JUDGMENT (PRAYER : Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 10.09.2014 made in C.A.No.01 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, which was conforming the judgment dated 27.11.2013 made in C.C.No.200 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and acquit the petitioner by allowing this revision.) 1. The petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.200/2010, who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment, by judgment dated 27.11.2013. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.A.No.1 of 2014. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision. 2. The gist of the case is that the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 married the petitioner on 16.06.2010. It was an arranged marriage. After 8 days of marriage, her father passed away and she went to her parents house for some time. Thereafter, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant lived as husband and wife only for a period of 45 days. During that period, she came to know that the petitioner and his mother were addicted to Alcohol and further the petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Vijaya. He used to come home on late hours, due to which, there was constant quarrel. The petitioner used to scold her using filthy languages and demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as dowry. The petitioner to sever his relationship with the said Vijaya, he had to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, for which, an agreement/Ex.P3 between the petitioner and the said Vijaya entered. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid and for balance Rs.1.75 lakhs, the petitioner demanded and forced the de-facto complainant to get the money from her mother and thereby, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The marriage gift, Sridhana articles were pledged and sold by the petitioner. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid and for balance Rs.1.75 lakhs, the petitioner demanded and forced the de-facto complainant to get the money from her mother and thereby, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The marriage gift, Sridhana articles were pledged and sold by the petitioner. The de-facto complainant along with her mother and relatives came and questioned the petitioner for his activities, at that time, the petitioner's mother assaulted them and demanded more money, hence, a complaint lodged before the All Women Police Station, Villianur. The petitioner was summoned by the Police, there a compromise arrived and the petitioner agreed to live with the de-facto complainant and not to assault her. Contrary to the undertaking, the petitioner and his mother continued harassment. On one occasion, the petitioner using a pillow smothered the de-facto complainant, thereby causing asphyxia. They also attempted to pour kerosene and set her on fire. The demand for dowry and additional jewels were made on 12.09.2010 and the petitioner was continuing his relationship with the said Vijaya. Hence, a complaint was lodged on 05.10.2010 to P.W.8-Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R./Ex.P4 and conducted initial investigation. Thereafter, P.W.7-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, after conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet before the concerned Court. 3. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined and Exs.P1 to P4 marked. On the side of the defence, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D4. On conclusion of trial, petitioner's mother acquitted but the petitioner was convicted as stated above. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that P.W.1/de-facto complainant is his erstwhile wife. Her mother is P.W.2., P.W.3 is the cousin of P.W.1. P.W.4 is cousin brother of P.W.1, who is an Advocate Clerk. P.W.5 is also the cousin brother of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is the villager. P.W.7 is the investigating officer in this case. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. P.W.1 lodged a false complaint, since she was not interested in the marriage, not willing to live with the petitioner. The complaint contains false allegations against the petitioner and his mother. The trial Court on the evidence of the witnesses found that there are exaggerations and false allegations made against the petitioner's mother/A2 and hence, acquitted her. The complaint contains false allegations against the petitioner and his mother. The trial Court on the evidence of the witnesses found that there are exaggerations and false allegations made against the petitioner's mother/A2 and hence, acquitted her. On the contrary, the trial Court on the same evidence, convicted the petitioner, the Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same, which is not proper. He further submitted that the allegation of illicit relationship with Vijaya is an imaginary story. The petitioner had taken loan from Vijaya and an agreement/Ex.P3 even prior to marriage entered. The petitioner had now settled all his dues. The said Vijaya not examined as witness. The trial Court giving reason that, it is for the petitioner to examine Vijaya as defence witness is not proper. It is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, since the said Vijaya is projected as the primary reason for the demand of dowry and harassment to the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant admits that only for a period of 20 days, she was living with the petitioner as husband and wife. On the death of her father, the de-facto complainant went to her parents house, thereafter she failed to return back to the matrimonial home. The petitioner is the resident of Puducherry and the de-facto complainant is a resident of Cuddalore. The de-facto complainant and her family members forced the petitioner to reside along with them at Cuddalore leaving his mother alone in Puducherry, which was not agreeable, hence, dispute arose. The de-facto complainant admits that she had received back her Sridhana articles, even the Motor Bike presented during the marriage and made a false allegation as though the petitioner had pledged her jewels. No evidence produced with regard to gifting of jewels during marriage and later pledging of the same by the petitioner. With regard to physical assault and injury, admittedly, no medical records produced by the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant admits that, the complaint was made only after receipt of notice from the petitioner with regard to matrimonial dispute. He further submitted that her cousin brother is an Advocate Clerk, with whose help the complaint had been lodged. Though it is alleged that the assault on de-facto complainant was known to the neighbours, none of the neighbours examined. He further submitted that her cousin brother is an Advocate Clerk, with whose help the complaint had been lodged. Though it is alleged that the assault on de-facto complainant was known to the neighbours, none of the neighbours examined. Further, in the complaint, she allege that, she was assaulted by the petitioner and said Vijaya, in such circumstances, non examination of Vijaya is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The de-facto complainant's mother/P.W.2 and her cousins/P.W.3 to P.W.5 state that they came to know about the demand of dowry and the relationship of the petitioner with Vijaya, through P.W.1. Further, P.W.2 admits that P.W.1 assaulted petitioner’s mother for which, a complaint was lodged to the Villianur Police Station and the issue was compromised. P.W.3 admits that she is not aware about the case. P.W.4 cousin brother of P.W.1 admits that since the petitioner was not willing to agree for the Panchayat, a complaint was lodged. P.W.6-neighbour submits that Panchayat was held and the petitioner failed to participate in the Panchayat. P.W.8-Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.7 Investigating Officer state about the registration of the case and the investigation conducted. The petitioner had examined himself as D.W.1 and through him Exs.D1 to D4 marked. Ex.D1 is the Legal Notice sent by the petitioner, Ex.D2 is the Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.D3 is the Acknowledgment card received by the Police and Ex.D4 is the Medical Certificate of petitioner’s mother, who was assaulted by P.W.1 and her family members. Though petitioner/D.W.1 was cross examined in detail, nothing was brought out to discredit the evidence of D.W.1. The trial Court merely gone on the evidence of prosecution witnesses, not considered the evidence of defence witness and Exhibits. On the contrary, held that, from Ex.P3-Agreement, it is seen that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the said Vijaya. Hence, his relationship with Vijaya is inferred and convicted the petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court failed to independently assess the evidence and materials. On the contrary, held that, from Ex.P3-Agreement, it is seen that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the said Vijaya. Hence, his relationship with Vijaya is inferred and convicted the petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court failed to independently assess the evidence and materials. In view of the admitted fact that it was only 20 days, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant lived together and the specific case of the petitioner is that the marriage was not consummated and he was forced to shift to Cuddalore live along with the de-facto complainant’s family, leaving his mother alone in Puducherry, which the petitioner refused and for that reason, false allegations made, which were established and proved by the petitioner. He further submitted that now the de-facto complainant married one Ramkumar in the year 2014 and out of their marriage, they have a female child, named Gracy born on 19.10.2016. Birth Certificate of 'Gracy' has been produced, in which, the de-facto complainant name is recorded as mother and Ramkumar as father of the child. Further he filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.98 of 2016 seeking divorce on the ground that the de-facto complainant married one Ramkumar, which is pending before the Family Court, Puducherry. