Judgment :- Accused in C.C.64/95 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnad is the appellant. By judgment dated 27.2.97 trial court has convicted the Appellant/Accused for Dowry Harassment and demand of dowry-498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and one year respectively. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case: P.W.1-Shanmugavalli is the daughter of P.W.2-Velu. P.W.1 and the accused got married on 24.5.91. At the time of marriage P.W.1 was given Seer Varisai of five sovereigns of gold and 1-1/2 acres of land with other necessary household utensils. P.W.1 lived happily with the accused for three years in Ambedkar Colony. Thereafter the accused was demanding further dowry amount of Rs.5,000/- and five sovereign of jewels. Father of P.W.1-P.W.2 could not afford to give dowry amount and jewels. Since demand of the accused was not met, the accused had frequently beaten P.W.1 and treating her cruelly and had driven her away from the house. 3. Panchayat: To effect reconciliation between the parties, Panchayat was held during 1994-Iypasi-Marhali (November-December) participated by P.Ws.3 to 5 and other villagers. Even in the Panchayat, the accused persisted in his demand for dowry. In the Panchayat the accused stated that without money and jewels he would not take back P.W.1. 4. Registration of the case: Since the accused had refused to take back P.W.1, she had taken shelter with her father P.W.2 at Andankudi, Paramakudi Taluk. Since the accused did not abide by the decision of the Panchayat, on 8.6.95 P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-Complaint before All Women Police Station, Ramnad. On the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.6-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.5/95 under Section 498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Investigation: P.W.6 had taken up the investigation. The accused was arrested on 9.6.95-9.30 a.m at Ponnaiyapuram, Paramakudi. She has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5. The Inspector of Police Ms.Usharani (not examined) verified the investigation of P.W.6-Sub-Inspector of Police and filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnad on 31.7.95. 6. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. To substantiate the charge against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined. Ex.P1 was marked. The defence is one of total denial. According to the accused, due to differences between the spouses, a false case is foisted against him on false allegations of Dowry Demand and harassment. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the evidence of P.W.1 on the demand of dowry and that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Convening of Panchayat and refusal to take back P.W.1 was found to be proved by the evidence of P.W.2-father of P.W.1 and Panchayatars (P.Ws.4 and 5). Finding that P.W.1 was subjected to harassment-demand for dowry, the trial court found him guilty under Sections 498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. 7. Aggrieved over the conviction, Appellant/Accused-husband has preferred this appeal. Assailing the reliability of P.W.1 the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the vital aspect of demand of dowry P.W.1 is not firm and that her evidence suffers from improvements. Further submitting that there is no cogent evidence of Panchayatars, it is contended that the trial court erred in accepting the interested testimony of Panchayatars-P.Ws.3 to 5. It is further submitted that false case is foisted against the accused because of misunderstanding and differences between the spouses. 8. Countering the arguments, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the demand of dowry is well proved by the evidence of PW.1 and her father P.W.2 and Panchayatars (P.Ws.3 to 5). The prosecution has placed much reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 that the demand of dowry and the essential ingredients of Section 498(A) I.P.C is well proved. Submitting that the conviction is well balanced, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that the conviction and sentence of imprisonment warrants no interference. 9. Upon careful re-assessment of the evidence, judgment under appeal and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (i)Whether the demand of dowry by the accused within the meaning of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is proved? (ii)Whether the prosecution has proved dowry harassment within the meaning of Section 498(A) I.P.C? (iii)Whether the conviction of the Appellant/Accused could be sustained? (ii)Whether the prosecution has proved dowry harassment within the meaning of Section 498(A) I.P.C? (iii)Whether the conviction of the Appellant/Accused could be sustained? 