JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of the lower Court in S.C.No.233 of 2012, dated 22.04.2014 on the file of Sessions Court, Mahila Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore, Vellore District and acquit him from the said charge.) 1. The first accused, who is held guilty of offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months RI has preferred this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence. 2. Based on the complaint dated 31.01.2012 given by Mr.Desinghu Rajan, who is the father of the deceased Durga, the respondent police has registered First Information Report in Crime No.141 of 2012 under Sections 174 Cr.P.C for Woman Missing. 3. As per the prosecution, the deceased Durga was married to Radhakrishnan (appellant) five years prior to the complaint and they have two children. Right from the day of marriage, she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, her parents in-law, brother of the appellant and his brother's wife. She was under mental torture continuously. In the said circumstances, from 30.01.2012, 06.00 p.m., onwards, she was noticed missing. After search in the nearby places, the complaint lodged. Thereafter, on 01.02.2012, the villagers found the body of Durga floating nearby a well owned by the father-in-law of Durga. The investigation led to the conclusion that Durga was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment by her husband and his family members, which induced her to commit suicide. Final Report was filed against Radhakrishnan (A1), Kuppusamy (A2) father-in-law of the deceased, Prabavathy (A3) mother-in-law of the deceased, Bakthavachalam (A4) brother of A1 and Sathya, wife of A4. Charges under Sections 498A and 304(B) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act was framed and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty. Hence, the case was taken up for trial. 4. To prove the charges, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses, marked 17 documents and 2 Material Objects. On the side of the defence, 5 Exhibits were marked. The trial Court, on considering these evidence held A1 guilty of offence under Section 498A of IPC. A2 to A5 were acquitted of charge under Section 498A of IPC. 4. To prove the charges, prosecution has examined 17 witnesses, marked 17 documents and 2 Material Objects. On the side of the defence, 5 Exhibits were marked. The trial Court, on considering these evidence held A1 guilty of offence under Section 498A of IPC. A2 to A5 were acquitted of charge under Section 498A of IPC. All the accused (A1 to A5) including were acquitted of charges under Sections 304(B) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC, the present Criminal Appeal is filed on the ground that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence properly which indicates, the alleged demand of money was not in connection with the marriage. The prosecution has not proved, whether the deceased Durga fell into the well voluntarily or it was an accidental fall. While holding the appellant not guilty of offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. The post-mortem report does not indicate, the death of Durga was due to drowning. The fact that there was no water found in her stomach, the probability of neurogenic shock due to sudden and unexpected fall into the well, is not ruled out. The reasoning of the trial Court to rule out the accidental fall is on presumption. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding financial help extended to the appellant much after the marriage and the child birth would show that there was no dowry demand in connection with the marriage. The RDO in his report Ex.P11 has also opined that there is no evidence of dowry demand on the part of the accused. That apart there is no evidence of cruelty. Even PW-1 the father of the deceased admits that the appellant and the deceased were living happily. While so, the Court below ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498 A IPC. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that through the witnesses, the prosecution has proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Unbearable of the cruelty, the deceased had committed suicide. While so, the Court below ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498 A IPC. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that through the witnesses, the prosecution has proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Unbearable of the cruelty, the deceased had committed suicide. The depositions of PW-10 [Tmt.Pavalakodi], PW-11 [Tr.Samraj], PW-12 [Tmt.Menaga] and the evidence of PW-1, father of the deceased collectively indicates that, after the marriage, the appellant was demanding money frequently from the deceased family and they were helping him giving money to purchase vehicles to develop his business. While so, on 30.01.2012 when the accused and the deceased went to Ambur to attend the house warming ceremony of their relatives, the deceased has told PW-12 about the illtreatment she is suffering at the hands of the accused. To PW-12, the deceased was complaining that the accused returning home late night and refuse to talk and expressing his dislike towards her. These are incidence likely to cause mental cruelty. The sustained cruelty caused to the deceased had been proved through witnesses and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC. 7. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 8. It is the case, where the deceased and the appellant loved each other and married five years prior to the incident and they have two children. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and unbearable of the cruelty she committed suicide. She was noticed missing on 30.01.2012 from 06.00 p.m. Her body was recovered from the well on 01.02.2012 at about 03.00 p.m. The witnesses had stated that the well is a live well used for irrigation. PW-1 father of the deceased, who is the defacto complainant in the cross examination admits that after the marriage, the appellant had grown financially and he had financially supported him in his business whenever the accused requested help from him. He also admits that 6 months prior to the incident, his daughter and the first accused had set a nucleus family and the other accused were residing separately. The evidence of PW-1 indicates that 3 or 4 days before the occurrence, at the request of his daughter, he went to the field of the accused to plug coconut. He also admits that 6 months prior to the incident, his daughter and the first accused had set a nucleus family and the other accused were residing separately. The evidence of PW-1 indicates that 3 or 4 days before the occurrence, at the request of his daughter, he went to the field of the accused to plug coconut. He was with the first accused engaged in disposing the dead pig. When he heard that his daughter is missing, the first accused along with him went in search Durga. He also admits that on the date of occurrence, the accused and his daughter went to Ambur together to the attend house warming ceremony of their relative. 9. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 indicates that between 05.00 and 05.30, he was with the defacto complainant (PW-1). The deceased was noticed missing at 06.00 p.m immediately they have started searching her. On 31.01.2012 the police was informed about the missing of Durga. PW-2 the post-mortem Doctor had opined that the death might have caused due to drowning asphyxia. The Forensic Science Laboratory report of the intestine, which is marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 reveals that there was no diatom deducted, which means while drowning, the deceased has not consumed water. The vicera report reveals no poisonous substance found. PW-2 the Doctor who has conducted post-mortem had affirmed that when a person fell into the water unexpectedly or accidentally, there is possibility of death due to neurogeneric shock and in such circumstances, there is no change of external water entering the body. 10. The witnesses for prosecution including PW-1 and PW-11 had deposed that they searched the said well on 30.01.2012 and 31.01.2012, but they could not trace the body. Only on the 3rd day i.e. 01.02.2012, the body was found floating in the well, so they suspect foul in the death of Durga. 11. To attract the offence under Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove cruelty. In this case, except PW-12 the brother's daughter of PW-1, there is no other witness to corroborate her evidence that the deceased while she met on 30.01.2012 at the house warming function told her that the appellant had developed extra-marital affair and used to come home late and for the past few days, he is not talking with Durga. In this case, except PW-12 the brother's daughter of PW-1, there is no other witness to corroborate her evidence that the deceased while she met on 30.01.2012 at the house warming function told her that the appellant had developed extra-marital affair and used to come home late and for the past few days, he is not talking with Durga. Contrarily, PW-10, the mother of the deceased in the cross examination admits that on 30.01.2012 morning she attended the house warming ceremony at Ambur. Her daughter and son-in-law also attended the function. Her daughter told her that she is not well and suffering with stomach pain and she left the function hall earlier along with her husband to prepare her children to school. 12. Particularly, the fact that the appellant and the deceased Durga together had attended house warming ceremony of their relative at Ambur in the morning of the day of occurrence and that day evening between 05.00 to 05.30 p.m., PW-1 and the first appellant were together engaged in disposing a dead pig; from 06.00 p.m onwards, they both went in search of Durga when they heard Durga is missing. It is clear from these evidence that there is nothing to suspect of cruelty or quarrel and misunderstanding between the spouse. It is highly improbable to presume, the said Durga was subjected to cruelty, when she was happily found in company of the accused in a social gathering. Further, the body recovered from the well after two days, while examined at Lab in the stomach and other intestine indicates absence of diatom. This gives raise to a possibility of other reasons for the death of Durga. In view of the above doubt, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498A of IPC is not sustainable. 13. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court viz., the Sessions Court, Mahila Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore made in S.C.No.233 of 2012 dated 22.04.2014 is set aside. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any executed by the accused shall stand cancelled. If his custody is not required in any other case, the accused/appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith.