JUDGMENT :- The applicant has impugned the order of acquittal passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 23-101997 in Sessions Case No.W2/1996, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Relevant facts, stated in nutshell, are that: deceased Sunita married Respondent no.2 on 20-05-1994. After the marriage, applicant went to matrimonial house of his daughter with Bhujang to bring her for the festival of 'panchami'. On that occasion, Respondent No.2 demanded Rs.5,000/-. Applicant was unable to make the payment as he did not have money. Since then, respondent no.2 started making demands for Rs.5,000/-. As the demands were not fulfilled, respondent nos.2 to 4 started subjecting deceased Sunita to illtreatment. As Sunita could no longer bear the torture, she committed suicide by jumping into the dam on 3-5-1995. On the basis of this complaint, offence came to be registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. After completion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge found that deceased Sunita was not subjected to cruelty. She was happily living with her husband, but met with an accident while she had been to the dam for fetching water. In conformity with the findings, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This order of learned Sessions Judge has been impugned in the present revision petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that appreciation of evidence of the applicant, his wife and other witnesses by learned Trial Judge is perverse. Making reference to the evidence of complainant, learned Counsel submits that the evidence speaks of demand of Rs.5,000/- and torture of deceased Sunita, as the demands were not met. Learned Counsel has not referred to any other illegality in the judgment of Sessions Judge. The challenge is restricted only to the appreciation of the evidence. Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the relevant portion of the cross-examination and the contradictions to show that the evidence of these witnesses is rightly disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge. 5. It is now well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the relevant portion of the cross-examination and the contradictions to show that the evidence of these witnesses is rightly disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge. 5. It is now well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. Interference in the order passed by lower court can be justified if the findings recorded are found to be perverse or there is misapplication of law or glaring defect in the procedure followed. In the present case, we are dealing with the allegations against the husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law of the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that on account of alleged torture, deceased committed suicide. For establishing an offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the wife was subjected to cruelty, as envisaged by that section. Reading of section shows that for establishing the offence, it has to be proved that the husband or the relative of a woman concerned has subjected the said woman to cruelty. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of 'cruelty' which reads thus: "Explanation - For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' means — (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." For establishing the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It has to be established that there was a maltreatment which induced the wife to commit suicide. 6. In the present case, the prosecution is relying on the evidences of five witnesses. Learned Trial Judge has dealt with the evidence of these witnesses in paras 11 to 14 of his judgment. It has to be established that there was a maltreatment which induced the wife to commit suicide. 6. In the present case, the prosecution is relying on the evidences of five witnesses. Learned Trial Judge has dealt with the evidence of these witnesses in paras 11 to 14 of his judgment. Learned Counsel for the applicant has made reference to the evidence of applicant (PW-1) and his wife - Prayagabai (PW-2) for contending that they have referred to the demand of Rs.5,000/- and the torture of the deceased as the demands were not met. It is contended that the evidence is based in information given by deceased herself at the time of her visits on the occasions of 'Panchami' and 'Hali'. This submission has been properly considered by learned Trial Judge. It can be seen that the case set up in the F.I.R. is that applicant had been to matrimonial house of deceased Sunita to bring her for the festival of 'Panchami'. On that occasion, in presence of one Bhujang, alleged demand of Rs.5,000/- was made by respondent no.2. There was no allegation of ill-treatment against other respondents in the F.I.R. The recitals of F.I.R. contradict testimony of applicant as well as his wife and other witnesses. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also made reference to nature of death. Post mortem report, Exh.17 showed that the death is caused on account of drowning. It is not in dispute that deceased left the matrimonial house on 3-5-1995 at about 4.00 p.m. and did not return. Sometime before midnight her body was discovered and information regarding the death was given to the police station. On the basis of this information, A.D. was registered on the same day. One water pot was also found in the water. Pair of chappals and ring of cloth (Chumbal) were found near the water. Learned Counsel contends that the death is suicidal. Post-mortem report shows that there were no ante mortem injuries on the dead body, therefore, option is restricted to suicidal or accidental death. In the present case, learned Trial Judge has rightly found that as the offence in respect of cruelty is not established, the wife must have been living happily with her husband and has met with unfortunate accident. The evidence on record, to say the least, is frugal. The evidence referring to cruelty does not inspire confidence. In the present case, learned Trial Judge has rightly found that as the offence in respect of cruelty is not established, the wife must have been living happily with her husband and has met with unfortunate accident. The evidence on record, to say the least, is frugal. The evidence referring to cruelty does not inspire confidence. In the absence of other cogent evidence on record, it is not possible to come to any different conclusion regarding the cause of death, then the conclusion reached by the trial Court. 8. Having regard to the evidence on record, the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge is perverse, therefore, interference is required, cannot be sustained. Having regard to the nature of offence, no case for interference is made out. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.