Judgment :- This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction and sentence passed by the Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.101 of 2002 dated 211. 2002, wherein, the appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 is the father and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the house owner and P.W.4, tenant of the house where the deceased was living with the accused/appellant. Sasikala, the wife of the appellant was the younger daughter of P.W.1. Prior to the marriage, the deceased had love affair with the appellant and ultimately the appellant married her at the intervention of P.W.1 in a temple in Trust Puram. Her mother did not like the marriage and said to have committed suicide. Subsequent to the marriage, the appellant and the deceased/Sasikala were living in Choolaimedu separately and they have a child aged about 2 ½ years out of their wedlock. 3. The marital life of the deceased was not so happy and she had financial difficulties. Now and then, she used to get money from P.W.1 and P.W.3. As and when the deceased had any problem in the matrimonial house, her sister Rajeswari used to mediate and resolve the dispute. According to the prosecution, the deceased made a demand for a sum of Rs.15,000/- to P.W.1, who in turn wanted 15 days for payment of the said amount. On the very same day at 8 P.M., again the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 and informed her brother/P.W.3 that her mother-in-law was making a demand of Rs.15,000/-. She went home and thereafter, the appellant informed them that Sasikala/the deceased doused herself in Kerosene and set her ablaze. P.W.2, the house owner of the appellant saw the flames from the window and with the help of neighbours P.W.2 , broke open the door and found Sasikala burning with flames. The fire was extinguished then. 4. She went home and thereafter, the appellant informed them that Sasikala/the deceased doused herself in Kerosene and set her ablaze. P.W.2, the house owner of the appellant saw the flames from the window and with the help of neighbours P.W.2 , broke open the door and found Sasikala burning with flames. The fire was extinguished then. 4. The appellant preferred a complaint before the Choolaimedu Police Station and the complaint was received by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police and the case was registered in Criminal No.1583 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Since the deceased died within seven years of marriage, the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for Postmortem. Thereafter, he submitted the report to the police expressing the opinion that further investigation is required. .5. In the meanwhile, based upon the F.I.R., P.W.8, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range took up the case for investigation and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P1 and a rough plan, Ex.P9 in the place of occurrence and then he examined the witness and recorded their statements. He recovered a plastic can M.O.1 under recovery Mahazar. After his retirement, P.W.9/the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the case and further investigated, received the report from the Tahsildar and altered the case from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498 (A) and 304 (b) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, recorded the statement of Dr.C.Manoharan, who conducted the postmortem. He arrested the accused on 112. 2000 and sent him for remand. Thereafter, then Assistant Commissioner of Police who took charge of the investigation conducted further investigation and laid down the final report against the appellant for the offence as stated above. 6. When the incriminating material and circumstances that appeared against the appellant was put to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied those evidence. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant demanded money and subjected her to cruelty and also caused dowry death of his wife. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence found the appellant not guilty under Section 304 (b) IPC and Section (4) of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted him of the said charges. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant demanded money and subjected her to cruelty and also caused dowry death of his wife. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence found the appellant not guilty under Section 304 (b) IPC and Section (4) of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted him of the said charges. However, it convicted the appellant under Section 498 (A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. .8. Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is no evidence much less legal evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant caused any harassment and cruelty on the deceased demanding money or dowry and the learned trial judge faulted the appellant that he was unable to maintain his wife and child providing sufficient income which had caused mental harassment to the deceased driving her to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the appellant took me to the entire evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.3, pointed out that the father and brother of the deceased was giving financial assistance to the deceased as and when it was required by her out of love and affection and at no point of time that there was any such demand by the appellant. He referred to the complaint given by the appellant immediately after the occurrence where he has stated that on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as she informed him that she has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000/-which was not liked by him as already they owed debts to third parties. But the Investigating Officer or the RDO have not investigated or enquired into the said aspect though it was brought to their attention by the appellant even at the earliest point of time. 9. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he used to give Rs.50/- or Rs.100/-as and when it was asked by the deceased for household expenses and P.W.3s evidence is also to the same effect. P.W.1 has categorically admitted that they were not aware of what was happening in the family of the deceased, only his daughter Rajeswari use to visit the house of the deceased but she has not been examined. P.W.1 has categorically admitted that they were not aware of what was happening in the family of the deceased, only his daughter Rajeswari use to visit the house of the deceased but she has not been examined. Though P.W.1 & P.W.3 have stated that the deceased demanded Rs.15,000/-but it is not their case, the same was made at the instance of the appellant. In the chief examination, P.W.1 has stated that he gave Rs.1,500/- lastly but in cross, he has admitted that he has not given any such money. Likewise, there is material contradiction with regard to the demand made by the deceased as P.W.1 has stated that in the morning the deceased came to his house and asked for the money but P.W.3 has stated that she came to her house accompanied by her mother-in-law and demanded the said amount. 10. The case of the prosecution is that when the mother-in-law of the deceased made a demand for money in the morning, the deceased/Sasikala came to her parents house and demanded the said amount from her father in the evening and as P.W.1 sought time to fulfill the said demand, she came home and committed suicide. The evidence regarding the demand for a sum of Rs.15,000/-on the date of occurrence is not proved by convincing evidence. It is to be noted that right from the date of marriage, the appellant and the deceased were residing separately and her mother-in-law did not come to the picture. 11. Coming to the evidence of P.W.6/the Tahsildar, he had stated in his chief examination that even prior to the marriage there was a demand for Rs.15,000/-by the appellant and was subjected to torture on her failure to meet the said demand. But when he was confronted with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 who have stated that there was no such demand prior to marriage, he admitted that he was incorrect in chief examination. That apart during cross examination of P.W.1 & P.W.3 they were confronted with all such statements with suggestion that no such statement was made by them before the Investigating Officer at the line of investigation. Though P.W.1 & P.W.3 denied such suggestion but P.W.8 , Investigating Officer admitted about such omission in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.1 & P.W.3. 12. Though P.W.1 & P.W.3 denied such suggestion but P.W.8 , Investigating Officer admitted about such omission in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.1 & P.W.3. 12. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W. 3 that appellant was not financially sound which made the deceased to get money either from her father or brother. Since because the appellant was unable to manage the household expenses, it cannot be said that it has caused mental cruelty and harassment on the deceased driving her to commit suicide. It is not the case of P.W.1 & P.W.3 that she felt ashamed of taking money from them and expressed the same to them as and when she came to the house. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.3 that only due to love and affection they had given money to the deceased as and when she demanded and it was not out of compulsion. It is relevant to extract the following evidence from P.W.1 wherein,he has stated as below:- “TAMIL” 13. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.3 clinchingly proves that there was no demand by the appellant at any point of time. The deceased was getting money from her father or brother whenever she faced financial problem in her matrimonial home. But there is no evidence to the effect that the appellant misbehaved or ill-treated his wife forcing her to get money from her parents. The trial Court has based its findings without any legal evidence and held that the conduct of the appellant in not providing sufficient income to his wife has driven her to commit suicide which does not stand to legal scrutiny and therefore, I am constrained to set aside the impugned finding of the trial Court. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai in S.C.No.101 of 2002 is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid is ordered to be refunded to him.