JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J. (1) THE State has filed this appeal against acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 6 (arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 506, 498-A r/w 34, I.P.C. and also of offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (2) WE have heard Sri. N. S. Sampan-giramaiah, learned HCGP for the State and Sri. Nagendra Prasad, learned counsel for accused. WE have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. In brief, the inter se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses and the case of prosecution is as follows: Accused No.2 - Sathyanarayana and accused No.3-Kanakamma are the parents of first accused. Accused No.4-Yashodha is the elder sister of accused No.1. Accused No.5-Srikantappa is the husband of accused No.4. Accused No.6-Shankar is the younger brother of accused No. 1. PW. 1 -Chandrika is the daughter of PW.2-Rajamma and PW.3-Chandrashekar. PW.6-Dr. Basavaraju is the eldest son of PW.2, PW.4-Krishnappa and PW5 - Shivakumar are the sons-in-law of PW.2. (3) THE marriage of first accused with PW. 1 (Chandrika) was performed on 13.11.1995. It is the case of prosecution that at the time of marriage negotiations, accused Nos. 1 to 6 had demanded dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards clothes and gold ornaments to accused No.1. PW.2 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as dowry and Rs.15,000/- towards clothes and gold ornaments for the bridegroom (accused No. 1). THE dowry was paid a month prior to the date of marriage. THE marriage was performed on 13.11.1995 at Sri Matha Kalyana Mantapa. After the marriage, PW. 1 was staying in the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. PW.1 and accused were cordial for a period of six months and thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 6 were subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection with the dowry demand. THE accused was harassing PW. 1 to bring the remaining part of dowry. (4) PW.1-Chandrika conceived and gave birth to a female child on 16.12.1996, for the purposes of delivery and confinement, she was staying in her parental house. When the child was aged about 5 months, the accused, demanded PW.2 to perform naming ceremony of the child in a choultry or else to invest a sum of Rs.20,000/- in fixed deposit in the name of child. When the child was aged about 5 months, the accused, demanded PW.2 to perform naming ceremony of the child in a choultry or else to invest a sum of Rs.20,000/- in fixed deposit in the name of child. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 had demanded PW.1 to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/- to set up a medical store, incidentally, it is necessary to state that at the relevant period, accused No.1 was working as a medical representative. After a period of 5 months of birth of child, PW.1 was taken to the house of her husband but she had a very short stay due to the cruelty meted out to her by the accused. She again came back to her parental house. (5) ON 25.08.1999, PW.6-Dr. Basavaraju and his friend PW.3-Chandrashekar took PW. 1 and her child to the house of accused. All the accused refused to allow PW.1 to stay in their house. It is alleged that the first accused demanded PWs.3 and 6 to provide him a BDA site and also to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs if they wanted PW. 1 to stay in the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. PW:6 told the accused that PW. 1 is a member of their family and it is for them to take proper care of her. So saying, he left PW.1 in the house of the accused and returned back. (6) IT is the case of the prosecution that on the same day at about 9.00 p.m., all the accused decided to commit the murder of PW.1. Some of the accused held PW.1. The first accused brought a can containing kerosene oil and try to splash kerosene oil on PW1. However, kerosene can accidentally fell from his hands. Thereafter, accused No.5 splashed kerosene oil on PW.1. PW. 1 somehow managed to escape from the clutches of accused and she left the house along with her child. When she was on the way to the house of her mother, PW.5 followed her on his motorcycle, PW5 stopped PW.1 and took PW1 on his motorcycle and dropped PW.1 near the house of PW.5-Shivakumar (husband of elder sister of PW.l). PW.1 had suffered injuries on her hands, the smell of kerosene was emanating from her body. She was taken to Hanumanthanagar Police Station and thereafter she was taken to Victoria Hospital. PW.1 had suffered injuries on her hands, the smell of kerosene was emanating from her body. She was taken to Hanumanthanagar Police Station and thereafter she was taken to Victoria Hospital. On the following day i.e., on 26.08.1999 at about 1.30 p.m., PW. 1 lodged the first information and set the law into motion. