J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.11 of 2013, dated 27.11.2014 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, passed in C.C.No.36 of 2008, dated 27.02.2013.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the de-facto complainant/PW1 Murugeswari and A1/Murugaboopathy was solemnised in the year 1998 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant gave 12.5 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.40,000/- as dowry and subsequently, A1 along with the other accused demanded 10 sovereigns of gold jewels as further dowry from the de-facto complainant and after conciliation meeting was conducted, reunited the couple by the panchayatars and the de- facto complainant returned back to her nuptial home and she gave birth of a female child and thereafter, she came to know that A1 married A8/Murugeswari as second wife with the help of A2 to A4 and thereafter, all the accused made cruelty to the de-facto complainant for further dowry and also threatened her. In this connection, the Inspector of Police, attached to Paramakudi All Women Police Station, has filed a case against the accused persons.

3.The trial court, after proper appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, convicted the 1st petitioner/A1 for the offence under sections 498(A) IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo each one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each offence and convicted A2 to A4 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted A5 to A8 from the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioners/A1 to A4 preferred appeal before the first appellate court, which was also confirmed the findings of the trial court. Against which, the petitioners/A1 to A4 are before this court.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.The main contention raised on the side of the revision petitioners/A1 to A4 is that to invoke section 498(A) IPC, a woman should have subjected to cruelty, which is likely to drive her to commit suicide or there should be a demand for any property or valuable security and in the present case, no such allegation is made against the petitioners and in the absence of any such allegation, no proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners and there should be a prima facie allegation in the complaint that a demand was made personally by the concerned accused and such demand was caused cruelty and in the present case, there is no prima facie case levelled against the petitioners and the allegations did not amount to harassment with a view to coerce informant or her relation to meet any unlawful demand for any property and prays that the petitioners/A1 to A4 are entitled to acquittal.

6.PW1 is the victim and she is the wife of A1. A2 and A3 are the in-laws of PW1. A4 is the sister-in-law of PW1. In respect of the occurrence, PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in her complaint and evidence stated that at the time of marriage, it was agreed to give 12 sovereigns of gold to her and Rs.40,000/- as cash to A1, which was given in three instalments by way of selling the properties of her father and she lived with A1 for three years jointly in the matrimonial home and at that time, all the accused demanded dowry and drove her from the matrimonial home and then panchayat was conducted and afterwards, she went to the matrimonial home and then, all the accused demanded dowry and drove her from the matrimonial home and then, she gave Ex.P1 complaint.

7.To prove that Rs.40,000/- was given as dowry to A1 by way of selling the properties of the parents o