Judgment :- The judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 by The Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Thuthukudi upholding the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.227 of 2002 by The Assistant Sessions Court, Thuthukudi is now under challenge. 2. The crux of the prosecution may be summarised as follows:-P.W.1 Vanniyan is a resident of Tiruchendur and the deceased Paechiyammal was given in marriage to the accused in the year 1995. At the time of marriage, she had been given 35 sovereigns of gold jewels. Due to wedlock, the deceased had given birth to three children. After marriage, both the deceased and the accused had lived together in Meingyanapuram and betwixt them, frequent tussles had emerged. The accused had directed the deceased to go and fetch Rs.50,000/- from her parents. On 29/3/2000, the deceased had come to the house of P.W.1 and reported that the accused had frequently, beaten her by way of demanding money. P.W.1 had alleviated the deceased and send her back to her marital home. On 4/4/2000, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 hadcome to know that his daughter had passed away by committing suicide in the house of the accused. P.W.1 had gone there and subsequently, examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the statement given by him had been marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.10 the Head Constable attached to Meingyanapuram Police Station had received a complaint from the accused on 4/4/2000 at about 7.00 a.m., and he registered the same in Crime No.57 of 2000 under Section 174 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and the complaint given by the accused had been marked as Ex.P.11 and the First Information Report had been marked as Ex.P.12. The investigation had been done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. P.W.11 the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken up the investigation. After receiving the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer for changing Section of law he had given a requisition to the Court. On 4/4/2000, he had gone to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P.12 and also drawn a rough sketch marked as Ex.P.14. After completing investigation, he laid a final report against the accused under Sections 498 A and 306 of The Indian Penal Code on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam. 3. On 4/4/2000, he had gone to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P.12 and also drawn a rough sketch marked as Ex.P.14. After completing investigation, he laid a final report against the accused under Sections 498 A and 306 of The Indian Penal Code on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam. 3. The case had been committed to the Court of Sessions and subsequently, transferred to the Assistant Sessions Court, Thuthukudi. Necessary charges under Section 498 A and 306 of The Indian Penal Code had been framed against the accused and the same had been read over and explained to him. The accused had denied the same and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution had chosen to examine P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os. 1 to 8. When the accused had been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crimes. No oral and documentary evidence had been adduced on the side of the accused. 4. The trial Court after assessing the evidence available on record had found the accused guilty under Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,500/-with usual default clause. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Thuthukudi. The First Appellate Court, after reappraising the available evidence on record, had dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. Now, the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 is being challenged in the present Criminal Revision Case. 5. The First Appellate Court, after reappraising the available evidence on record, had dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. Now, the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 is being challenged in the present Criminal Revision Case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner had emphatically contended that in the present case, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no independent witnesses had been examined and further, the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged demand of dowry and both the Courts had erroneously found the accused guilty under Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code and under the said circumstances, the entire conviction and sentence passed against the accused under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had equally contended that both P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and they had categorically stated in their evidence that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- by way of dowry from the deceased and since the deceased had not been able to those the torture given by the accused, the accused had been driven to the state of committing suicide and P.W.5 had also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the prosecution had adduced voluminous and acceptable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code and therefore, there is no valid ground to make interference with the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and altogether, the present Criminal Revision Case deserves dismissal. 7. Before analysing the divergent contentions raised by either counsel, a prefatory note is very much essential for easy reference and also for effective disposal. 8. From the evidence of P.W.1, the Court can easily cull out the following factual aspects. a. The deceased had been married to the accused in the year 1995 and both of them had lived under a same roof and both of them had been blessed with three children. b. At the time of marriage, the deceased had been given 35 sovereigns of gold jewels by her parents. c. The deceased was said to have committed suicide on 4/4/2000 at 2.00 a.m., in the residence of the accused. 9. b. At the time of marriage, the deceased had been given 35 sovereigns of gold jewels by her parents. c. The deceased was said to have committed suicide on 4/4/2000 at 2.00 a.m., in the residence of the accused. 