Judgment :- 1. This Revision has been preferred by P.W.1 challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No,1, Namakkal, in C.C. No.128 of 1998 by the judgment dated 21.2.2002 acquitting the Second Respondent herein who has been arrayed as A4 before the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the wife of A1 as they have got married on 24.5.1995. At the time of marriage, the father of P.W.1 has given 75 sovereign of jewellery and rupees one lakh and also given household articles as ‘Seervarisai’. A1 was working in a private school and they were living as joint family. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is the brother of A1. 3. One month after the marriage, A1 to A3 said to have demanded further ‘Seervarisai’ and also demanded cash for getting a separate house. P.W.1 wrote a Letter, Ex.P.1 to her house on 8.7.1996. Again she wrote a Letter, Ex.P.2, stating that she was cruelly treated by the accused. A panchayat was convened and at that time A1 informed that only on receipt of Rs.5 lakhs, he will take P.W.1, his wife, and run family. The father of P.W.1 pacified them. Again A2 and A3 treated P.W.1 cruelly and as a result, P.W.1’s father gave Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,200/- towards taking a separate house for rent. P.W.1 further stated that even thereafter she was treated cruelly by A1 to A3. 4. The cruel treatment of A1 to A3 was not stopped and the same had been continued as per the version of P.W.1. P.W.1 became pregnant and the same was aborted. A1 sent a notice for divorce on 10.9.1998 stating that P.W.1 was mentally ill. As a result, P.W.1 left for her parents house. Thereafter, a Complaint, Ex.p.3 was given to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the marriage invitation. 5. P.W.2, father of P.W.1, has spoken to about the cruel treatment meted out of his daughter, P.W.1, and narrated the other events and he also has come forward with the same version as that of P.W.1,. P.W.3, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, has also spoken to about the ill-treatment caused to P.W.1 by her in-laws. 5. P.W.2, father of P.W.1, has spoken to about the cruel treatment meted out of his daughter, P.W.1, and narrated the other events and he also has come forward with the same version as that of P.W.1,. P.W.3, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, has also spoken to about the ill-treatment caused to P.W.1 by her in-laws. P.Ws.5 and 6, the neighbours, have also spoken to about P.W.1 complaining to them about the conduct of her husband and others. 6. P.W.7, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, has Spoken to about the registration of the First Information Report in Crime No. 1810 of 1997, on receipt of the report, Ex.P.3, and has also spoken to about the registration of case in Crime No.13 of 1997 on the file of the All Women Police Station for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.W.7 went to the scene of occurrence on 28.9.1997 and examined the witnesses. P.W.8 took up further investigation and after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. The learned Trial Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence of the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the offences alleged against A4/the second Respondent herein is not proved and acquitted A4 while convicting the other accused for the alleged offences. Being aggrieved against the said acquittal of A4, the Revision Petitioner, P.W.1, has preferred this Revision. 8. Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the judgment of acquittal of A4 passed by the learned Magistrate is against law. It is contended that the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 have come forward with clear and categorical version. It is further submitted that P.Ws.5 and 6, the neighbours, supported the version of P.Ws.1 to 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the Trial Judge, having convicted the other accused, has erred in acquitting A4, who is none else than the brother of A1/husband of P.W.1. 9. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned Counsel appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for A4/Second Respondent herein would vehemently contend that none of the witnesses, viz., P.Ws1 to 4, who are the parents and brother-in-law of P.W.1 including P.W.1, has stated or implicated A4 in their evidence. 9. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned Counsel appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for A4/Second Respondent herein would vehemently contend that none of the witnesses, viz., P.Ws1 to 4, who are the parents and brother-in-law of P.W.1 including P.W.1, has stated or implicated A4 in their evidence. It is further contended that even P.Ws.5 and 6, the neighbours of P.W.1, have not implicated A4. The learned Counsel for A4 would further submit that there is absolutely no material available on record to implicate to A4. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Magistrate has assigned valid reason for acquitting the accused/A4. Therefore, it is contended that there is no ground made out warranting the interference of this Court in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in respect of A4. 10. Heard Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on the submissions made by both sides. 11. A perusal of the impugned judgment and other materials available on record makes it crystal clear that there is absolutely no whisper made against A4 by anyone of the witnesses. Neither P.Ws.1 to 4, who are closely related to P.W.1 nor P.Ws.5 and 6, who are the neighbours, have implicated A4, who is the brother of A1. A perusal of the entire materials discloses that there is no other incriminating or clinching evidence available on record against A4. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Magistrate has rightly acquitted A4 by assigning valid reasons to the effect that there is no evidence available on record against A4, This Court is not able to find any error of law warranting the interference of this Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal of A4. Accordingly, the Revision is hereby dismissed. 12. Before parting with this Petition, this Court place it on record the commendable service rendered by Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned Counsel, who has appeared as Legal Aid Counsel, for the Second Respondent/A2. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned Counsel is entitled to receive remuneration of a sum of Rs. 2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundered only) from the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, High Court Buildings, Chennai, 600 104.