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused for the aforesaid offences. During trial, PW's.1 to 9 were examined. Documents as per Exs.P1 to P.5 and MO's 1 and 2 were marked. On behalf of the defence, the documents as per Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. (7) THE learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned counsel for parties has held that the evidence of PW.1 and her close relatives is not trustworthy. PW.1 had already approached the police on 21.04.1999 and lodged a complaint with the Counselling Centre in the office of the Police Commissioner making reckless allegations against her husband. THE learned trial Judge has held that the first accused and his parents were afraid of frivolous complaints lodged by PW. 1 and therefore, they were not ready to take the risk by allowing PW. 1 to stay in their house. THE evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of demand and acceptance of dowry is not trustworthy. (8) ON going through evidence and the impugned judgment, we find that the charges framed against accused relates to:- demand and acceptance of dowry before the marriage; subsequent demand of dowry by the accused; cruelty meted to PW. 1 by accused in connection with demand for dowry; assault and attempt on the life of PW. 1 made by accused during the evening of 25.08.1999. PW's. 1 to 6 have given evidence to prove that the accused had demanded dowry and accepted dowry before the date of marriage. Pw. 1 has deposed; that about six months prior to the marriage, marriage negotiations took place in the house of Pw.2. From the side of bride, her elder sister and husband of her elder sister were present. On behalf of bridegroom, accused Nos.2 to 6 were present. Accused No.2 demanded dowry of Rs'.2 lakhs and also a wristwatch, gold chain to the first accused. Pw.2 pleaded her inability and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as dowry and Rs. 15,000/- to purchase gold chain, watch and clothes for first accused. Pw. On behalf of bridegroom, accused Nos.2 to 6 were present. Accused No.2 demanded dowry of Rs'.2 lakhs and also a wristwatch, gold chain to the first accused. Pw.2 pleaded her inability and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as dowry and Rs. 15,000/- to purchase gold chain, watch and clothes for first accused. Pw. 1 has categorically deposed; that one month prior to the date of marriage, accused Nos.2 and 3 had visited their house. Pw.2 gave a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- in cash as dowry to accused Nos.2 and 3. (9) PW.2 has deposed about the marriage negotiations that took place about six months prior to the date of marriage. PW.2 has deposed; that on behalf of the accused, accused Nos.2 to 6 were present. PW.2 has deposed; that during marriage negotiations, accused demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that PW. 1 categorically deposed; that there was demand for dowry by the second accused however, PW.2 has deposed that all the accused demanded dowry. PW.2 pleaded her inability and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakhs as dowry and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards clothes and gold chain for the bridegroom i.e., first accused. PW.2 has deposed; that after a period of six months of date of marriage, she gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- in two instalments. She has categorically admitted that, at the time, of marriage, she had not paid dowry and she had not assured to pay any part of dowry after the marriage. She had given a sum of Rs.15,000/-and told the accused to purchase whatever they would like to purchase for the bridegroom (accused No.1). Contrary to this, PW.4 has deposed; that at the time of marriage negotiations, all the accused demanded dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. PW.2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and Rs 15,000/- towards clothes, watch and gold ring for the bridegroom. Accused No.2 and 3 had visited the house of PW.2 about one month prior to the date of marriage and took a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- from PW.2. (10) PW.5-Shivakumar has deposed; that, at the time of marriage negotiations, accused Nos.1 to 6 demanded dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for clothes and gold chain to first accused. (10) PW.5-Shivakumar has deposed; that, at the time of marriage negotiations, accused Nos.1 to 6 demanded dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for clothes and gold chain to first accused. PW.2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as dowry and Rs.15,000/-towards clothes and gold chain to first accused. About one month prior to date of marriage, accused Nos.2 and 3 visited the house of PW.2 PW.2 paid a sum of Rs.1, 15,000/-in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. We also notice from the evidence that PW.6 -Dr. Basavaraj, the elder son of PW.1 was the only male member of the family of PW2. PW.6 has deposed that no dowry was paid to the accused in connection with the marriage of PW.1 and the accused. PW.1 has deposed that when the marriage negotiations took place, PW.6 was working as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre in Ron Taluk, Gadag District. PW.6 has deposed that he was not present at the time of marriage negotiations, he was being informed about the marriage developments. Thus, from the evidence of PW.6, it is clear that, neither there was demand for dowry nor acceptance of dowry. We notice from the evidence of PW's. 1 to 6, their evidence is highly discrepant regarding demand and acceptance of dowry. Above all, we find from the record that on 21.04.1999, PW. 1 had lodged a complaint (copy of which is marked as per Ex.D1) with Mahila Duru Vibhaga (Family Council) which reads as under. (Vernacular matter omitted.... Ed.) (11) IN this complaint which came into existence on 21.04.1999, there is no mention either regarding demand and acceptance of dowry before the marriage or regarding demand of dowry subsequent to the marriage. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that marriage of PW. 1 with first accused was performed on 13.11.1995. Ex.D1 is the copy of complaint lodged by PW.1 on 21.4.1999. The contents of Ex.Dl was confronted to PW.1 during cross-examination. She has admitted the contents of Ex.D1 wherein she had alleged that her husband -I accused was suspecting her character. She had also admitted that her husband and in-laws were secured to Family Counselling Center and both parties were advised to sort out the issue as it related to their family matter. She has admitted the contents of Ex.D1 wherein she had alleged that her husband -I accused was suspecting her character. She had also admitted that her husband and in-laws were secured to Family Counselling Center and both parties were advised to sort out the issue as it related to their family matter. IN view of the discrepancies of evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW6 and contents of Ex .D1, we cannot accept the case of prosecution that there was demand for dowry before the marriage or payment of dowry before the marriage. The learned trial Judge has on proper appreciation of evidence has held that the prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance of dowry before the marriage. (12) IT is the case of prosecution that after the marriage, PW. 1 was staying in the house of accused. The accused were demanding PW1 to bring the remaining part of dowry. In this regard, we have divergent versions of PW. 1 and her brother (PW.6). PW.1 has deposed; that her marital life was happy for a period of six months. Thereafter, accused No.1 was subjecting PW. 1 to cruelty in connection with the remaining part of dowry. PW. 1 has deposed; that accused No.1 told PW.1 that her mother (PW.2) had agreed to give dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs however, she had paid a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh only. Therefore, he was harassing her to bring the remaining part of dowry. The evidence of PW. 1 contradicts the evidence of PW.2 who has deposed that, PW.1 and first accused were happy for a period of one year two months. PW.2 has deposed; that at the time of marriage, neither she had given dowry nor she has agreed to give the dowry after the marriage. We also find that the evidence of PW. 1 is self-contradictory. At one breath she would say that the first accused demanded her to bring remaining part of dowry of Rs.1 Lakh, in the next breath she would say that the first accused demanded her to bring money to set up a medical store. The evidence of PW.2 runs contrary to the evidence of PW. 1. PW.2 has deposed; that after a period of six months from the date of marriage, she gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- in two installments. Pw.6-Dr. The evidence of PW.2 runs contrary to the evidence of PW. 1. PW.2 has deposed; that after a period of six months from the date of marriage, she gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- in two installments. Pw.6-Dr. Basavaraju, the elder brother of Pw.1 and the eldest son of Pw.2 has deposed; that at the time of marriage, they had not given cash or gold ornaments to the first accused. Pw.6 has deposed; that after the marriage, he had learnt from Pw.1 that the first accused had demanded Pw.1 to bring a sum of Rs.25,000/- and accordingly Pw1 had taken a sum of Rs.25,000/- from her parental house. Therefore, the evidence of primary witnesses of the prosecution namely Pw.1 (wife of