JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed Under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.275 of 2005, dated 30.11.2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam and convict the respondents/accused as charged.) 1. Heard Mrs.J.Ananda Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.Ravishankar Vallatharas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment passed in C.C.No.275 of 2005, dated 30.11.2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam. 3. The case against the respondents is that on 11.09.2002, the marriage between the first respondent and the complainant was held at Kunrangudi Murugan Temple and that 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments, household articles worth about Rs.50,000/- and a TVS bike were given as dowry. Within ten days, A1 declared that he is not willing to live with the complainant and demanded her to sign documents permitting him to marry somebody else and A1 to A6 demanded a further a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) and 10 sovereigns of gold and hence, they are punishable under Section 498 and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P1 and 2 and after enquiry, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate acquitted A1 to A6 on 30.11.2007. Against which the appellant preferred this appeal. 4. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: The marriage between the first accused and the complainant was solemnized on 11.09.2002 at Kunrangudi Murugan Temple. The parents of P.W. 1 gave 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and a bike and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) worth of household articles as dowry. It is stated that from the second day of the marriage, A1 refused to come home and also refused to eat the food prepared by P.W.1 and when P.W.1 questioned the same, A1 told her that she was not fit for marital live and she did not attain puberty. A1 did not adhere to the wordings of the Panchayat. A1 further demanded Rs.80,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold as dowry. Afterwards, A1 went to Malaysia and after he came back from Malaysia, A1 chased P.W.1 away from his house. A1 did not adhere to the wordings of the Panchayat. A1 further demanded Rs.80,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold as dowry. Afterwards, A1 went to Malaysia and after he came back from Malaysia, A1 chased P.W.1 away from his house. A1 to A6 harrassed P.W.1 and the complainant was constrained to file the complaint before the All Women Police Station. The complaint was marked as Ex.P1. P.W.8 received the complaint and took up the case in Crime No.1 of 2004 and FIR is marked as Ex.P2. P.W.8 examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and filed the chargesheet under Section 498(A) Cr.P.C., and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. No witness was examined on the side of the respondents and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. The trial Court found A1 to A6 as not guilty and acquitted A1 to A6 of their charges. Against which the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. On the side of the appellant, in the grounds of appeal it is stated that P.W.1 was harassed by the respondents and the evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals the demand of dowry and harassment. It is stated that P.W.1 has deposed that A1 demanded dowry of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) and 10 sovereigns of gold from the parents of P.W.1. It is stated that the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and that P.W. 7 has clearly deposed that P.W.1 was chased out of the house by A1 and that P.W.5 has clearly deposed that P.W.1 was beaten up by the accused and that the evidence of P.W.7 clearly reveals that A1 refused to live with P.W.1 and there was Panchayat and that by examining all the witnesses, the prosecution has clearly proved the offence against the accused and prayed the accused to be convicted under Section 498 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the real problem between the spouses is that P.W.1 is having some physical problem and that there is no dowry harassment. Although P.W.1 and A1 disliked each other, only due to the inability of P.W.1 for marital life, there was a misunderstanding between the spouses and there is no dowry harassment and prayed the appeal to be dismissed. 7. Although P.W.1 and A1 disliked each other, only due to the inability of P.W.1 for marital life, there was a misunderstanding between the spouses and there is no dowry harassment and prayed the appeal to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the records reveals that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have deposed that 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and a bike along with Rs.20,000/- worth of household articles were given to P.W.1 at the time of marriage. P.W.5 has deposed that 25 sovereigns of gold, a motor bike and Rs.20,000/- worth household articles was given to P.W.1 at the time of marriage. P.W.3 has deposed that 25 sovereigns of gold, a bike and Rs.20,000/- worth household articles along with a golden ring and watch were given to the A1 at the time of marriage. 8. The complaint against A1 is that he has retained 5 sovereigns of gold which belongs to P.W.1. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that A1 got a chain from P.W.1 and that he used the same to undergone some surgery. P.W.1 has deposed that the chain which was taken from her by A1 was given to her by A1. Since the chain was given to P.W.1 by A1, taking away the chain cannot be treated as a harassment. 9. P.Ws.1 to 4 deposed that A1 demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold for going to Malaysia. P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted that they have not paid any amount. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 admitted that A1 went to Malaysia with his own fund. 10. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that P.W.2, father of P.W.1 has deposed that he has not paid any amount and A1 went to Malaysia twice with his own funds. He has further deposed that after returning from Malaysia even after the refusal of dowry, A1 took P.W.1 to his house and lived with her. 11. Even after refusal of payment of dowry and even after returning back from Malaysia, A1 took P.W.1 to his house and lived with her. From the evidence of prosecution witness, it is seen that even after the refusal of demand dowry, A1 took her home and they lived together. Hence, it is decided that demand of dowry for going to Malaysia is not properly proved by the prosecution. 12. From the evidence of prosecution witness, it is seen that even after the refusal of demand dowry, A1 took her home and they lived together. Hence, it is decided that demand of dowry for going to Malaysia is not properly proved by the prosecution. 12. P.W.1 has deposed that A1 demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold for purchasing a nearby land in the name of P.W.1. P.W.3 has deposed that the reason for demanding dowry is not known to him. P.W.8 has deposed that the witnesses has given statement that the father of P.W.1 gave money to A1 for going to Malaysia and for purchasing a land. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly reveals that even after returning back from Malaysia, A1 took P.W.1 to live with him. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 8 is not sufficient enough to prove that A1 demanded dowry for purchase of a land that too in the name of P.W.1. 13. P.W.1 deposed that she was tortured from the second day of her marriage life. P.W.4 deposed that there was problem between A1 and P.W.1 from the tenth day of marriage. P.Ws.5 and 7 deposed that there was problem between P.W.1 and A1 from the 15th day of marriage. P.W.6 has deposed that there was problem between the spouses after the demand of the dowry. 14. P.W.1 deposed that A1 threatened her to pour kerosene upon her and to burn her alive. P.W.2 deposed that all the accused threatened to burn her. P.W.1 has deposed that she has not told the Panchayat about the threatening of A1 to burn her alive. She has also admitted that she did not give any complaint regarding the said threatening. No complaint was lodged on this ground. There is no such wordings in Ex.A1. P.W.2 has deposed that after coming from Malaysia, A1 pushed away P.W.1 by her neck and chased her out of the house. P.W.5 deposed that A1 assaulted P.W.1 and harassed her. The evidence of P.W.5 is not supported by the evidence of P.W.1 or any other witnesses. Since the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 5 are contrary to each other, the act of harassment is not clearly proved by the prosecution. 15. P.W.1 has deposed that she has given five complaints before the Police and Ex.P1 is the sixth complaint. The evidence of P.W.5 is not supported by the evidence of P.W.1 or any other witnesses. Since the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 5 are contrary to each other, the act of harassment is not clearly proved by the prosecution. 15. P.W.1 has deposed that she has given five complaints before the Police and Ex.P1 is the sixth complaint. P.W.2 has deposed that P.W.1 was sent home on demand of dowry twice but no complaint was filed on those occurrences. He has further deposed that Ex.P1 was given as A1 was having illicit intimacy with some other lady. P.W.8 has deposed that only one complaint was given and that complaint is marked as Ex.P1. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 are contradictory. 16. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that there was some health problem in their marital life. P.W.1 deposed that several Panchayats were conducted regarding this health issue. P.Ws.1, 4, 6 and 7 deposed that A1 indulged in quarrel with P.W.1 that she is not fit for marital life and she did not attain puberty and that she cannot give birth to children. P.W.2 has deposed that the respondents took P.W.1 to the hospital at Palathur Private Hospital and Madurai Apollo Hospital and Aranthangi Private Hospital. P.W.3 has deposed that P.W.1 was taken to Madurai Apollo Hospital to check up her physical ability for marital life. P.W.4 has deposed that P.W.1 was taken to Kottaiyur Private Hospital for not attaining puberty. P.Ws.4, 6 and 7 deposed that some medicines were given to P.W.1. P.W.1 admitted that there is some misunderstanding between herself and A1 and she has filed divorce petition against A1. 17. P.W.3 has admitted that Panchayats were held regarding P.W.1 not attaining puberty. P.W.6 in his cross examination has deposed that he did not know anything regarding the case and only on the request of P.W.5, he has accepted to give evidence and he heard that medical treatment was given to P.W.1 and that P.W.1 undertook some treatment in Apollo Hospital for not attaining puberty. P.W.8 has deposed that she has not perused the medicinal reports of P.W.1. P.W.8 has deposed that she has not obtained the medical reports as evidence. P.W.8 has deposed that she has not perused the medicinal reports of P.W.1. P.W.8 has deposed that she has not obtained the medical reports as evidence. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, it is seen that there is a dispute between P.W.1 and A1 regarding the physical inability of P.W.1.The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 reveals that some treatment and medicines were given to P.W.1. The prosecution witness clearly reveals that there is some problem between the spouse, as to the physical capacity of P.W.1 to lead a marital life. 18. The demand of dowry is not proved and the harassment also is not properly proved. It is seen that only due to the physical problem of P.W.1, there was misunderstanding between the couple which leads to the lodging of this complaint. There is no dowry demand and there is no harassment and hence, it is decided that it is not necessary to interfere in the order of the trial Court. 19. Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam in C.C.No.275 of 2005, dated 30.11.2007 is confirmed.