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) submitted that on the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.8 registered the F.I.R./Ex.P4. Along with the complaint, marriage invitation and marriage photos were filed. Ex.P3 is the loan agreement between the petitioner and one Vijaya for a sum of Rs.75,000/-. The petitioner is working as daily wager in Pump House, P.W.D., Puducherry and the marriage between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant took place on 16.06.2010. Claiming that the petitioner is a Government employee working in P.W.D. Department, additional dowry was demanded despite the petitioner was presented with Sridhana articles including Motor Bike and jewels. The petitioner had illicit relationship with Vijaya, to sever her connection, the de-facto-complainant was forced to bring a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Since the de-facto complainant expressed her inability, she was assaulted and driven out from the matrimonial home. When the relatives of the de-facto complainant questioned the same, they were also assaulted. Hence, a complaint was lodged. P.W.7 took up further investigation, examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5, who are the mother and cousins of P.W.1, respectively. Since the de-facto complainant expressed her inability, she was assaulted and driven out from the matrimonial home. When the relatives of the de-facto complainant questioned the same, they were also assaulted. Hence, a complaint was lodged. P.W.7 took up further investigation, examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5, who are the mother and cousins of P.W.1, respectively. P.W.6 is the villager, who state about the Panchayat held and the petitioner refused to participate in the Panchayat. After recording the statement of the witnesses and collecting documents, charge sheet filed in this case. On the evidence of the witnesses and materials produced, the Courts below convicted the petitioner as stated above. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that now de-facto complainant married one Ramkumar and out of the marriage, they also got a female child, named, Gracy. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. Considering the submissions on either side and on a perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner was residing along with his mother in Puducherry. He is employed as daily wager in Pump House, P.W.D., Puducherry. His nature of job is to monitor the motor and pumping of water. Since the petitioner coming home at late hours, the same was objected by P.W.1. Further, P.W.1 admits that 8 days after the marriage, her father passed away and thereafter she gone to her parents house at Cuddalore. The petitioner sent a legal notice seeking divorce on the ground of nonhttps:// consummation of marriage, is not denied. Notice received by the de-facto complainant, which is proved by Exs.D1 and D2. The petitioner's mother was assaulted by de-facto complainant and she took treatment as inpatient, which is confirmed by Ex.D4. The petitioner examined himself as D.W.1, marked documents, gave evidence about the assault on the petitioner's mother, explained the false allegations of illicit relationship with Vijaya. It is seen that even in the complaint/Ex.P1, Vijaya's name is mentioned, but the prosecution, for the reasons best known, not examined the said Vijaya. It is seen that as per Ex.P3, it is only Rs.75,000/- taken as loan of which, Rs.25,000/- paid. It is not as though the loan was Rs.2 lakhs and the de-facto complainant was forced and assaulted to bring that money. It is seen that as per Ex.P3, it is only Rs.75,000/- taken as loan of which, Rs.25,000/- paid. It is not as though the loan was Rs.2 lakhs and the de-facto complainant was forced and assaulted to bring that money. In fact, Ex.P3 is prosecution document and no explanation given by none of the witnesses including investigation officer, for not examining Vijaya, which is the bone of contention between the petitioner and P.W.1 matrimonial life. The de-facto complainant seems to exaggerate the illicit relationship of Vijaya and the physical assault. It is admitted that only for 20 days they lived together. P.W.2 to P.W.5 are closely related family members of P.W.1. They also state that the alleged demand and harassment was informed to them by P.W.1. As stated above, P.W.1's evidence and complaint itself seems to be a exaggerated one. P.W.6 – villager confirms that the petitioner was called for Panchayat and he refused to participate. Further, added to it, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1, gave explanation and also marked Exs.D1 to D4. The prosecution was unable to discredit the evidence of D.W.1 in any manner. Added to it, it is seen that the de-facto complainant now married one Ramkumar and they have a child. Earlier, the petitioner filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2011 on the ground of non-consummation of marriage. During the pendency of this petition, the marriage between the defacto complainant and Ramkumar taken place during the year 2014. The Birth Certificate of child 'Gracy' confirms the same. The trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the defence evidence produced. This Court finds that the evidence of P.W.1 seems to be exaggerated and unbelievable. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction of the petitioner, acquit him from all charges. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.A.No.01 of 2014 dated 10.09.2014, confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in C.C.No.200 of 2010 dated 27.11.2013 are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the charges.