JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The State of Orissa has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.1.1991 passed by the Addl. C.J.M.-cum-JMFC, Rourkela in G.R. Case No. 439 of 1987 wherein he acquitted all the accused persons of the charge u/s 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 2. Succinctly, stated the case of the prosecution is that accused Bijay Kumar Agarwala of Rourkela led Bidya, P.W.8 to the altar on 17.5.1981, but from very beginning of the marriage accused-Bijaya Kumar Agarwala and the co-accused, his father, mother, brother and sisters subjected her to cruelty for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry of Rs. 25,000/-, even though a sum of Rs. 11,000/- had been given towards Tilak. So, a meeting was convened to settle the dispute, where it was decided that the accused persons would not make any further demand for dowry. Still then their demand of dowry remained unabated. Further, accused Bijaya Kumar Agarwal subjected to P.W.8 to mental cruelty by falsely alleging that she had illicit relation with her mother's brother and the husband of her sister. On 13.3.1987, he left P.W.8 in the house of her maternal uncle (P.W.3) and threatened her to bring Rs. 50,000/- or else she would not be allowed to enter into his house. Therefore, she was compelled to lodge a report against all the accused persons before the O.I.C. of Plant Site Police station Rourkela (P.W.10). Since the allegation made in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, P.W.10 registered it and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, visited the spot, searched for the accused persons and as he could not trace out them, arranged spy, arrested accused Kisanlal Agarwal and Jagadish Prasad Agarwal on 27.3.1987 and forwarded them to Court on the next date. On 30.3.1987 accused Bijaya Kumar Agarwala, Durga Devi, Anita Kumari Agarwal and Laxmi Kumari Agarwal surrendered before the Court of S.D.J.M., Panposh. After completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, P.W. 10 submitted charge sheet against them. The case having been received on transfer, the A.C.J.M.-cum-J.M.F.C, Rourkela framed charge u/s 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the accused persons, all of whom denied the charge and faced the trial. 3. After completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, P.W. 10 submitted charge sheet against them. The case having been received on transfer, the A.C.J.M.-cum-J.M.F.C, Rourkela framed charge u/s 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the accused persons, all of whom denied the charge and faced the trial. 3. To bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the defence examined two witnesses, besides exhibiting some documents to prove their innocence. 4. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons holding that the authenticity of the F.I.R. was shrouded with doubts; there were major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and that P.W.8 had illicit relation with her maternal uncle and the husband of her elder sister and when it was made known it led to ill feeling between herself and the accused persons. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order of acquittal, State of Orissa has preferred the present appeal. During pendency of the appeal Kishanlal Agarwal (Respondent No. 3) expired, so the appeal abated against him. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the trial Court erred in holding that authenticity of the F.I.R. was shrouded with doubts. According to him, as found from the evidence on record, P.W.7, brother of P.W.8 got the F.I.R. typed as per instruction of the latter and lodged it before P.W. 10. So, the trial Court ought not have doubted the authenticity of the F.I.R. In this respect, it is found from the evidence of P.W. 8 that her brother Binod (P.W.7) got the F.I.R. typed, read over and explained the contents thereof in Hindi, whereafter she signed on it. Binod took the F.I.R. to the Police Station, but she failed to say the time of lodging the F.I.R. As it appears, first, the F.I.R. was typed out and thereafter the contents thereof was read over and explained to P.W.8. There is no evidence as to who typed out the F.I.R. The F.I.R. shows that it was typed on 21.3.1987. On perusal of the formal F.I.R., it is seen that originally the date of receipt of the F.I.R. was recorded as 21.3.1987 and subsequently it was scored and in its place 22.3.1987 was written. There is no explanation as to why it was not filed 21.3.1987. On perusal of the formal F.I.R., it is seen that originally the date of receipt of the F.I.R. was recorded as 21.3.1987 and subsequently it was scored and in its place 22.3.1987 was written. There is no explanation as to why it was not filed 21.3.1987. Again the time of receipt of the F.I.R. has not been endorsed in the formal F.I.R. The F.I.R. was received by the Court on 24.9.1987. Admittedly, the Court of Addl. C.J.M. situates at Panposh, Rourkela and the F.I.R. was lodged in the Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela. It would not take two days for reaching the F.I.R. in the Court of A.C.J.M., Panposh from Plant Site Police Station. There is no satisfactory explanation for such delay. So, the finding of the trial Court, that the F.I.R. was shrouded with doubts can not be said as illegal. 6. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.8 that fifteen days after their marriage while she along with accused Bijaya Kumar Agarwal had been to her parental house, the later demanded Rs. 25,000/- towards dowry from her father. First her father refused to give such a huge amount but on being persuaded by the gentlemen of the locality, he agreed to give the same, on installment. Since his demand was not complied with immediately, accused Bijaya got annoyed and brought back P.W.8 to his house, where after she was not allowed to visit her parental house any more. It also transpires from the evidence of P.W.8 that her husband and other accused persons always compelled her to do all household works like maid servant, abused her in filthy languages and in some occasions Bjaya Kumar Agrawal assaulted her. The accused persons also did not allow her to attend the marriage of her two brothers. But all those allegations are conspicuously absent in the F.I.R. P.Ws 1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 7 and P.W.9 also suffer from major contradictions. 7. Ext.A is the affidavit, sworn by P.W.8 herself before the Executive Magistrate, Panposh on 29.4.1985 swearing that she had illicit relation with the husband of her elder sister and her maternal uncle, Basu Bagria. Ext. 'B' and 'C' are two letters written by P.W.8 to her husband. These letters do not contain anything to indicate that there was any torture on her. Ext. 'B' and 'C' are two letters written by P.W.8 to her husband. These letters do not contain anything to indicate that there was any torture on her. Rather the same reflect the emotional attachment of P.W.8 to her husband. It is found from the evidence of D.W.1 that on 29.4.1985, she was woman Police Inspector of Plant site Police Station, Rourkela. On that day, N.K. Agarwal of Bandhamunda lodged a written report before her. She entered the fact in the Station diary and enquired into the matter. Since the enquiry did not reveal a cognizable case, she did to register any case. She entered the result of her enquiry in the Station Diary as per Ext. E which shows that P.W.8 had illicit relation with the husband of her elder sister and her maternal uncle and that there was no torture by any of the family members of her husband for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. So the finding of the trial Court that such illicit relation led to ill feeling between the accused persons and P.W.8 cannot be branded as illegal. 8. At this stage learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that as borne out from the evidence of record, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- was given to accused Bijay Kumar Agarwal towards Tilak. So the trial Court ought not have acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. Section 2 of the D.P. Act which defines dowry reads as follows: Definition of 'dowry' - In this Act, "dowry" means an property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. But as per Section 4 of the said Act unless there is demand for dowry, one cannot be liable for the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. But as per Section 4 of the said Act unless there is demand for dowry, one cannot be liable for the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence that the accused persons or any one of them demanded Rs. 11,000/- towards Tilak. On the contrary, it is there in the evidence that in Marwary Community to which the accused and P.W.8 and her relations belong, there is custom of Tilak. So, the accused-Respondent cannot be held liable for the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. It is an established principle of law that, in case of an appeal against acquittal, if the view taken by the trial Court is reasonably possible, the Appellate Court should not interfere with such view, even if Anr. view is possible. In the instant case, the view taken by the trial Court being a plausible one, I do not want to interfere with the same. Moreover, this appeal is of the year 1991. In the meantime about 17 years have elapsed. One of the accused-Respondent expired in the meantime. So at this stage, if the order of acquittal is reversed and an order of conviction is recorded against the accused-Respondent, it would be travesty of justice. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The accused-Respondent are discharged of their bail bonds. Final Result : Dismissed