Insufficient evidence and admissions by the complainant in cross-examination led to the affirmation of acquittal under Section 498A IPC.

J U D G M E N T

The present appellant is the complainant in a private complaint based upon which C.C.No. 475 of 2001 is instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. She preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 23.5.2009 of the learned Magistrate in the above Calendar Case acquitting the sole accused under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

2. Originally, the complaint was filed against 5 persons, out of which A1 is the husband of the complainant and A2 to A4 are brother and sisters of A1. A5 is the mother of A1. According to the complainant, A1 married the complainant on 26.4.1998 and after that she resided along with A1 in her house. In the month of July 1998, A1 returned to Gulf country connected with his employment. It is the case of the complainant that, at the time of marriage, A1 was given Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh) as dowry. 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 23.5 cents of property with a shop room were also given to A1. According to the complainant, gold ornaments were taken away by A1 when he went to Gulf. According to the complainant, after return of A1 to gulf country, the complainant used to visit the house of the accused and while so, A2 to A5 used to ill-treat her by demanding 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also by saying that the dowry given was not up to their expectation. According to the complainant, A1 used to sent letter to the complainant in which he had also mentioned that dowry given was inadequate. It is also averred that the father of the complainant availed a loan from the bank and purchased a gold chain weighing 2 ½ sovereign and given to A5. In December 2000 A1 sent two basket full of articles to the complainant from gulf and on getting information about this, A2 to A5 have become more hostile towards the complainant. It is also the grievance of the complainant that though A1 returned from Gulf on 14.4.2001, he did not visit the house of the complainant. According to the complainant, on enquiry, A1 informed her that he would not come to her house unless the property is assigned in his name. Therefore, according to the complainant, on 23.4.2001, 35 cents of property was given as per an agreement, but even thereafter, A1 did not come to the house of the complainant. Thus, according to the complainant, on 18.5.2001, she went to the house of the accused along with her brother. According to the complainant, on seeing her , the accused abused her and A2 beat on the back of her chest with a chapel, and thus, the complainant returned to her house. Thus according to the complainant, the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. After conducting an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint was originally taken on file as C.C. No.475/2001. As A1 was absconding, the trial against the other accused was proceeded and finally culminated in their acquittal and thus the case against A1 was split up and refiled as C.C.No.527/2007. Subsequently, A1 surrendered and the trial was proceeded and during which PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 and P2 were also marked. The trial court finally found that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to convict the accused- the husband of the complainant- for the offences alleged against the accused and accordingly, the accused is found not guilty and thus he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. It is the above finding and order of acquittal challenged in this appeal.

4. I have heard Sri. M.V.Amaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and I have perused the judgment of the trial court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that even though the complainant has stated that the accused has not physically assaulted the complainant, still, section 498A is attracted since in Ext.P1 letter sent by the accused to the complainant contained demand of the accused for more money from the complainant towards the dowry. But the trial court