JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the State against the Judgment dated 20.3.2004 passed, by the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C. No. 4924/2001, challenging the acquittal of accused for the offence under Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 got married the Complainant-B.G. Suma on 21.3.1997 at Belagod Kalyana Mantap, situated on 40th Cross Road, VIII Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. During the engagement, which took place on 26.1.1997, the accused is alleged to have received one diamond finger ring and two pairs of suit were given to accused No. 1; a pant piece and shirt piece were given to accused Nos. 2 and 4 and costly silk sarees were given to accused No. 3 along with cash of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. After the marriage, household articles like cots, beds, almirahs, clothes, bed-sheets, carpets and utensils were also given and she started residing with accused at Jayanagar. They have subjected her cruelty and mental harassment and finally sent her to her parents’ house, on 15.7.2000, thereby they are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and under Section 498-A of IPC. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses and has got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P8. The defence of accused was one of total denial. However, they have got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D21 to substantiate their defence. 4. Learned Magistrate after hearing the prosecution and the defence was pleased to hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence acquitted the accused. 5. Heard Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for the appellant/State; Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1; Sri Satish G. Raikar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri M.S. Raghavendra Prasad, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4. 6. Learned HCGP submits that the evidence of P.W. 1/B.G. Suma, coupled with the complaint Ex.P1, indicates that at the time of marriage, the accused have taken dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter they have also taken the articles from parents of the Complainant and the said evidence has been supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 6. Learned HCGP submits that the evidence of P.W. 1/B.G. Suma, coupled with the complaint Ex.P1, indicates that at the time of marriage, the accused have taken dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter they have also taken the articles from parents of the Complainant and the said evidence has been supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are none other than the father and aunt of P.W. 1. He further submits that the defence has not been probabilised. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have convicted the respondents of the offence for which they were charged. 7. Sri Satish G. Raikar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is discrepant and there is vast discrepancy between the evidence of P.W. 1 and the averments made in the complaint. He further submits that P.Ws. 3 and 4 have not corroborated in all material particulars, the evidence of P.W. 1. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has acquitted them. He submits that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed. 8. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of complaint by Smt. B.G. Suma on 8.9.2000 before Jayanagar Police Station. In the said complaint, she has stated that her marriage took place with G. Rajendra [accused No. 1] on 21.3.1997 in Belagod Kalyana Mantap and her parents have spent about Rupees 6 lakhs for the said marriage. She was working in Khodays Bio Technology Company before the marriage. After marriage, her husband and his family members have agreed to continue the job. Therefore, she was going to work after the marriage. Her husband was working in BEML., at KGF and he was coming to Bangalore once in a week. Though she was finishing all the work in the house before going to employment, her mother-in-law/Smt. Madhura; father-in-law/Gopalakrishna and brother-in-law/Harish were ill-treating, abusing, giving mental and physical ill-treatment and cruelty to her. They were also misleading her parents. Since her mother was in a Government job, she had given get-together at Hotel to the relatives and friends of accused. The accused were insulting her in this respect also. They were also misleading her parents. Since her mother was in a Government job, she had given get-together at Hotel to the relatives and friends of accused. The accused were insulting her in this respect also. When she informed these facts to her husband instead of taking care of her complaints, her husband [accused No. 1] has not supported her, he was demanding the entire salary earned by her. But year thereafter Harish got married and his wife also came to matrimonial house and at that time, the accused had tried to see that the Complainant is sent to KGF to stay with her husband and accordingly she was made to resign and go to KGF. Thereafter, on 26.9.1998 after taking all the articles from the Bangalore house, they went to Bharath Nagar at KGF and stayed in House No. 95: A, by taking the same on rent. They (Accused No. 1 & Complainant) remained in the said house for 6 months and thereafter she desired to become a mother. But her husband and their parents did not allow her to become a mother and they also were ill treating her in these respects. It is also mentioned in the complaint that her father has kept a sum of Rs. 3,72,000/- and she was spending the