Judgment :- 1. This revision challenges the judgment of conviction passed in C.A.No.44 of 2008 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. The petitioner stood trial, for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 (ii) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.99/2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyattam. 3. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant were married on 27.06.1996, that they shared a harmonious matrimonial relationship for a period of six years and two children were born to them. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused developed a relationship with a widow by name Sumathi and made demands for Rs.25,000/- and ill treated the defacto complainant/wife and chased her away. Panchayat was conducted leading to reconciliation but thereafter, the petitioner/accused ill treated and made demands for Rs.25,000/- as also five sovereigns in gold. 4. Petitioner did not take kindly to the defacto complainant/wife questioning his relationship with Sumathi, and threatened to do away with her and chased her away. 5. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked two exhibits. None were examined on the side of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. 6. The Trial court, while acquitting the petitioner of offences u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and 506 (ii) I.P.C, convicted him of offence u/s.498(A) sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 7. The appeal of the petitioner in C.A.No.44 of 2008 was dismissed and the finding and sentence of the trial court stood confirmed. Hence, this revision. 8. Heard Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 9. P.W.7 – Investigating Officer admits that the complaint was received 10 days after the occurrence in which the petitioner is alleged to have ill treated P.W.1 and chased her away. P.W.7 also admits that the demand for money and jewels was two months prior to the preference of the complaint. According to the defacto complainant/P.W.1, she had narrated the complaint at the Police Station and same was recorded in writing therein. Ex.P.1 – Complaint is seen to be a computer print out. Even to the naked eye, it is apparent that the date thereof stands altered to 26.01.2006 from 21.01.2006. 10. The above features themselves raise some doubt about the prosecution case. Ex.P.1 – Complaint is seen to be a computer print out. Even to the naked eye, it is apparent that the date thereof stands altered to 26.01.2006 from 21.01.2006. 10. The above features themselves raise some doubt about the prosecution case. The reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and her father P.W.2 shows that their evidence does not inform particulars. P.W.1 has informed of receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her paternal home to placate the accused. P.W.7-Investigating Officers evidence is to the effect that his investigation did not reveal any such occurrence. 11. P.W.5 is seen to be very closely associated with the family of P.W.1 . It is the defence case that the difference between the petitioner/accused and P.W.1 arose owing to her having an illicit relationship with P.W.5. Though an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in Criminal Revision 37/2007 to the effect that P.W.1 was not entitled to maintenance on the ground of adulterous relationship with P.W.5 is now referred to, we are inclined to take the same into consideration as such could be done only upon receipt of additional evidence and we find enough reason to allow this revision even without resorting to such a course. 12. As indicated above, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5 is partisan in nature, besides being most sketchy. P.W.7 would seek to explain away the poor quality of evidence tendered by P.W.1 by informing that she is a rustic lady. The root cause for the alleged wrongful conduct of the petitioner is his alleged relationship with Sumathi. P.W.7 admits to not having examined her. Though P.W.5, has spoken to one Ramachandran being the President of the Panchayat held on the dispute between the petitioner and P.W.1, such person has not been examined. P.W.4 the mother of P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case and has been treated hostile. P.W.6 an independent witness, also has not supported the prosecution case. Though P.W.3 claims to have had knowledge of demand for cash and jewels by the petitioner/accused at the time when panchayat was held regards the dispute, he admits to not having attended the same. His evidence, therefore is hearsay. 13. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitancy in concluding that the petitioner wrongly stands convicted by the Courts below. This revision is allowed. His evidence, therefore is hearsay. 13. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitancy in concluding that the petitioner wrongly stands convicted by the Courts below. This revision is allowed. Reversing the findings of the Courts below, the petitioner shall stand acquitted of all the charges levied against him in C.C.No.99 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.