JUDGMENT 1. This criminal Appeal under section 378 CrPC tiled by the State is directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28th August, 2002 passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents of charges under section 498-A IPC. The respondent No.1 is the husband and respondent No.2 is the mother-in law of the complainant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties for final disposal of this appeal. The record of trial Court has also been perused by me. 3. The respondents were charged for offence under section 498-A IPC on the complaint of wife of respondent No.1. She, in her complaint on the basis of which FIR Ex. P-1 was registered against the respondents, had alleged that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent and had made illegal demand of Rs. 30,000/- from her which was paid also. The prosecution has examined four witnesses namely, PW-1 Shabnam (complainant); PW-2 Kamrunisha (mother of the complainant); PW- 3 Jalaluddeen (father of the complainant) and PW-4 Naimuddin (paternal uncle of the complainant). 4. The trial Court upon careful scanning of the testimony of all these four witnesses found material contradiction in their testimony which were found not matching with the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant has alleged that she was given mercy-less beating by her husband on 2nd March, 2000 and according to her the said incident of beating was witnessed by her father also. The matrimonial home of the complainant was at Chabda in Rajasthan and her parental home was at Guna in Madhya Pradesh. The trial Court disbelieved the version of the complainant that the incident of beating of 2nd March, 2000 was witnessed by her father, in view of sharp discrepancy on this aspect in the testimony of complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3). It may be noted that the complainant did not disclose any specific incident of cruelty being meted out to her during the period of about five years she lived in her matrimonial home, except the incident of 2nd March, 2000 which was not believed by the trial Court. The complainant in her FIR has stated that she had lodged the complaint of beating on 2nd March, 2000 to the Police at Chabda in Rajasthan whereas the copy of complaint of the said incident filed before the trial Court was of Police station at Guna in Madhya Pradesh. 5. Mr. The complainant in her FIR has stated that she had lodged the complaint of beating on 2nd March, 2000 to the Police at Chabda in Rajasthan whereas the copy of complaint of the said incident filed before the trial Court was of Police station at Guna in Madhya Pradesh. 5. Mr. Mukund Bharadwaj, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State could not point out any incriminating evidence that might have come against the respondents in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which might have been ignored by the trial Court while evaluating and assessing their evidence for adjudging the culpability of the respondents for the offence for which they were charged. 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court and on going through the same, I find that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is a well reasoned order which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that in case two views on evidence produced by the prosecution are possible, one favourable to the accused persons and the other favourable to the prosecution, then in that event the appellate Court should not tinker with the view on evidence taken by the trial Court. 7. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds and the surety bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged.