Judgment Pradeep Kumar, J.-This complaint appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 3rd February, 1997 passed by Sri C. Tanti, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 3184 of 1991, acquitting the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant's father, Sachida Nand Gupta lodged an F.I.R. with Dhanbad Police Station stating therein that his daughter, Kunti Gupta was married with accused, Sunil Kumar Gupta, son of Chandrakant Gupta as per Hindu Rites on 7.3.1987 and she has got three years old daughter from the marriage. He further stated that his daughter had sent a letter that she was being tortured for dowry by her in-laws and called her to take back from her in-laws' house. Whereupon, the informant reached to her in-laws' house on 23.10.1991 and wanted to meet his daughter, but he was not permitted to meet his daughter by in-laws of his daughter. So he went to his relative's house. Then, again he went to the house of her daughter on 24.10.1991 with his relatives to take her. At that time he allowed him to take her daughter and the informant brought his daughter to the house of Rajendra Gupta his relative. On the next day ~e was leaving for his house alongwith his daughter. Then, the accused, Sunil Kumar Gupta and his brother Santosh Kumar Gupta came there and wanted to take her daughter forcibly, but the informant lastly brought her to his house. 3. On the basis of the said F.I.R. police registered a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and submitted charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case tried the accused persons, but without properly considering the evidences wrongly acquitted them, hence the judgment of acquittal is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the evidence adduced by the informant and his daughter, Kunti Gupta failed to prove the fact that any torture was made by the appellants in her sasural and she has voluntarily left her in-laws house, hence the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. 5. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that in order to prove the charges, although prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, but the only witness for consideration of torture of victim girl, Kunti Gupta is herself i.e. P.W. 4. Since the victim's father, Sachida Nand Gupta had died during trial, hence she was not examined. P.W. 4, Kunti Gupta, the victim lady stated in her evidence that she was married with Sunil Kumar Gupta on 7.3.1987 and went to her sasural on 8th March, 1987, in which her father had given Rs. 25,000/- cash, scooter and ornaments worth of Rs. 25,000/-. She stayed in her sasural for one month and at that time her husband asked her to take Rs. 50,000/- from her father for doing business whereupon she came back to her Naihar. In November, 1987 she again went to her sasural after second marriage. Then, again her husband started demanding Rs. 50,000/- for doing business and on her denial she has been mentally or physically tortured. She further stated that during 1987 to 1988 she used to go to her 'maike' and go back to sasural, but her in-laws always used to demand this thing and that thing. Thereafter, in 1988 when she was left in her maike, but her husband said that unless and until her father gives money she will stay in her Maike whereupon she stayed in her maike and on 27.7.1989 she gave birth to twin girls and an information was given to her in-laws in this regard, but nobody came and she again stayed in her maike till 1991, but nobody came from her sasural, whereupon her father asked them to come and take back to her sasural, but they said they will not come if she wants to come to her sasural she will come. On 28.4.1991 she went to her sasural with her elder brother. In her sasural she was again tortured and threatened by her in-laws family. Then, she wrote a letter to her brother and father. She proved a letter written by her dated 28.5.1991 as Ext. -1. She stated that her elder brother had come to her sasural and wanted to meet her, but she was not allowed to meet her and inside the house they were trying for her murder by pouring kerosene oil on her body. She proved a letter written by her dated 28.5.1991 as Ext. -1. She stated that her elder brother had come to her sasural and wanted to meet her, but she was not allowed to meet her and inside the house they were trying for her murder by pouring kerosene oil on her body. Whereupon, her brother said that if they did not want to keep her sister then allow her to go back to her father's house, but her in-laws said that unless and until he will give divorce they will not allow her to go back and her husband give a statement from her she is suffering from skin disease. Subsequently, she again wrote a letter to her father and her father came and he was also ill-treated and when the second day he came with his other relatives then she was allowed to go, but on the next day when she was leaving her sasural then her in-laws stopped her to go. Whereupon her father reported the matter to the police and police came then she was allowed to go to her father's house. It is important to note here in para 10, in her cross-examination, she stated that when she came after marriage, she stayed for about 1 month at her sasural. During that period no mental or physical torture was done upon her by her in-laws Thereafter, she left for her naihar with her brother, but at that time her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for doing business. At para 12, in her cross-examination, she stated that she had filed a case at Gaya for her maintenance in which she stated that after marriage of two months the behaviour of her in-laws was good with her and she stayed at Gaya from 1987 to 1989. For the first time, in 1991 she also admitted on 28.5.1990 her father had written a letter to her father-in-law, which is marked as Ext.-A. She denied at para 19 that in the letter her father wrote to her father-in-law that he should forgive his daughter for her mistakes. She stated in para 21 that she is ready to live with her husband. She stated in para 23 that she does not want to live with her husband since she has got danger for her life. 6. She stated in para 21 that she is ready to live with her husband. She stated in para 23 that she does not want to live with her husband since she has got danger for her life. 6. Thus, I find from the evidence of the wife (P.W.4) that she has not made any serious allegation of torture against her husband or in-laws. In fact, it appears from her evidence she stayed for only one month after her marriage at her sasural and thereafter, she has herself admitted in para 13 that she went to her sasural after her daughter's birth in 1991. She further stated that she was tortured by her in-laws, but the same was not supported by any evidence. Moreover by Ext.-A her father's letter which was marked her admission as Ext.-A, which she admitted that there was mistake on the part of the girl and he has asked in-laws to forgive her. In that view of the matter I also find that there is no cogent evidence to find the respondents guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code even the prosecution charge-sheeted witness, Anju Gupta, who was examined as a defence witness has not supported the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, the trial court in view of the statement of the girl before the Family Court that she is ready to live with her husband and undertaking given by the accused persons that they will keep her with all security, but she refused to go back to her sasural. Hence, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful and it seems the allegation of torture has been made only because divorce case was filed against the wife. There is no reason to come to a different conclusion from the one taken by the court below. 7. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this complaint appeal against the acquittal and the same is accordingly dismissed.