JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: (Oral) - Totally 6 accused faced the trial for the offence under Section 498-A/496/315 IPC. It was only accused Surat Singh, husband of complainant Ram Murti, who was convicted for the offence under section 498-A and 406 IPC. Hence the present appeal by the convicted accused. The complainant Ram Murti aggrieved by the acquittal of other accused has preferred the Crl.R. No.723 of 2001. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that PW1 Ram Murti who was married to accused Surat Singh on 12.8.1995, treated her well at the matrimonial home for about 1½ years. Thereafter, he alongwith other accused made a demand of dowry. They demanded colour television and fridge or in lieu thereof a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The accused physically assaulted the complainant. Thereafter the amount of Rs.30,000/- was reduced to Rs.20,000/-. If such a demand was not met, it would lead to divorce they had threatened. The father of the complainant mobilized a sum of Rs.15,000/- from PW2 Ramdhari and Jambu and paid the said amount of Rs.15,000/- to accused Surat Singh through the complainant. On 16.12.1997, when the complainant was cleaning the house, a jaily blow was given to her abdomen and thereafter on 18.12.1997, she felt some pain in her abdomen. Then her pregnancy was aborted. On 24.8.1998, the accused persons made an attempt to abduct her forcibly and they also remarked that the complainant should meet their demand of dowry or she should leave them. PW1 lodged a complaint Ex.PA. PW4 Dr. Himani Gupta has deposed based on the bed head ticket that she evacuated the uterus having transfused 3 units of blood. But she has deposed that the patient informed her that there was spontaneous abortion about 10 days back. Therefore, it may be a case of natural abortion or due to some injury sustained by her. 3. The trial Court acquitted accused Surat Singh for the offence under Section 315 IPC as it was not established that accused Surat Singh caused any injury to the abdomen of the complainant with an intention to cause the death of the child, but the trial Court chose to convict accused Surat Singh for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC having relied upon the testimony of PW1. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Surat Singh would submit that the complainant has come forward with a totally different story during the course of trial, taking a marked departure from the original version found in the FIR. The evidence of PW2 Ramdhari would completely damage the version of the complainant that a sum Rs.15,000/- was mobilized by the father of the complainant at his instance. He would also submit that PW3 comes out with yet another version that the said amount of Rs.15,000/- was mobilized from another uncle by name Ram Sarup. It is his submission that cruelty was not established by the prosecution. As regards payment of cash in lieu of dowry, there is contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. 5. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana appearing for the State would submit that PW1 to PW3 have spoken in one voice that the accused having beaten the complainant treated her cruelly demanding dowry. The payment of Rs.15,000/- was established by PW1 and PW3. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has rightly returned a verdict of conviction as against the accused-appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court has recorded acquittal as against the other accused in spite of voluminous materials available on record to establish that there was a demand of dowry and part of the demand was also met. PW1 to PW3 also have spoken to the beatings given by accused to PW1. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has wrongly recorded acquittal qua the other accused. 7. The entire materials on record were thoroughly perused by me in the background of the rival submissions made. In my considered view, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was any demand of dowry coupled with cruelty or criminal breach of trust as alleged by the prosecution. 8. PW4 Dr. Himani Gupta who evacuated the uterus of the complainant has clearly spoken to the fact that PW1 came with the history that there was spontaneous abortion about 10 days prior to her admission to the hospital on 18.12.1997. Such a testimony of PW4 completely gives a go-by to the case of the prosecution that abortion was due to jaily blow given by accused on the abdomen of PW1. Such a testimony of PW4 completely gives a go-by to the case of the prosecution that abortion was due to jaily blow given by accused on the abdomen of PW1. The trial Court of course has rightly relieved all the accused from the offence under Section 315 IPC. At any rate, the alleged attack launched by accused Surat Singh on PW1 about two days prior to her admission was not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Coming to the ill-treatment coupled with beatings alleged by the prosecution, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the prosecution has come out with very many stories. PW1 in her complaint has stated that from the very beginning all the accused started taunting her for she had brought less dowry. They also made a demand of certain articles as dowry or a sum of Rs.30,000/- in lieu thereof. But during the course of evidence PW1 would depose that for about 1½ years she was treated well by accused in the matrimonial home. The aforesaid testimony of PW1 gives a go-by to her original version that from the very beginning there was maltreatment demanding dowry from her. PW2 Ramdhari would depose quite against the version of PW1 that from the very beginning maltreatment continued and there was also a demand of dowry. 10. The prosecution has come out with a case that demand of dowry was almost met by PW1. A sum of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of dowry was reduced to Rs.20,000/-. It was deposed by PW1 that out of said amount of Rs.20,000/- her father mobilized a sum of Rs.15,000/-. PW2 Ramdhari and one Jambu handed over the same to her to pass-on to the accused. Firstly, the said Jambu was not examined before the trial Court, but PW2 Ramdhari would depose that the father of PW1 had not received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from him in order to make payment to accused Surat Singh through PW1. PW3, the brother of PW1 has come out with a totally different story as to the amount of Rs.15,000/- mobilized by his father. Taking a marked departure from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, he would depose that his maternal uncle Ram Sarup in fact paid a sum Rs.15,000/- to his father and the said amount was utilized by PW1 to meet the demand of dowry made by the accused. Taking a marked departure from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, he would depose that his maternal uncle Ram Sarup in fact paid a sum Rs.15,000/- to his father and the said amount was utilized by PW1 to meet the demand of dowry made by the accused. It is to be noted that PW1 never referred to the name of Ram Sarup as a person who parted with a sum Rs.15,000/- to her father to meet the demand of dowry made by the accused. The aforesaid conflicting versions found in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cast a cloud in the case of the prosecution that a sum Rs.15,000/- was parted-with by PW1 to satisfy the material portion of demand made by the accused. 11. In my considered view, PW2 has come out with a cooked-up story to suit her convenience that she was beaten up by the accused by making a demand of dowry. At any rate, the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand of dowry coupled with cruelty and that there was also a breach of trust as regards a sum of Rs.15,000/- parted with PW1 to accused Surat Singh. It appears that the trial Court has misread the evidence and come to a wrong decision that the accused committed the offences as stated supra. Accused Surat Singh also is entitled to acquittal. The trial Court has rightly analyzed the materials and rendered acquittal qua the other accused. Therefore, the criminal revision preferred by the complainant merits no consideration. 12. In view of the above, the judgement of conviction recorded by the trial Court as against accused-appellant Surat Singh is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. The bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. 13. Crl. R. No.723 of 2001 fails and is dismissed, whereas Crl.A. No.37-SB of 2001 is allowed. --------------------