9. At this juncture, it would be apropos to look into the provisions of Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code wherein it is stated like thus:- "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a women; subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section of cruelty means - (a). any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b). harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 10. Further, it would be suitable to look into the decision reported in 1990 Crl.L.J – 407 (SARALA PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA), wherein, it had been held as follows:- "To attract Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, it must be established that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide, or the harassment was to compel her to fulfil illegal demand for dowry. Every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code." 11. Therefore, from the conjoint reading of the Provisions of Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code as well as the decision referred to above, it is made clear to the Court that there must be illegal demand on the part of the accused so as to mulct him with the punishment under Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code. 12. With this legal backdrop, the Court has to analyse the present case. 13. 12. With this legal backdrop, the Court has to analyse the present case. 13. P.W.1 and his wife viz., P.W.2 had given a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same had been marked as Ex.P.1, wherein, it had been clearly stated that the marriage betwixt the deceased and the accused had taken place in the year 1995 and at the time of marriage, the deceased had been given 35 sovereigns of gold jewels, barring house hold articles and both of them had been blessed with three children and prior to five months, the deceased had come to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and demanded Rs.50,000/- to improve the business of her husband. Further, it is stated that P.W.1 had visited the house of the accused on 3/4/2000 and the deceased had told that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- from her. Even in Ex.P.1 it had not been stated that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- from the deceased by way of dowry. In Ex.P.1 as stated earlier, it had been clearly stated that in order to improve the business of the accused, the deceased had demanded Rs.50,000/- from her parents. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged unlawful demand on the part of the accused so as to attract the penal provision of Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code. 14. Further in Ex.P.1, it had been stated that prior to five months from the date of occurrence, the deceased had come to the house of her parents and demanded Rs.50,000/- so as to augment the business of her husband. But P.W.1 had improved in his evidence that on 29/3/2000, the deceased had come to his house and demanded money and also narrated the alleged torture given by the accused. Further, in Ex.P.1 it had been stated that on 3/4/2000, P.W.1 had met the deceased in her residence and she told that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- from her. But the very same aspect was totally absent in the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 is nothing but the wife of P.W.1. She had also clearly stated that the deceased had demanded Rs.50,000/- as directed by her husband only to improve the business of the accused. P.W.2 had not stated anything about the alleged illegal demand. One Perumal had been examined as P.W.5. P.W.2 is nothing but the wife of P.W.1. She had also clearly stated that the deceased had demanded Rs.50,000/- as directed by her husband only to improve the business of the accused. P.W.2 had not stated anything about the alleged illegal demand. One Perumal had been examined as P.W.5. He had stated in his evidence that the wife of the deceased had made frequent visits to her parent’s house and further, he had stated that the accused had demanded money from him. Further, he had ascertained that he had not effected any compromise. Therefore, from the evidence of witnesses referred to supra, it is made clear to the Court that only to improve the business of the accused, the accused had directed the deceased to get Rs.50,000/- from her parents. The demand of the accused so as to improve his business cannot be construed as unlawful demand as defined in Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is very clear that in the present case, the alleged illegal demand for dowry had not been established on the side of the prosecution. Since the above aspect had not been proved on the side of the prosecution, it is highly impossible and improbable to come to a conclusion that the alleged act of the accused would attract the penal provision of Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is very clear that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner is having acceptable force and whereas the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Additional Public Prosecutor is not having merit. 15. The Courts below had not considered the above aspect and erroneously come to a conclusion that the accused had committed the offence under Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code. In view of the discussion made earlier, it is very clear that the conviction and sentence passed against the accused under Section 498 A of The Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside. 16. In fine, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused in C.C.No.227 of 2002 by The Assistant Sessions Court, Thuthukudi confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 by The Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Thuthukudi are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge. 16. In fine, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused in C.C.No.227 of 2002 by The Assistant Sessions Court, Thuthukudi confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2003 by The Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Thuthukudi are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge. Bail bonds if any executed by him shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid by the accused is ordered to be refunded forthwith.