10.The appeal proceeds on these common grounds: That P.W.1 and the accused got married on 24.5.91. P.W.1-Shanmugavalli is the resident of Andankudi, Paramakudi Taluk. Accused is residing in Ambedkar Colony. After marriage, P.W.1 and accused lived happily for three years in Ambedkar Colony. P.W.1 has asserted the same both in her evidence and in Ex.P1 The couple have no issues. Case of prosecution is that only after three years, accused was demanding dowry and that P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty-demanding for dowry. 11. Charge No.1: Under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act:Charge No.1 is framed under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the alleged demand of dowry three years after the marriage. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act prohibits any direct or indirect demand of dowry from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. ... The object of Section 4 is to discourage the demand of dowry as consideration for marriage between the parties thereto. To make demand of dowry punishable under Section 4 of the Act, it should be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. 12. In this case, demand of dowry even if assumed to be true neither relates to the one nor agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage. Such demand of dowry after three years of happy life certainly not relating to the marriage. Definite case of P.W.1 is that even at the time of marriage she was given Seer Varisai of Rs.5,000/-, 1-1/2 acres of land and jewels apart from household utensils. Accused was satisfied with them. After marriage both P.W.1 and accused were living happily for three years. Any demand thereafter cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not tested the evidence of P.W.1 on the essential ingredients of Section 4. Since the demand of dowry is not in connection with the marriage, conviction under Section 4 cannot be sustained. This is all the more so when the demand of dowry itself is highly doubtful. 13. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not tested the evidence of P.W.1 on the essential ingredients of Section 4. Since the demand of dowry is not in connection with the marriage, conviction under Section 4 cannot be sustained. This is all the more so when the demand of dowry itself is highly doubtful. 13. Charge No.2: (Under Section 498(A) I.P.C-Dowry Harassment) According to P.W.1 while she was living with the accused in Ambedkar Colony, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in demanding for dowry. To sustain the conviction under Section 498(A) I.P.C, cruelty or harassment must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14.To bring home the guilt under Section 498(A) I.P.C the following ingredients are to be proved by the prosecution: (i)The woman must be married; (ii)She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (iii)Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. 15. It is to be seen whether the above essential ingredients are proved by the prosecution. By a plain reading of Ex.P1, it is clear that P.W.1 has not stated the exact time of demand of dowry.According to her, Since demand of dowry could not be met, P.W.1 was beaten and driven away from the house by the accused. Averments in Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1 as to the demand of dowry is vague and unclear. Even the approximate period of demand of dowry and when she was driven away from the matrimonial home is neither stated in Ex.P1 nor in the evidence. Evidence is wanting on the gap between the occurrence and the complaint. Likewise hardly there is any evidence on the dates of Panchayats which is very much relied upon by the prosecution. 16. According to P.Ws.1 and 2 Panchayats were held during Iyppasi-Marhazi in 1994, corresponding English Calendar months November-December 1994. The complaint (Ex.P1) was lodged before Ramnad All women Police Station on 8.6.95. If the accused has refused to take back P.W.1 even after the Panchayats held in November-December 1994, nothing prevented P.W.1 from immediately lodging the complaint. No reason is forthcoming for the delay in lodging the complaint. Delay in lodging the complaint gives rise to suspicion which would put the court on guard to scrutinise the case carefully. It is not as if P.W.1 has not earlier taken steps. No reason is forthcoming for the delay in lodging the complaint. Delay in lodging the complaint gives rise to suspicion which would put the court on guard to scrutinise the case carefully. It is not as if P.W.1 has not earlier taken steps. Earlier she lodged the complaint before Paramakudi Police where the accused was called for and enquired. The accused did not pay heed to the advice of Paramakudi Police to take back P.W.1. It was only thereafter P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P1-complaint. 17. Delay in lodging the complaint there is thick cloud of suspicion upon the prosecution case. In matrimonial cases, no time gap could be fixed for lodging the complaint. Parties may be hoping for reconciliation. But even in those matrimonial cases, when the spouses are estranged, the complainant is expected to lodge the complaint without inordinate delay. Prompt and immediate lodging of F.I.R lends assurance to the version of demand of dowry. Averments in Ex.P1 and evidence of P.W.1 is vague and uncertain as to the period of demand of dowry; when she was driven away from the house and other subsequent happenings. 18. In the above backdrop, the evidence on record is to be analysed. Allegations of demand of dowry and dowry harassment is based upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1. Her evidence bristles with several inconsistencies and improved version. In Ex.P1 and in her chief-examination P.W.1 has stated that she lived happily with the accused for three years. But in her cross-examination she has stated that she lived with the accused only for one year and thereafter he set up a separate residence and at that time the accused was demanding dowry and was also ill-treating her. It is difficult to reconcile the inconsistencies and improvements in the version of P.W.1 with the averments in Ex.P1. 19. From the evidence of P.W.3 it is clear that the accused is living with another woman in Paramakudi in a rented house. The act of the accused in living with another woman would have naturally caused resentment in the mind of P.W.1. She may be nurturing grouse against her husband. The possibility of criminal complaint being filed to make him fall in line with her cannot be ruled out. In that circumstance, before recording conviction on the solitary testimony of P.W.1, corroboration is to be sought for from independent source. 20. She may be nurturing grouse against her husband. The possibility of criminal complaint being filed to make him fall in line with her cannot be ruled out. In that circumstance, before recording conviction on the solitary testimony of P.W.1, corroboration is to be sought for from independent source. 20. To strengthen the version of P.W.1, P.W.2-father of P.W.1 was examined. P.W.2 has stated that the accused was demanding further dowry amount of Rs.5,000/- and jewels which when refused the accused declined to take back P.W.1. P.W.2 has also not given any explanation as to why no complaint was lodged immediately. Equally it is unclear as to what has driven the parties to lodge the complaint before All Women Police Station on 8.6.95. Evidence of P.W.2 cannot be said to be corroborative piece of evidence from independent source. 21. Convening of Panchayat and evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 seems to have substantially weighed in the mind of the trial court. P.Ws.3 to 5 speak about the Panchayat convened in Ambedkar Colony. It is to be pointed out that P.Ws.3 to 5 have not stated about the time of convening the Panchayat. Further there is no direct evidence of demand of dowry by P.Ws.4 and 5. According to them, they convened a Panchayat at the instance of P.W.1 as is clear from their version Thus the alleged demand of dowry by the accused was conveyed to the Panchayatars only by P.W.1. Evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 is not to the effect that the accused has made any demand of dowry. Likewise, evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 is not of great assistance to the prosecution on the alleged harassment and cruelty to P.W.1. 22. We may straight away point out that P.Ws.3 to 5 are closely related to P.W.1's family as is brought out in their cross-examination. The details of Panchayat is not forthcoming. Evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 on the demand of dowry and dowry harassment is not direct and substantial. These vital aspects undermining the credibility were not taken note of by the trial court. 23. Admittedly complaint was given before Parmakudi Police Station. Copy of the complaint before Paramakudi Police Station and the result of the enquiry is not forthcoming. There is no dispute that P.W.1 and the accused are separated. Because of separation, it is quite natural that P.W.1 could have developed resentment. 23. Admittedly complaint was given before Parmakudi Police Station. Copy of the complaint before Paramakudi Police Station and the result of the enquiry is not forthcoming. There is no dispute that P.W.1 and the accused are separated. Because of separation, it is quite natural that P.W.1 could have developed resentment. This is all the more so when accused is said to be living with another woman. Ill-treatment and demand of dowry and that P.W.1 was subjected to sufferings is not proved by specific evidence. Delay in lodging the complaint is not explained. The averments in Ex.P1 as to the demand of dowry is vague and uncertain. Prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it is difficult to sustain the guilt and conviction recorded by the trial court. 23. Therefore the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.C.64/95 (dated 27.2.97) convicting the Appellant/Accused under Section 498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The Appellant/Accused is acquitted of both the charges.