interest from the said money for her daily necessities. Accused No. 1 was giving untold sufferings to her, i.e., beating by hands, tearing her sarees, wiping the Kumkum, snatching tali, strangulation and tearing the marriage photos etc., thereby, the accused has been giving untold mental sufferings to her. Subsequently, accused No. 1 started coming late to the house in the evening and when she questioned, he was abusing her and after some time he used to drink alcohol also. When she informed these facts to the father-in-law and mother-in-law, instead of advising him, they asked her to keep quiet by shutting her mouth and supported their son. She was not allowed to go out of the house and they were locking the phone; they were also assaulting and pestering her to go to her parents; house. Hence, on 15.7.2000, she left her husband’s house and went to her parents’ house. Thereafter, till the date of filing the complaint accused No. 1 or his family members are not bothered to take the complainant to matrimonial home. Hence, on 15.7.2000, she left her husband’s house and went to her parents’ house. Thereafter, till the date of filing the complaint accused No. 1 or his family members are not bothered to take the complainant to matrimonial home. Therefore, she has requested for taking action against the accused. Based on the said complaint, Jayanagar Police registered a case in Crime No. 462/2000 for the offences under Section 498-A, IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 9. P.W. 1/Smt. B.G. Suma has reiterated the version given by her in the complaint while deposing in the Court. In the examination-in-chief, she has stated that the complaint was drafted by a lawyer and the lawyer advised her to file a complaint. So, she filed the complaint. In the cross-examination, she has denied that she has not been given any harassment or ill treatment. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that the jewels were taken away by her before filing the complaint and all the articles of the house including the furniture are brought back to her house from the house of the accused. 10. P.W. 2/Smt. Anjana Devi is the woman constable of Jayanagar Police Station, who traced the accused. 11. P.W. 3/Gopala Krishna is the father of P.W. 1. He has stated that out of 30 proposals, present proposal was discussed for their daughter after giving an advertisement in the newspaper that a bridegroom is required and ultimately the said bridegroom is settled. It is stated by him that in February 1997, he drew Rs. 50,000/- from the Bank and gave Rs. 20,000/- to the choultry and the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- was given to the accused. Whereas, the accused has demanded Rs. 75,000/- for the marriage. It is also stated by him that he has spent lot of money for his daughter after the marriage. It is in his evidence that the said amount was spent on the demand of the accused. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he is working as Engineer in MICO and secured voluntary retirement and his daughter was aged 25 years. Therefore, he gave advertisement in the newspaper. His daughter has studied M.Sc., Zoology and the girls in their community are married between 16 and 21 years of age. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he is working as Engineer in MICO and secured voluntary retirement and his daughter was aged 25 years. Therefore, he gave advertisement in the newspaper. His daughter has studied M.Sc., Zoology and the girls in their community are married between 16 and 21 years of age. It is stated in the cross-examination that out of 30 proposals he picked up one proposal as a lottery. He came to know that the proposal is from outside Karnataka, but he was not aware whether Gopalakrishna [accused No. 2] was employed or not. It is further elicited that he has sold the house for Rs. 15,10,000/-. 12. P.W. 4-Nagarathna has also deposed as per the evidence of P.W. 3. P.W. 4 is the aunt of P.W. 1. P.W. 5 is the brother of P.W. 3. He has also stated regarding the facts of the case before the marriage and at the time of marriage of P.W. 1. However, learned Senior APP has treated him as hostile to the case of prosecution. 13. P.W. 6 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 3-Gopalakrishna [father of complainant]. However, learned Senior APP has also treated him as hostile to the case of prosecution. 14. P.W. 7 is the Inspector of Police, Jayanagar Police Station during the relevant period, who has received the complaint of P.W. 1 and registered the case. 15. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate has held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is discrepant and what has been stated by P.W. 1 in the complaint has not been supported by the evidence of P.W. 3 who is the father of P.W. 1, so also, the other relatives. The learned Magistrate has found that there is no consistency in the evidence of the witnesses and that the offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 16. I have gone through the Judgment of the trial Court and on a careful consideration of the entire materials on record and also on re-appreciation of the evidence, I find that the reasonings given by the learned Magistrate are based on the evidence on record and the findings of the trial Court is neither capricious nor contrary to the evidence on record or probabilities of the case. There is also no error or illegality in the Judgment of the trial Court. There is no material to come to a separate conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. 17. In the result, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.