 in proper perspective, and the appellate court has even gone to the extent of saying that the evidence of second accused cannot be considered. In these circumstances of the case, I am not at all satisfied that the conviction of second accused is correct. In this view of the matter the criminal revision case is allowed and the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine amount if paid shall be refunded to him.