JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1989 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhar passed in Criminal Case No. 860/88 whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A of the I.P.C. 2. The brief history of the case is that Police Sagor filed the challan against the accused-respondents on 5-12-87 with the allegations that the accused-respondents have committed cruelty on Sitabai who is wife of respondent Banesingh for bringing dowry from her parent's house. The charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. was framed. 3. Accused-respondents abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. 4. After trial learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence this appeal. 5. In the memo of appeal and during the course of arguments it has been submitted that the fact of causing injuries to Sitabai (wife) has been proved and therefore, the accused ought to have been convicted. As against it, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the ingredient of cruelty, as defined under Section 498A I.P.C. is missing and, therefore, the accused persons have rightly been acquitted. 6. The prosecution examined Sajansingh (P.W. 1), Madanlal (P.W. 2), Sitabai (P.W. 3), Rujnath (P.W. 4), Jagdish (P.W. 5), Dhannalal (P.W. 6), Kanhaiyalal @ Kana (P.W.7), Bajrang (P.W.8), Mangilal (P.W. 9), Umraosingh (P.W. 10) and Dr. K.C. Mahajan (P.W. 11) in support of its contention. 7. Now so far as the causing of injuries is concerned, that fact has been proved by Sitabai (P.W. 3) and Dr. K.C. Mahajan (P.W. 11) who found four injuries on the body of Sitabai. But the main point for consideration in the case is as to whether the same would be covered under a wilful conduct whereby woman (Sitabai) is driven to commit suicide or grave injury or danger to life. Sita Bai has nowhere stated that because of that assault she was in any way frustated or wanted to commit suicide. No, other evidence had been adduced to support that fact. 8. The next point for consideration, therefore, would be whether the alleged assault and harassment was done for meeting the unlawful demand of dowry. The prosecution has tried to prove this fact from the statment of Rugnath (P.W. 4). But he has admitted that no demand was made with him. No, other evidence had been adduced to support that fact. 8. The next point for consideration, therefore, would be whether the alleged assault and harassment was done for meeting the unlawful demand of dowry. The prosecution has tried to prove this fact from the statment of Rugnath (P.W. 4). But he has admitted that no demand was made with him. Rugnath (P.W. 4) has further admitted that first 7 to 8 months relations between the respondent No. 2 and Sitabai were cordial and there was no assault or harassment during that period. As against it Sitabai has stated that she was being harassed from the very beginning for meeting the unlawful demand. This fact of demand as disclosed by Sitabai has been disbelieved the learned Trial Judge. It appears that because Sitabai was assaulted 5 to 6 years after the marriage and she went to the house of her father the story of unlawful demand was made out and an exaggerated version of the same was given. There is always a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the same is not weaken because of the pronouncement of the judgment of acquittal. Learned Trial Judge who has seen the demeanour of the witnesses has disbelieved them. A foundation has been laid for coming to that conclusion. The finding of the Trial Judge cannot be said to be perverse. Under the circumstances it would not be proper to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge. 9. The appeal against acquittal is therefore, dismissed. The accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed.