Judgment :- 1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 15.3.2007 in C.C.No.165 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.3, Coimbatore. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 Radhamani has given a complaint against her husband, the second respondent herein, stating that the marriage between them was solemnised on 6.12.1996 and at that time, 50 sovereigns of jewels had been given and they have lived together happily for three months, and then the second respondent-husband-accused demanded Rs.2 lakhs for going to abroad and in the meanwhile, she gave birth to a female child, and after that, her parents gifted four sovereigns for the child. Subsequently, she went to Sulur along with her husband and residing there and then, the accused got job at Chennai and put up their residence in Chennai and at that time, the second respondent/accused demanded more jewels and amount, and unable to bear the cruelty, the revision petitioner/wife left her matrimonial home after borrowing Rs.200/-from the neighbour and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 before the Police Station. P.W.9 Inspector of Police received the complaint Ex.P-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 (Part 2) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and prepared printed FIR Ex.P-4. P.W.9 Inspector of Police went to the place and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W.6 Subramaniam and P.W.7 Palanisami and drew rough sketch Ex.P-3. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the father of P.W.1. The neighbours P.Ws.4 and 5 have been examined and P.W.7 Palanisamy and another witness P.W.8 Agnel Samuel were examined to prove the ill-treatment meted out to the revision petitioner, but P.Ws.7 and 8 turned hostile. P.W.9 Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the second respondent-accused for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. P.W.9 Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the second respondent-accused for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The trial Court, after following the procedures, framed necessary charges against the second respondent-accused and since he pleaded not guilty, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and on the side of defence, Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked and acquitted the second respondent-accused of the charges, stating that the same have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, against which, the wife-complainant (revision petitioner) filed the present Crl.R.C. 4. Challenging the acquittal order passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-wife submitted that P.W.1 (revision petitioner)'s evidence and the evidence of her parents, namely P.Ws.2 and 3, corroborate with each other and so, their evidence has clearly proved that the second respondent-accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and this factum has not been considered by the trial Court and P.Ws.1 to 3's categorical statement is that the second respondent-husband demanded Rs.2 lakhs for going to abroad and further demanded Rs.40,000/- for buying Yamaha bike, which has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, learned counsel prayed for setting aside acquittal. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent-husband-accused stated that there is no corroboration between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and they are the interested witnesses. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1627 (Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad) and submitted that the power of the revisional Court is very limited and it cannot re-appreciate the evidence. He further submitted that Ex.D-1 notice dated 11.11.2003 had been issued by the second respondent-husband and after receipt of the same, she replied on 29.11.2003 and in the meantime, she initiated criminal proceedings, and filed the complaint on 20.11.2003 and hence, the complaint is only an after-thought and prayed for dismissal of Crl.R.C. 6. This Court also heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent-Police on the above aspects. 7. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the factum of marriage between the revision petitioner and the second respondent was solemnised on 6.12.1996, is not disputed. This Court also heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent-Police on the above aspects. 7. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the factum of marriage between the revision petitioner and the second respondent was solemnised on 6.12.1996, is not disputed. There is subsisting marriage between them even today. Now, this Court has to decide as to whether the prosecution has proved the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt. 8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of the Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent-husband-accused, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1627 (Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad) to show that the power of the revisional Court is very limited. The trial Court might be wrong as regards the analysing of the prosecution evidence, but then, it had not relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the revisional Court has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect in the procedures or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "9. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. The High Court did not point out any error of law on the part of the learned Trial Judge. It was not opined that any relevant evidence has been left out of its consideration by the Court below or irrelevant material has been taken into consideration. The High Court entered into the merit of the matter. It commented upon the credentiality of the Autopsy Surgeon. It sought to re-appreciate the whole evidence. One possible view was sought to be substituted by another possible view." 9. It is true that when once the trial Court has not considered or appreciated the evidence and if the findings are perverse, then only the revisional Court has power to re-appreciate the evidence. 10. It is now appropriate to consider the documents. Ex.P-1 complaint has been given only after issuance of notice Ex.D-1 by the second respondent on 11.11.2003, calling upon her to resume the matrimonial home. 10. It is now appropriate to consider the documents. Ex.P-1 complaint has been given only after issuance of notice Ex.D-1 by the second respondent on 11.11.2003, calling upon her to resume the matrimonial home. After receipt of such notice only, on 20.11.2003, she gave a complaint and then only, she issued the notice Ex.D-2 making allegations. Ex.D-3 is the rejoinder issued by the husband, which shows that as per her statement, she left the matrimonial home on 1.10.2003. In the complaint itself, she has fairly stated that on 30.10.2003, in All Women Police Station, there was an enquiry being conducted by the Police and a direction was given directing the second respondent and his parents and his brother, to take her back to the matrimonial home. In the complaint, she has stated that her husband-accused was absconding. 11. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider as to what prevented the revision petitioner-wife from giving a complaint immediately. But only after receipt of Ex.D-1 notice from her husband (second respondent herein), she preferred the complaint. Furthermore, while perusing the complaint Ex.P-1, it is seen that it has been registered against the second respondent-accused-husband and also against her in-laws, but the charge sheet has been filed only as against her husband. In Ex.P-1 complaint, the revision petitioner-wife stated that she gave birth to a child on 20.2.1998 and after three months, she was taken to her matrimonial home and at that time, she said that they have demanded Rs.2 lakhs, for meeting out the expenses of her husband for foreign visit and even then, she has stated that after the said demand, a Panchayat was convened. It is pertinent to note that till 23.9.2003, the wife and the husband were residing in Chennai, and the child was admitted in the School at Chennai and after that, she left the matrimonial home on 1.10.2003. 12. It is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.1. In her evidence, she has stated that whenever the husband and in-laws were in need of money, they demanded the same. She further deposed in the chief examination that if she has not brought money, they threatened her to murder. 12. It is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.1. In her evidence, she has stated that whenever the husband and in-laws were in need of money, they demanded the same. She further deposed in the chief examination that if she has not brought money, they threatened her to murder. In her cross-examination, she has fairly conceded that in July 2003, her husband got work in Chennai in a computer company and then they have left Chennai and were residing at a separate residence and put up their residence at Perambur and shifted then to Royapettah and the child was admitted in CSI School at Royapettah and she denied the suggestion was posed to her during cross-examination that her father alone has taken her back to Coimbatore. So, it has clearly proved that the complaint has been given after receipt of Ex.D-1 notice issued by the husband. In her cross-examination, she further fairly conceded that she has given complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on the basis of the complaint, her husband and in-laws were called and the Police made enquiry and gave suitable direction, asking the husband to join with his wife and live together. In her cross-examination, she further stated that she has filed a Maintenance Application before the Family Court at Coimbatore and she denied the suggestion was posed to her that she was not having intention to join her husband. She denied the suggestion that the Company only sponsored her husband for going to abroad. 13. P.W.3 is the father of P.W.1, and he deposed as to what P.W.1 has not stated in her evidence. P.W.2, the mother of P.W.1, in her chief examination, stated that her son-in-law demanded Yamaha bike and Rs.2 lakhs for meeting out the expenses for his foreign trip. Except this, she has never stated anything. 14. P.W.1 in her evidence has fairly conceded that before her marriage, her husband was having motor-cycle. In her evidence, she further stated that her father-in-law is doing financial business. While considering the chief examination of P.W.1, she has stated that six to seven months after her marriage, the second respondent-accused-husband demanded motor cycle as well as Rs.2 lakhs. The marriage was solemnised on 6.12.1996, but the notice was given by the husband on 11.11.2003 and she lodged the complaint on 20.11.2003. While considering the chief examination of P.W.1, she has stated that six to seven months after her marriage, the second respondent-accused-husband demanded motor cycle as well as Rs.2 lakhs. The marriage was solemnised on 6.12.1996, but the notice was given by the husband on 11.11.2003 and she lodged the complaint on 20.11.2003. She gave birth to a female child and her mother, in her evidence, stated that after the ceremony conducted during her pregnancy, she was taken to her parental home for her delivery. So, the evidence of P.W.2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W.3, the father of P.W.1-wife-revision petitioner, who is having a political background, stated that her daughter has given birth to a child in 1998 and then they have put up their family at Chennai and in his chief examination, he stated that he has undertaken to give one acre of land to his daughter and 1/3 share in the house properties. In his chief examination, he further stated that the accused demanded only cash in lieu of 1 acre of land and 1/3 share in the house properties. P.W.1 never deposed anything about that. So, from the evidence of P.W.3 father, it could be concluded that he is more particular about sending his son-in-law (accused) behind the bars. So, his evidence is more than what not to have been deposed by P.W.1. As already stated, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 will no way help the prosecution case and P.Ws.7 and 8 have turned hostile. So, the trial Court considered all these aspects in proper perspective and appreciated the evidence and came to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty of the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. P.W.1 never stated that she was subjected to mental or physical cruelty. 16. It is true that Section 498-A IPC deals with cruelty, which means either physical cruelty or mental cruelty. But the evidence is not sufficient to convict the second respondent-accused-husband for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-accused relied upon various decisions as to what is meant by "dowry", but those citations are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the facts of the present case. 18. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-accused relied upon various decisions as to what is meant by "dowry", but those citations are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the facts of the present case. 18. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they have filed to prove the guilt of the accused in respect of the said offences, beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the correct conclusion and so, I do not find any irregularity or illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial Court. 19. There being no merits, the Crl.R.C. is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.