ORDER In this revision petition under Section 397(1) r/w Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Belur, in CC No.801/2006 by order dated. 12.07/2006, which has been confirmed by order dated 3.3.2010 in Crl. A. No.76/2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Hassan. 2. The revision petitioner was the accused No.1 before the Magistrate. A complaint was filed against the accused No.1 and one C.T.Dharmegowda, the accused No.2 by the wife of the accused No.1 stating therein that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 27.02.1996. After the marriage she gave birth to a female child and ever since then she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by accused No.1 and her inlaws. Despite ill-treatment and harassment she delivered a son. Even then the accused No.1 continued his ill-treatment and harassment to the Complainant for the sake of dowry. 3. In that connection, once she approached Mahila Sahayavani Kendra, Chickmagalur, her birth place, where the accused No.1 was summoned and reconciliation was made. Thereafter, as per the advise by Mahile Sahayavani Kendra the accused No.1 constructed a separate house and was residing therein with the Complainant. There also he continued the ill-treatment and harassment, as such she again approached Mahila Sahayavani Kendra, Chickmagalur where she was directed to lodge a complaint against her husband – accused No.1 and his accomplice, accused No.2 – C.T.Dharmegowda. The police investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC before the JMFC, Belur. Both the accused denied the accusation made against them. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as 5 witnesses as PW1 to 5 and marked Ex.P1 to 5 apart from MO1. Both the accused denied the accusation made against them. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as 5 witnesses as PW1 to 5 and marked Ex.P1 to 5 apart from MO1. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the entire material placed on record and after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel held that the accused No.1 is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and thereby he has been convicted to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, while acquitting the accused No.2. The Crl. A. No. 76/2006 filed by the accused No.1 before the Fast Track Court, Hassan came to be dismissed by order dated 23.03.2010. 5. Challenging the orders passed by both the courts the accused No.1 preferred revision is preferred. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for petitioner – accused No.1 and State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below have forgotten to notice the discrepancies in the statement made before the police and the evidence given before the Courts below. It is further submitted that 10 months prior to the incident the Complainant was residing separately and therefore, the question of ill-treatment and harassment to the Complainant did not arise. Though the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 he has been convicted on the strength of the interested testimony of PW1 Complainant and PW2mother of the Complainant. Hence, for all these reasons learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. 8. The learned State Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contended that both the Courts below on perusal of the entire evidence placed on record and proper appreciation has recorded a finding that accused No.1 who subjected his wife for ill-treatment and harassment and also gave life threat which resulted in his conviction and sentence though the accused No.2 has been acquitted by Appellate court. It is further submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and therefore, the question of interference by this court in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, does not arise. 9. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have examined the evidence placed on record. It is borne out from the records in order to establish the charges the prosecution has examined in as many as 5 witnesses as PW1 to PW5. PW1 Dharmavathy is the Complainant, who in turn has spoken about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by her husband. She has also spoken that the accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 threatened her to kill by showing a weapon billhock, marked as MO1. PW2 – Bhadramma, is none other than the mother of the PW1 Complainant. Though she is not an eye witness to the incident, she has spoken whatever PW1 used to come to her house and narrate regarding the ill-treatment given to her by her husband. PW4 Savitha, is the social worker attached to Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur. She has spoken that earlier to the incident in question PW1 had approached the Kendra with a complaint against her husband regarding ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her. She has also spoken when she came for the second time after the incident in question that is she who has advised PW1 to lodge complaint. PW5 Jagadeesha is a Pancha to the spot panchanama who has turned hostile. PW3 Shivanna, is the Investigating Officer who investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet. Looking to the evidence of all these witnesses one thing is evident that accused No.2 was nothing to do with the affairs between the husband and wife. Except some bare allegations that the accused No.1 gave a weapon to accused No.2 and both of them threatened to kill the Complainant, there is no other incriminating evidence against accused No.2. Be that as it may, the accused No.2 has been acquitted by the Appellate Court holding that there is no evidence against the accused No.2. 10. Except some bare allegations that the accused No.1 gave a weapon to accused No.2 and both of them threatened to kill the Complainant, there is no other incriminating evidence against accused No.2. Be that as it may, the accused No.2 has been acquitted by the Appellate Court holding that there is no evidence against the accused No.2. 10. In so far as accused No.1 is concerned there is evidence of PW1, who is the victim of the incident, PW2, who is the mother of the victim and PW4, Worker attached to Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur, who called the accused in pursuance of the petition submitted to the Kendra by PW1 and a reconciliation was made and both of them were advised to lead a peaceful happy marital life. Her evidence strengthen the case of the prosecution that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by the accused No.1 and even after the advise by the Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur, he continued the same tendency to harass and ill treat his wife. The evidence of PW1, 2 and 4 cannot be just ignored. No women much less a Hindu women go to Mahila Sahayavani Kendra at Chickmagalur or police station to make allegations against her husband unless she is subjected to unbearable harassment, cruelty by the husband. 11. Looking to the evidence placed on record by the prosecution the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 506 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused No.1 while acquitting accused No.2. I do not find any error committed by the courts below in convicting the accused No.1 and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 506 of IPC. There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Revision petition is dismissed.