I-accused); Pw.2 (mother of Pw. 1) and Pw.6 (elder brother of Pw. 1), in proof of demand for dowry after the marriage suffers from material discrepancies. (13) IT is the case of prosecution that PW.1 gave birth to a female child, when the child was aged about six months, the accused demanded PW.2 to perform the naming ceremony of child in a choultry or to invest a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the name of child in fixed deposit. PW.1 has deposed; that when the child was aged about 5 months, her parents-in-law viz., accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the house of PW.2 (mother of PW.1) and took her to their house. She stayed in their house for a period of 15 days. During this period, accused Nos.2 and 3 told PW. 1 that she had given birth to a female child, therefore, PW.2 should perform naming ceremony of child or else PW2 shall invest a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the name of child. Contrary to this, PW.2 has deposed; that after PW. 1 gave birth to a child, the accused never visited the house of PW.2. PW.1 and her child stayed in the house of PW2 for a period of 2 years. Accused Nos.2 and 3 contacted PW.2 over phone and told her either to perform the naming ceremony of child in a choultry or else to invest a sum of Rs.25,000/-in the name of child in fixed deposit. Therefore, we find that this demand for Rs.25,000/-and the alternative option given by the accused to PW.2 and the evidence, of PW.2 regarding demand of dowry is highly discrepant. Therefore, we find that this demand for Rs.25,000/-and the alternative option given by the accused to PW.2 and the evidence, of PW.2 regarding demand of dowry is highly discrepant. (14) NOW, we will advert to the incident occurred during the afternoon of 25.08.1999. PW.1 has admitted; that after she came to delivery, she was staying in her parental house for a period of two years. Though PW.1 has deposed that she was taken by accused Nos.2 and 3, again she was sent back to her parental house, we find this part of evidence of PW.1 is inherently unreliable. PW's.1, 3 and 6 have given evidence in proof of incident that occurred in the house of accused on the evening of 25.08.1999. PW.l has deposed; that during the afternoon of 25.08.1999, PW.6-Dr. Basavaraju (her elder brother) and PW.3-Chandrashekar (close friend of PW.6) took her to the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. The first accused who was present in the house questioned PW's.3 and 6 as to why they had brought PW. 1 to his house. The I-accused told PW.3 and PW6, if they are prepared to pay Rs.5 Lakhs and get a BDA site to I-accused they could allow PW.1 to live in the house of accused or else they should take back PW.1. Accused No.1 also told PW's.3 and 6 that he is not aware as to what he would do. Pw.3 has deposed; that on 25.08.1999, at about 6.00 p.m., as requested by Pw.6 (Dr. Basavaraju) Pw.3 accompanied Pw.6 to leave Pw.1 and her child in the house of accused. At that time, first accused was present. Pw.3 has deposed; that the first accused questioned Pws.3 and 6 as to why they had brought Pw. 1 to his house, so saying, he dragged Pw.1 and assaulted her. Thereafter, accused No. 1 left the house by stating that by the time he would return back, Pw1 along with her child, Pw's.3 and 6 should quit their house. Thereafter, Pw's.1, 3, 6 and child remained in the house of accused. After 10-15 minutes, accused Nos. 1 to 6 came to the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and questioned Pw.6 as to why he had brought Pw. 1 without bringing dowry. Thereafter, Pw's.1, 3, 6 and child remained in the house of accused. After 10-15 minutes, accused Nos. 1 to 6 came to the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and questioned Pw.6 as to why he had brought Pw. 1 without bringing dowry. Accused No. 1 told Pw.6 that if he has capacity to provide a BDA site and pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh, he should leave Pw.1 in the house of accused or else he should take back Pw.1 to his house. (15) PW.6 has deposed; that at the relevant time, he was working as a Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre at Ron, Gadag District. When he came to Bangalore he found that PW. 1 was staying in her parental house. On 25.08.1999, he requested PW.3 to accompany him to the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter, PWs.3 and 6 took PW. 1 and her child to the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3 at 6.00 p.m., on 25.08.1999. Accused No.1 was alone in the house. Accused No.1 soon after seeing PW.6, questioned PW6 as to why he had come and why he had brought PW. 1 and slapped on PW.1. PW.6 told accused No.1 that they had come there to leave PW. 1 in his house. Accused No. 1 became wild and told them to leave his house or else he was not aware of consequences. Thereafter, accused No.1 left the house. After 15-20 minutes, he came back along with other accused. The other accused dragged PW. 1 and scolded her. PW6 requested accused No.5 to amicably settle the matter and reconcile the differences between the first accused and PW.1. Accused No.1 told PW.6 if he ever wanted to leave PW. 1 in the house of accused Nos.1 to 3, PW.6 should be prepared to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and provide a BDA site to him and the rest of the accused also joined accused No.1. PW.6 told the accused that it is not possible for him to meet their demands and told the accused that PW. 1 is their family member and it is for them to take care of her. PW.6 told the accused that it is not possible for him to meet their demands and told the accused that PW. 1 is their family member and it is for them to take care of her. During cross-examination of PW6, to a specific question as to what was the reaction of the first accused when PW.6 took PW.1 and her child to the house of accused, PW.6 has answered; that accused told him that the behavior of PW's.1 and 2 was not proper, PW. 1 was behaving in a irresponsible manner with elders; PW.1 had lodged police complaint against accused and she made the accused to visit the police station time and again. He has deposed that PW.6 consoled the I-accused that PW. 1 is too young and the first accused should adjust with her. Thus, we find the accused did not allow PW. 1 to enter their house as PW.1 had already lodged a complaint on 21.04.1999 making reckless allegations against the accused. In addition to the complaint dated 21.04.1999, we find that on 25.05.1999, accused No.2 had lodged a complaint with Hanumanthanagar P.S. stating that PW's.1 and 2 had come to their house and abused them. We also find from the record that, on 18.10.1997 accused No.2 had lodged a complaint with Hanumanthanagar P.S. stating that PW's.1 and 2 who are sons-in-law of PW.2 and 3 acted in highhanded manner. He has stated that the child of PW. 1 was aged about six months. Even after six months, PW.2 had not sent the PW1 and child to the house of accused. Therefore, second accused and his wife brought PW.1 and her child to their house. Within a week PW.2 came to the house of accused, took back PW.1 and her child to the house of PW2. One week thereafter, accused No.2 and his wife (accused No.3) visited the house of PW.2 to bring back PW.1 and her child however, PW.2 refused to send PW.1 and her child with accused Nos.2 and 3. On 12.10.1997, PW.1 and her sons-in-law namely PW's.4 and 5 came to the house of accused and behaved in highhanded manner and they took the clothes and jewels of PW. 1 from the house of accused. They also took PW.1 and her child. Thus, we find that there were complaints and counter complaints lodged by PW. On 12.10.1997, PW.1 and her sons-in-law namely PW's.4 and 5 came to the house of accused and behaved in highhanded manner and they took the clothes and jewels of PW. 1 from the house of accused. They also took PW.1 and her child. Thus, we find that there were complaints and counter complaints lodged by PW. 1 and second accused long before the date of incident viz., 25.08.1999. In the circumstances, it is hardly possible to believe that accused No.1 was bold enough to demand PW.6 to provide a site (that too a BDA site) and cash of Rs.5 Lakhs. (16) NOW, we will advert to the evidence of PW.1 in proof of assault and the attempts made on her life. We find that her evidence is inconsistent and self-contradictory. PW. 1 has deposed; after PW's.3 and 6 left her in the house of accused, she was feeding her child, at that time, all the accused (accused Nos.1 to 6) surrounded her, first accused snatched the plate containing food and pushed PW.1 from the house. PW.1 went back to the house and asserted that she would stay in the house of accused. At that time, other accused (accused Nos.2 to 6) assaulted PW.1. The second accused instigated the other accused to kill PW.1. The first accused brought a can containing kerosene oil. When the accused was about to splash kerosene oil on PW.1, that can accidentally fell down from his hands. Thereafter, accused No.5 picked up the can and splashed kerosene oil on PW.1. At that time, accused Nos.4 and 6 were firmly holding PW.1. Accused No.3 went to the kitchen to bring matchbox. At that time, PW.1 escaped from the clutches of accused Nos.4 and 6 and took her child and ran out of the house. PW.1 wanted to go to police station. Accused No.5 came on a motorcycle and threatened her not to lodge complaint with the police. Thereafter, PW. 1 was going towards her parental house. Accused No.5 offered PW.1 to give a lift on his motorcycle. PW. 1 along with her child sat on the motorcycle as pillion rider. Accused