JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. – Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 4th November, 1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katol, in Regular Criminal Case No. 44 of 1998, by which the appellant Ganesh was convicted of offence punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, and the Judgment and Order dated 7th November, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1999, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming the said conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court, the present Revision was filed by the Revision Applicant. 2. In support of the Revision Application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the conviction was recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the sole testimony of Rashmi [PW 1], wife of the applicant. Both the applicant as well as his wife have been working as Zilla Parishad Teachers. There is a son begotten out of the wedlock. The Trial Judge ignored the inconsistencies in the evidence of a single testimony and inconsistencies were of material nature. She then submitted that Rashmi [PW 1] was obviously an interested witness. But then, her evidence is not corroborated by any other witness and the evidence about the demand of a television and Rs. 50,000-00 is vague and she admitted in the cross-examination about she being not sure of the time and date when the demand was allegedly made. Not only that the letter [Exh.16], that was relied by the prosecution, did not have a mention of even a word that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by the accused and that was the letter allegedly sent by her first in point of time. In the FIR also, the mention of Rs. 50,000/-, if seen carefully, is made in a most casual manner and it appears, according to her, that the husband and wife were quarreling. But then, the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A were not attracted. She, therefore, submitted that there is a perversity on the part of the courts below in the matter of appreciation of evidence which amounts to error of jurisdiction and, therefore, she prayed for acquittal. 3. But then, the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A were not attracted. She, therefore, submitted that there is a perversity on the part of the courts below in the matter of appreciation of evidence which amounts to error of jurisdiction and, therefore, she prayed for acquittal. 3. Per contra, learned APP supported the impugned Judgments and Orders of conviction, and submitted that no woman in the Indian society would file a complaint with the police making false allegations against her husband. He then submitted that concurrently, the courts below have found the testimony of Rashmi [PW 1] to be trustworthy and there is no reason why this Court should show interference with the concurrent finding of fact. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision Application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties on few dates. I have considered the reasons recorded by the Trial Judge as well as the Appellate Court for recording the orders of conviction. I have perused the entire record and entire evidence that was tendered by the prosecution before the Trial Judge. 5. Indisputedly, the only evidence on record regarding cruelty is that of Rashmi [PW 1] and there is no other evidence in order to corroborate the testimony of Rashmi [PW 1], since her parents were not examined. However, her sister Mandabai was examined as PW 3. But then, except saying a word that ill-treatment was meted out to Rashmi [PW 1], she does not give any further details and she also claims that she had given a letter [Exh.16] to the Police Officer, as against which, the Police Officer states in the cross-examination that the same was given by her mother, while Rashmi [PW 1] herself claims that she herself had given the letter to the police. The Trial Judge took the letter [Exh.16] as a corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of Rashmi [PW 1]. But then, such inconsistency in the evidence about the custody of the letter [Exh.16] creates a doubt about the said evidence. That apart, the letter was never seized under any seizure Panchanama or a Seizure Memo. Even otherwise, a careful perusal of the letter shows no mention about the amount of Rs. But then, such inconsistency in the evidence about the custody of the letter [Exh.16] creates a doubt about the said evidence. That apart, the letter was never seized under any seizure Panchanama or a Seizure Memo. Even otherwise, a careful perusal of the letter shows no mention about the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as a demand made by the applicant; but the letter shows quarrels amongst the husband and wife and filthy abuses given by the husband to the wife during the course of their matrimonial life and nothing more, not even a demand for television. In the cross-examination, Rashmi [PW 1] stated that Rs. 50,000/- were demanded for purchase of a Tata Sumo vehicle, while in the Examination-in-Chief, she deposed that Rs. 50,000/- were demanded for purchase of a television etc. She admits in the cross-examination that she cannot give the period or the date when such demand was made. On perusal of the letter [Exh.16] and the contents thereof, it is clear that Rashmi [PW 1] had developed an animosity for her husband who might have abused her in filthy language or assaulted her. But then, for the purpose of proving the guilt under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, hurling of filthy abuses during the marital life of two or three years does not amount to commission of offence under Section 498-A. I quote the following relevant portions from the evidences of Rashmi [PW 1], Sau. Mandabai Surkar [PW 3] and Shrikrishna Dixit, Head Constable [PW 4]:- Rashmi Koche [PW 1] : ......................I do not remember the date the accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- It is not correct to say that accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- It is true I have sent a letter to my father Exh.16. In that letter I mentioned ill treatment. It is true that I have handed over this letter to Police. I do not remember when and which date accused demanded colour TV. At the time of marriage accused did not demanded a colour TV. Accused used to demand Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of vehicle (Tata sumo). .." Sau. Mandabai Surkar [PW 3] : ..................................................... ..................Complainant always told me about the ill-treatment of the accused persons. Accused persons demanded dowry from her. Accused persons demanded T.V., and Rs. 50000/-. .." Shrikrishna Dixit [PW 4] : ............................. ..................Complainant mother handed over me a letter which was sent by complainant. It is at Exh.16. .." Sau. Mandabai Surkar [PW 3] : ..................................................... ..................Complainant always told me about the ill-treatment of the accused persons. Accused persons demanded dowry from her. Accused persons demanded T.V., and Rs. 50000/-. .." Shrikrishna Dixit [PW 4] : ............................. ..................Complainant mother handed over me a letter which was sent by complainant. It is at Exh.16. I prepared charge sheet. I arrested the accused persons." Perusal of the above evidence shows that the evidence is too vague and in the light of serious discrepancies as quoted above, it would be risky to maintain the orders of conviction. That being so, the following order is inevitable:- ORDER [a] Criminal Revision No. 290 of 2006 is allowed. [b] Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [i]. [c] The impugned Judgment and Order dated 4th November, 1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katol, in Regular Criminal Case No. 44 of 1998, and the impugned Judgment and Order dated 7th November, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1999 confirming the Trial Court's Judgment and Order are set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. [d] Bail bonds stand cancelled.