ORDER : The Petitioners are A2 to A7 in C.C.No.136 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. They stood charged for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court convicted the A2, A3, A4 and A7 under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and A5 and A6 are convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and acquitted all the accused. Challenging the same, the Petitioners have filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.53 of 2006 and the lower appellate Court also confirmed the same and challenging the conviction and sentence, the present revision is filed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : P.W.1/de-facto complaint had got married to A1, on 15.5.2002. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 family gave 30 sovereigns of gold to A1 and also has given house-hold articles worth about Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter all the accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and harassed P.W.1. A1 mortgaged the gold jewels and gone to Maldives. Thereafter, the Petitioners herein again demanded Rs.5 lakhs and harassed the de-facto complainant. Hence she has filed a compliant to the police. Based on the complaint, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.1/2005 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 406 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report for the offence under Sections 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Based on the materials available, the trial Court framed charges against the Petitioners. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution side examined 8 witnesses and marked two documents. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant, according to her, after marriage both P.W.1 and A1 was living happily. Thereafter A2 and A3, father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. A1 also mortgaged 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and gone to Maldives. Thereafter once-again the accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. Bearing all these harassments, she is residing in the matrimonial home. Thereafter A2 and A3, father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. A1 also mortgaged 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and gone to Maldives. Thereafter once-again the accused demanded Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. Bearing all these harassments, she is residing in the matrimonial home. In the year 2005, January, When A1 came to India, she explained the harassment meted by her to A1. Thereafter he also demanded dowry. Thereafter, she has given a complaint to the respondent-Police and the police also conducted enquiry, wherein A1 has given an undertaking that he will not harass the de-facto complainant. Even thereafter also, there was harassment, hence has given the complaint. P.W.2, father of P.W.1 spoke about the harassment meted out to by P.W.1 and the demand of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. P.W.3 mother of P.W.1 also spokes about the harassment meted by P.W.1. P.W.4 to P.W.7 panchayatdars spokes about the dispute between A1 and P.W.1. P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the complaint given by the Petitioner, and conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. 4. When the above incriminating circumstances put to the Petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the Petitioners have denied the same as false. On the side of the respondents three documents were marked. Ex.D1 is the settlement arrived at between A1 and P.W.1 in the Police station. Ex.D2 is the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 before the respondent-Police and Ex.D3 is the statement of P.W.1 before Police Station. Considering the above material, the trial Court convicted the Petitioners as stated above. Challenging the same, they have filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.53 of 2006 and the lower appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on them. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 5. I have heard the submissions made by Mr. Thiruvarutselvan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and considered the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that in the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 on 16.1.2005, she has stated that A1 and other accused had locked her inside the house and demanded Rs.10 lakhs as dowry. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and considered the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that in the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 on 16.1.2005, she has stated that A1 and other accused had locked her inside the house and demanded Rs.10 lakhs as dowry. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent Police enquired the same and at that point of time, de-facto complainant and A1 entered into a compromise and subsequently within a period of three months, the present complaint has been filed, alleging that the accused had demanded Rs.5 lakhs for construction of the house and the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witness and acquitted the accused under Section 498(A) IPC and convicted the accused under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case of demand of dowry by the Petitioners. Considering the materials available on record, the trial Court convicted all the Petitioners and on appeal, the lower appellate Court confirmed the same. In view of the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below, there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on 16.1.2005, the de-facto complainant has given the earlier complaint in which she had made an allegation against A1 and other accused locked her inside the house, demanding Rs.10 lakhs as dowry and not permitting P.W.1 to live with A1. But the above complaint was enquired into and the same subsequently entered in compromise. Thereafter, after three months, the present complaint has been given, as if all the accused harassed the P.W.1 and also demanding Rs.5 lakhs as dowry for construction of a house. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, who are the father, mother and relatives of P.W.1, the Court below disbelieved their evidence about the harassment and acquitted the Petitioners from the charges levelled against them under Section 498(A) IPC. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, who are the father, mother and relatives of P.W.1, the Court below disbelieved their evidence about the harassment and acquitted the Petitioners from the charges levelled against them under Section 498(A) IPC. In the earlier complaint given by P.W.1, an allegation was made stating that the Petitioners have demanded a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as dowry and subsequently, within three months P.W.1 would change her version and stated that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for construction of a house, which cannot be believed. Apart, the Courts below partly disbelieved the prosecution witness and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and convicted them for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Apart from that all the prosecution witnesses are closely related to P.W.1 and they are interested in her. Except their interested testimony, no other independent evidence available to corroborate their evidence, especially when the Court below disbelieved the prosecution witness in part and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The Petitioners are only in-laws and some of them are unmarried at that time. The Courts below without considering all the materials, erroneously convicted the Petitioner. In the above circumstances, the judgements of the Court below are liable to be set aside and the Petitioners are entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.136 of 2005, dated 26.6.2006, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai confirmed in Crl.A.No.53 of 2006, dated 5.9.2007, on the file Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram are set aside. The Petitioners/accused are acquitted from the conviction imposed on them under Section 498(A) IPC. Bail bond if any executed by them shall stand cancelled and fine amount if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them forthwith.