JUDGMENT :- State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Station House Officer, Devarakonda P.S., filed by the present appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 12.7.2001 in CC No.124 of1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda, where under and whereby both the respondents herein, who are A1 and A2, were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and accordingly acquitted of the said charge. 2. PW1 is none other than wife of A1, whose marriage was performed with A1 three years prior to 1998. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs. 11,000/-, half tula of gold and 40 tulas of silver were presented to A1. Thereafter, the accused started demanding PW1 to bring cash of Rs.7,000/to purchase bulls. On that, PW3, who is father of PW1, said to have purchased bulls in Mallepally shandy and handed over the same to the accused. Sometime thereafter, the accused again started harassing and subjecting PW1 to cruelty to bring money to purchase a tractor. Basing on the report of PW1, police registered the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge-sheet. 3. For a charge under Section 498A IPC the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1-complaint. No oral evidence was adduced but EX.D1 was marked, on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court has not placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and held that there was no cruelty meted out to PWI by both the accused, and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned Counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is very clear that the accused were demanding PW1 to bring the amounts sufficient to purchase a tractor, which is an unlawful demand, and hence, the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is made out, that, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. Hence, she prayed to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict the respondents/A1 and A2. 8. Hence, she prayed to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict the respondents/A1 and A2. 8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/AI and A2 contended that PW s.2 and 3 are not affluent to purchase a tractor, and that the income being earned by PW3 was hardly sufficient to meet the necessities of his family consisting of 7 members; that, knowing fully well about the financial status of PW3, it is improbable to believe that the accused demanded PW1 to bring money sufficient to purchase a tractor; that, after an elaborate consideration .of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and accordingly acquitted them and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the criminal appeal. 9. Al is the husband and A2 is the mother-in-law, of PW1. Similarly, PWs.2 and 3 are mother and father respectively, of PW1. There is no dispute about the marriage between PWI and AI. Similarly, it is not seriously disputed about PW3 giving cash of Rs.11.000/-, half tula of gold and 40 tulas of silver to the accused at the time of marriage. There is evidence on record which would go to show that for about one year after the marriage, both PW1 and the accused lived happily. It is not• in dispute that A1 was having Acs.15.00 of dry land. It is alleged that, after one year after the marriage, the accused demanded PW1 to bring certain amounts to purchase bulls. 10. There cannot be any dispute that, under Section 498A IPC the prosecution has to establish that PW1, who is no• other than wife of A1, was subjected to cruelty by A1 and A2. 'Cruelty' for the purpose of 498A IPC is any willful 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 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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Three instances have been testified by PWI so as to bring the case under the purview of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC viz., firstly, demand for purchase of bulls; secondly demand for purchase of tractor and thirdly mixing bangle pieces in food to. be eaten by PW1. 11. Insofar as the demand for purchase of bulls is concerned, the finding of the trial Court is that evidence of PW1 does not indicate about coercing or harassment while demanding money for purchasing bulls. As seen from the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the accused asked PW1 to get money for purchasing bulls. Because A1 was having Acs.15.00 of land asking PW1 to bring money for purchase of bulls, cannot be said to be unlawful demand. There must be coercion or harassment to bring money for purchase of bulls. There was no coercion or harassment by the accused to PW1. Therefore, that instance cannot be said to be cruelty within the meaning of Explanation to 498A IPC. 12. Coming to the second instance, the allegation is that Al demanded PW1 to bring money for purchase of tractor. The family condition of PW3 is very well known to the accused even at the time of marriage. It is in the evidence that PW3 lives by cooli work and was getting Rs.1,000/per month. Admittedly, family of PW3 was having 7 members and all of them were completely dependent on the earnings of PW3. Therefore, in those circumstances, earnings of Rs.l,000/- or Rs.1,500/- per month by PW3 is hardly sufficient to maintain his family. Such is the case, it is highly improbable to believe that the accused demanded PWI to bring money from her father so as to purchase a tractor worth in lakhs. If it is a case where PW3 was having sufficient means to purchase a tractor, then it can be said that the accused demanded PW1 to bring money from her father to purchase a tractor. So, this second instances also appears to be improbable and unbelievable. 13. Coming to the third instance, PW1 did not state that she was made to eat food mixed with pieces of bangles. Except mere assertion given by PW1, there is absolutely no other evidence. PWs.2 and 3 are not direct witnesses to speak about the accused demanding them to bring money to purchase a tractor. 13. Coming to the third instance, PW1 did not state that she was made to eat food mixed with pieces of bangles. Except mere assertion given by PW1, there is absolutely no other evidence. PWs.2 and 3 are not direct witnesses to speak about the accused demanding them to bring money to purchase a tractor. Therefore, their evidence is not much relevant for the purpose of proving the case for the charges leveled against the accused. 14. PW4 is said to have mediated dispute between PW1 and the accused. His evidence does not indicate that PW1 was subjected to ill-treatment or harassment by her husband. PW5 did not support the case of prosecution. Basing on the aforementioned evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 15. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12.7.2001 in CC No.124 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda.