JUDGMENT B.V. Pinto, J : This appeal is filed by the State challenging he judgment dated 31.1.04 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Chickballapur, in C.C.No. 125/01 challenging the acquittal of A- 1 for the offence under Sections 323, 498A. 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short D.P Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the accused took place with the complainant Surekha on 15.5.98 at Kota Vijayalakshmi Kalyana Mantapa and at the time of the marriage. It is alleged that the accused has demanded and received dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs and also after the marriage, he was harassing her and abusing her for the purpose of extracting dowry from the parents of the complainant and on 12.8.2000 he had criminally intimidated the complainant and assaulted with hands thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 323, 498A and 506 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and got marked Ex.P- 1 to P 32 and produced Mos. 1 to 24. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate recorded Section 313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused and after hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit, the accused of all the offence. Hence, the State has filed this appeal. 4. Heard Sri Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned HCGP for State and Sri M.M. Ashoka, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused. The learned HCGP submits that the complainant has narrated the incident of ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her and also demand of dowry and payment of the same to the accused. He further submits that the evidence of other witnesses more .particularly the evidence of PW-6 corroborates the version of PW-l and further the evidence of Police PW-6 indicates that the articles at. Mos. 1 to 24 have been seized in consequence of the complaint given and the said articles are identified by PW- 1 as the same which are given to the accused her husband in consideration of marriage. Therefore, the offence as narrate are proved by the prosecution. 5. Mos. 1 to 24 have been seized in consequence of the complaint given and the said articles are identified by PW- 1 as the same which are given to the accused her husband in consideration of marriage. Therefore, the offence as narrate are proved by the prosecution. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W 1 and P.W.6 and also the evidence of other witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he submits that the order of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and hence he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution in this case is commenced with the filing of the complaint by the complainant Smt. Surekha against respondent and four others. In the complaint. It is started that at the time of the marriage, the accused have taken cash dowry of Rs. 30.000/- and other articles mentioned in the complaint. She also narrated that the gold ornaments weighing 297.90ms were given to the accused at the time of marriage. It is also mentioned that a sum ofRs.4.10 lakh has been spent for the marriage by her sister N. Prathibha and her husband PW-6 since her father died 10 years ago in the year 1988 itself. It is in the complaint which runs into typed pages that the respondent/accused started demanding a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash for the purpose of improving shop of A-I and all the accused have threatened her that if she does not bring the said amount, the accused appellant will be married to another woman who are prepared to give him dowry and a car al).d house from the second alliance. It is further stated in the complaint that A-I is running a shop by name Rajesh Electronic Shop at Thippasandra, Bangalore and is having two workers and one receptionist. Despite the said fact, the accused are harassing and ill-treating her as if and treating her she is a maid servant in the house. Therefore, she prayed for action. 7. The Police after registering of the case deleted other accused persons from the FIR and filed charge-sheet only against, the respondent husband. In the Court PW- 1 has reiterated the version contained in the complaint given by her. Therefore, she prayed for action. 7. The Police after registering of the case deleted other accused persons from the FIR and filed charge-sheet only against, the respondent husband. In the Court PW- 1 has reiterated the version contained in the complaint given by her. She has been cross-examined by the defence and it is brought out in the cross-examination that there is a case for restitution of conjugal rights pending before the Court and that her sister's husband is a practicing Advocate. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that she has not mentioned the exact vulgar language words used by the accused in her complaint. She has denied the suggestion that the complaint has been drafted at the instance of the Advocate. 8. PW-2 Sukanya is mother of PW 1. She has also stated they have spent Rs. 4.15 lakh for the marriage and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been given to the accused. However, she has not stated as to in whose hand the said money was given at the time of marriage. PW-3 Abdul Khader is neighbour of the complainant but he has not stated anything regarding the quarrel between the accused and the complainant except saying that PW-1 has informed him about the quarrel in the house. PW-4 has stated that at the time of marriage it was agreed to give one scooter, cash of Rs. 50,000/- cash, 300 gms of gold and other household articles and the same has been given during the marriage. The complainant after two months of marriage and informed him that because of the quarrel she had come back to her husband's house. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the date on which the marriage talks were held. He cannot remember as to whether the accused, his parents and others were present at the time of negotiations for marriage. No photos were taken and nothing is put in writing on the date of marriage talks. He is not aware of all the persons in the house of the accused as he does not go to the house of the accused to ask as to what is the matter. His wife knows everything and she was talking about the matter. He has not helped the complainant to give any complaint in this matter. 9. PW-5 Chandrashekharaiah has drawn Ex.P-2. His wife knows everything and she was talking about the matter. He has not helped the complainant to give any complaint in this matter. 9. PW-5 Chandrashekharaiah has drawn Ex.P-2. It is the seizure mahazar conducted in the house of the accused along with PSI and the complainant. He has identified Ex. P2 and P-2(a) is his signature. PW-6 D.V. Hanumanthappa is the brother in law of PW- I. He has stated that 5 months prior to the date of the marriage of the complainant with accused, they have given 300 gins gold and Rs. 30.000/- in cash and the entire marriage expenses of Rs. 4.10 lakh was met by them. The accused was demanding scooter alter marriage. For about 3 months, couple was happily living and the accused was asking for gifts and clothes for every feast. A I asked 3 lakh of rupees for the business purpose. He has stated that the complainant has given a complaint in this connection. PW6 has been cross-examined by the Counsel for the accused. 10. The learned Magistrate after going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has observed that the conviction cannot be recorded until the case is made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that there is no sufficient consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 6 and sufficient proof has not been placed regarding the averments made in the complaint of PW-1. 11. I have gone through tl1e judgment of the Trial Court and the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused. The prosecution has not examined the investigating officer and has not placed evidence so far as recovery of articles is concerned. The Head Constable says that the articles were recovered at the instance of Inspector of Police. The prosecution has not further proved specific ingredients of ill treatment and harassment against PW-l. It is seen that several cases are pending between tin parties and in the background of the said cases though the complainant has given complaint against five persons, after investigation the Police have reported that no evidence is forthcoming against A-2 to A5 in the complaint of PW-l. The averments made against A-l are similar to those against others. Under the circumstances, merely because the respondent is the husband he may not be found fault with for being the husband. Under the circumstances, merely because the respondent is the husband he may not be found fault with for being the husband. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the State has not made out a case to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. In that view of the matter there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.