No.5 left PW.1 and her child near the house of PW.5. PW.5 after seeing the plight of PW. 1 took her to Hanumanthanagar police station, from there, she was taken to Victoria Hospital around 2.45 a.m., on the intervening night of 25/26-08-1999. Pw.7-Dr. PW. 1 along with her child sat on the motorcycle as pillion rider. Accused No.5 left PW.1 and her child near the house of PW.5. PW.5 after seeing the plight of PW. 1 took her to Hanumanthanagar police station, from there, she was taken to Victoria Hospital around 2.45 a.m., on the intervening night of 25/26-08-1999. Pw.7-Dr. H.C. Ramanna examined Pw.1 in Victoria Hospital around 2.45 a.m., on the intervening night of 25/26-08-1999 and found the following: 1) Abrasion over right fore arm measuring 1 cm. x 1 cm. 2) Abrasion over left fore arm measuring 1 cm. x 1 cm. 3) Abrasion measuring 1 x 1/2 cm. Pw.7 also noticed that smell of kerosene was emanating from the person of Pw. 1. During cross-examination, Pw.7 has admitted that he did not observe that the clothes worn by Pw. 1 were emanating the smell of kerosene. (17) WE notice from the records that though PW. 1 had been taken to the hospital 2.45 a.m., during intervening night of 25/26-08-99, the first information was lodged by PW. 1 at 1.30 p.m., on. 26.08.1999. When PW.1 was taken to the hospital in such a miserable plight, there was no reason for PW. 1 to wait till 1.30 p.m., on 26.08.1999 to lodge the first information. WE find the evidence of PW. 1 suffers from improbabilities and material discrepancies. PW.1 has deposed; that all the accused had held her. At the first instance, accused No.1 brought kerosene oil in a can and tried to splash kerosene oil on her; thereafter, accused No.5 doused kerosene oil on her. At that time, accused Nos.4 to 6 were firmly holding her. Accused No.3 went inside the house to bring matchbox to set PW. 1 on fire. At that time, she escaped from the clutches of accused Nos.4 to 6 and ran away from the house along with her child. PW.1 has not deposed as to whether she was holding the child when accused No.5 splashed kerosene oil on her and when she was firmly held by accused Nos.4 to 6. PW.6 has admitted that PW.1 and accused were staying in the first floor of the building and the house of accused is surrounded by houses. The prosecution has not examined the inmates of ground floor of the house or any one from neighbouring houses. PW.6 has admitted that PW.1 and accused were staying in the first floor of the building and the house of accused is surrounded by houses. The prosecution has not examined the inmates of ground floor of the house or any one from neighbouring houses. (18) PW.1 has deposed; that she struggled and managed to escape from the clutches of the accused. PW.1 has deposed; that accused No.5 doused kerosene on her. In the circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 that accused No.5 came on a motorcycle and offered to give a lift to her parental house looks highly improbable. If accused No.5 had attempted to set PW1 on fire by dousing kerosene on PW.1, accused No.5 would not have taken PW.1 to the house of her sister. The Investigating Officer has produced the clothes of PW. 1 and they were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to confirm the presence of kerosene. Above all, PW.1 has not deposed that her clothes were emanating the smell of kerosene and she has given to the Investigating Officer. The records do not reveal as to when and from where the Investigating Officer had collected the clothes of PW. 1. From the nature of injuries found on PW.1, it looks like PW.1 had suffered scratches in a scramble. It looks probable that PW. 1 wanted to leave the house with her child, when she was prevented by the accused, her 3 bangles were broken and she had suffered abrasions on her fore arms. Thus, on reconsideration of entire evidence and in the background of complaints and counter complaints lodged by the parties much before 25/8/1999, the conduct of PW. 1 at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that on 25/8/1999 the accused had assaulted PW. 1 and threatened her and also made attempts to set her on fire. (19) IN the discussion made supra, we have held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of dowry is highly discrepant. Above all, the earliest complaint lodged by PW.1 on 21/4/1999 gives altogether a different version, which is extracted supra. Therefore, we hold that the evidence adduced by prosecution is not credible and trustworthy. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Above all, the earliest complaint lodged by PW.1 on 21/4/1999 gives altogether a different version, which is extracted supra. Therefore, we hold that the evidence adduced by prosecution is not credible and trustworthy. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.