JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 30.7.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Additional JMFC, Bhadravathi in C.C. No. 1422/2000 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with 34 IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, since one year prior to 12.4.2000, the complainant Smt. Mangala, was living with accused No. 1, who is the wife of accused No. 1. While she was living, the accused has subjected her to cruelty by harassing physically and mentally to bring money from her parents house and have driven her out of the house, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on 12.4.2000 at 11 p.m., the accused with common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening Smt. Mangala with dire consequences so as to take her life away and caused her harm, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 IPC. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses P.Ws. l to 13 and has got marked Exs. P1 to P7. 4. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and they have got marked Exs. D1 to D2 being the portion of the statement of witnesses. 5. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that the prosecution has not been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The State has filed this appeal challenging the order of acquittal. 6. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri M.S. Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that evidence of P.W. 5-victim coupled with evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 clearly goes to show that accused were subjecting P.W. 5 to ill-treatment and harassment, after the marriage of the complainant, with accused No. 1, P.W. 1 further stated that on hearing the noise of the accused, he went to the house of the accused and at that time, he found the victim harassed by the accused and therefore, he has taken P.W. 5 to his house and gave shelter on that night. He submits that P.W. 13-the opinion of the doctor further indicates that P.W. 5 has suffered simple injuries and the evidence of P.W. 5 is corroborated by medical evidence and therefore, submits that the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused be convicted by allowing this appeal. 8. Sri M.S. Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the evidence of P.W. 5 is not in consonance with the complaint given by her and there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7. Further, he submits that the injury on P.W. 5 is simple in nature and they can be caused if one suffers from fits and rolls herself on the floor, as consequence of such disease. He further submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 does not corroborate with the evidence of P.W. 5, in so far as P.W. 1 coming to the house of P.W. 5 in the night as spoken to by P.W. 5, whereas, P.W. 1 says that he has gone to the house of P.W. 5 and thereafter, taken P.W. 5 to his house. There is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 who are the panchayathdars. Hence, he submits that the order does not suffer from illegality or infirmity and therefore, he submits that appeal may be dismissed. 9. The prosecution in this case commenced with filing of the complaint by P.W. 5 Smt. Mangala, before the Holehonnur Police Station, Bhadravathi on 13.4.2000. It is stated in her complaint that she got married with accused No. 1 on 1.4.1998 and thereafter, she lived in the house of her husband along with father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. It is stated by her that the accused were giving ill-treatment, harassing her and were assaulting her during night time by hands and were demanding money from her parents. Her father and brothers gave some money to the accused and after sometime, again they started giving ill-treatment, and assaulting her. On 12.4.2000 at about 11 p.m., accused had assaulted her by hand and pushed her out of the house. At that time one Gopalappa, Ramappa and others came to the house and in spite of repeated request by them to take her back to the house, she was not taken back to the house by the accused. On 12.4.2000 at about 11 p.m., accused had assaulted her by hand and pushed her out of the house. At that time one Gopalappa, Ramappa and others came to the house and in spite of repeated request by them to take her back to the house, she was not taken back to the house by the accused. Therefore, she has taken shelter in the house of Gopallappa and on 13.4.2000, after the arrival of her parents she went to the Government Hospital at Holehonnur and after taking the treatment, she went to the police station and has lodged the complaint. 10. P.W. 1 is Gopallappa, he has stated that the accused is known to him and that on the date of the incident, he heard some quarrel in the house of the accused. He went to the house of the accused along with 3 other persons. The complainant was crying and was telling that she was beaten by the accused. He advised them not to quarrel and that complainant, told that she will not remain in the house of the accused since she was scared of the accused and told him that she will go to her parents house and allow to stay in his house that night. On the same night her parents were informed by phone and at 11.00 a.m., the next day her parents came and thereafter, a complaint was lodged. In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not know as to why the quarrel has taken place. When it was suggested that the complainant and husband were not living happily and that she wanted to go to her parents house, P.W. 1 has denied the said suggestion. He has stated that there is a distance of 400 feet between his house and house of the complainant. 11. P.W. 2 Ramappa and P.W. 10 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 3 Mohmiyamma has stated that on the night of the incident, quarrel was going on between the complainant and the accused No. 1 and complainant informed him that accused No. 1 is assaulting her. They advised her not to quarrel and, thereafter, they went back to their house. P.W. 4 Manjappa states that the quarrel took place and the first accused was fighting with the complainant on the date of the incident. They advised her not to quarrel and, thereafter, they went back to their house. P.W. 4 Manjappa states that the quarrel took place and the first accused was fighting with the complainant on the date of the incident. The complainant thereafter, went to the house of Gopallappa, on the next day her parents came and complaint was lodged before the police and police have come to the spot. He also states in the cross-examination, that he does not know the reason for the quarrel between the complainant and accused. 12. P.W. 5 has reiterated her version made in the complaint. In the cross-examination, she has stated that, she cannot say as to when the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was brought by her parents in order to give to her husband. She is also not aware as to the day on which the said money was given to the accused. It is suggested that she has not suffered any injuries at the hands of the accused and that she is suffering from epilepsy and taking treatment for the said disease. Further, she has denied the said suggestion. P.W. 6 Rangappa has also stated that he knows the complainant, and the accused and that panchayath has taken place regarding the differences between the complainant and the accused. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he does not know who has summoned the panchayath and does not know what was the result of that panchayath. He also does not know the reasons of injuries on P.W. 5, P.W. 7 Rudraiah is the father of P.W. 5. He is a hearsay witness. P.W. 8 Govindappa also states that panchayath was called regarding the demand of money by accused from the complainant. P.W. 9 has also been requested by the complainant to hold the panchayath and he has in fact held the panchayath in the house of the accused. P.W. 11 is the signatory to Ex. P4. P.W. 12 is the PSI who has registered the case and he has later on collected marriage invitation, wound certificate. arrested the accused and produced them before the Court. He has stated that the Sub-Inspector has filed the charge-sheet in this case, P.W. 13 Dr. Jagadish Patil who has examined P.W. 5 on 13.4.2000 at about 5.45 p.m., has opined that the injuries on P.W. 5 are simple in nature. 13. arrested the accused and produced them before the Court. He has stated that the Sub-Inspector has filed the charge-sheet in this case, P.W. 13 Dr. Jagadish Patil who has examined P.W. 5 on 13.4.2000 at about 5.45 p.m., has opined that the injuries on P.W. 5 are simple in nature. 13. It is from the evidence of these witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found that the accused are not guilty and has acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with 34 IPC. 14. On a careful perusal of the materials on record and the judgment of the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court has acquitted the accused holding that there is no cogent and clear evidence led by the prosecution to hold that the accused have committed the offence. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the offence charged against them. This is an appeal against acquittal, and in an appeal against acquittal, only if the judgment of the trial Court is capricious or not based on the evidence on record or if there is any miscarriage of justice, then only the Appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. On a re-appreciation of the entire materials on record, I find that the judgment is based on the evidence of record and finding of the trial Court is reasonable. In that view of the matter, I hold that there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the well-considered order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In that view of the matter the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.