JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - Heard, Mr. Swain, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1994 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1994 (Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 1993) setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Sub Judge, Jeypore in S.T. No. 3 of 1993. 3. The prosecution case in nub is that some-time in the year 1988 the deceased married the accused-Respondent in accordance with their caste, customs and Hindu rites. They led a happy conjugal life for a short time and then skirmishes erupted between the couple for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The deceased, who was serving as a teacher at Lamataput, got herself transferred in the year 1991 to live with her husband, the accused-Respondent, in his working place at Koraput. It is alleged that the accused-Respondent subjected the deceased to cruelty in many a way. Ultimately when the deceased could not bear the torture any further, she committed suicide on 18.12.1992. P.W.1, the father of the deceased lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Koraput Town P.S. (P.W.11) on 18.12.1992 itself and as the allegation made in the report, which was treated as F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, P.W.11 registered P.S. Case No. 160 of 1992 and took up investigation. In course of investigatice, he visited the spot, examined the witnesses, prepared the Spot Map under Ext.9, arrested the accused-Respondent, forwarded him to Court and after completion of investigation finding a prima facie case against the accused-Respondent, submitted charge sheet under Sections 498-A/306 of I.P.C. where under charges were framed against him and on denial of the charges, he faced trial before the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Jeypore. 4. The accused-Respondent took the plea that he married the deceased in the year 1984 and not in 1988. To bring home the aforesaid charges against the accused person, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and to prove that the marriage between the accused-Respondent and the deceased took place in the year 1984, the defence examined four witnesses. Sessions Judge, Jeypore. 4. The accused-Respondent took the plea that he married the deceased in the year 1984 and not in 1988. To bring home the aforesaid charges against the accused person, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and to prove that the marriage between the accused-Respondent and the deceased took place in the year 1984, the defence examined four witnesses. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused-Respondent there under and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence u/s 306 of I.P.C. and R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default R.I. for one month more u/s 498-A of I.P.C. in S.T. Case No. 3 of 1993. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the accused preferred appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 1993, as stated earlier. The Appellate Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 306/498-A of I.P.C. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State of Orissa has referred the present appeal on the ground that the Appellate Court erred in discarding the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7 on the sole ground that they were interested for the prosecution. 6. Mr. Swain, learned Addl. Government Advocate, at the out set, submits that the Appellate Court committed gross error in not relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 only because they were closely related to the deceased. Admittedly P.W.1 is the father and P.Ws.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased. As found from their evidence marriage between the deceased and the accused-Respondent took place in the year 1988. None of them was able to give the date or even the month of marriage, even though P.W.6 was a teacher. During cross-examination, it was elicited from P.W.1 that in fact marriage took place in the year 1984 and not in the year 1988. D.Ws. 1 to 4 also deposed that marriage took place in the year 1984 and not in the year 1988. So, the intention of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7 in antedating the marriage to 4 years was with a view to see that the accused-Respondent was made liable u/s 304-B of I.P.C. (dowry death). D.Ws. 1 to 4 also deposed that marriage took place in the year 1984 and not in the year 1988. So, the intention of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7 in antedating the marriage to 4 years was with a view to see that the accused-Respondent was made liable u/s 304-B of I.P.C. (dowry death). This circumstance shows that they are highly interested for the success of the prosecution. Besides that the evidence of those three witnesses are full of material contradictions. In his examination-in-chief P.W.1 stated that the accused-Respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards dowry. One year prior to the death of deceased, she had come to his house, stayed for one month and during her stay she disclosed before him regarding the ill-treatment of the accused-Respondent and demand of dowry by him. But he had not stated like that before the I.O. He also did not mention the same in the F.I.R. Ext. 1. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 that he heard from Kamala Pujari (P.W.7) about till-treatment meted out to the deceased. P.W.7 during cross-examination stated that she did not disclose before anybody that the deceased had been tortured by the accused-Respondent in many a way. So, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.1. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.6, it is found that one day prior to her death the deceased told her that accused-Respondent was not talking term with her, as there was a quarrel between them for money. During cross examination it was elicited from P.W.7 that the accused-Respondent was assaulting the deceased as she was helping her parents. Even if this part of her evidence is believed, still then that is not sufficient to attract either the offence u/s 498-A or Section 306 of I.P.C. Wear and tear in family life is there in every family. In the case at hand, there is no reliable evidence that the conduct of the accused-Respondent was of such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. There is also no reliable evidence that the accused-Respondent demanded dowry, either from the deceased or her relatives. There is also no reliable evidence that the accused-Respondent demanded dowry, either from the deceased or her relatives. Once the demand of dowry fails and it is held that the quarrel between the deceased and the accused-Respondent was not sufficient to drive the former to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limbs etc both the charges under Sections 498-A & 306 of IPC fail. Under these premises, it cannot be held that the order of acquittal of the accused-Respondent of the charge under Sections 498-A/306 of I.P.C. in Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 1993 was illegal or perverse so as to be interfered with by this Court in appeal. 7. As such, the Government Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court acquitting the accused-Respondent of the charges and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court are hereby confirmed. The accused-Respondent is discharged of his bail bond. Final Result : Dismissed