Judgment Vimla Jain, J.:-- 1. The appellant/State preferred this appeal under section 378 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.5.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Udaypura District Raisen in R.T. No. 240/2000 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant Sunita Bai was solemnized with respondent No. 1 Rajesh Kumar, S/o Awadh Narayan Radhu in the year 1996 in village Niwadi Ghana, P.S. Udaypura, Raisen as per Hindu rites and religion. In the marriage, the parents of complainant had given sufficient dowry to her in-laws. In spite of that, the husband and in-laws of complainant were not satisfied with that much of dowry and started taunting complainant even during marriage ceremony. Thereafter, respondents made a demand of 1 lakh rupees from complainant’s parents for opening a shop, which was satisfied by them after selling their 5 acres of field. Even then they were not satisfied and tortured the complainant to bring a jeep from her paternal home. She told about their demand to her parents. When her father showed his incapability of fulfilling their demand for a jeep, the respondent No. 1 left the complainant to her paternal home one year prior to the incident in question. On 19.1.1999, the date of incident when complainant was all alone at her parental home, all the respondents came there and told ^^lkyh vius cki ls ngst es thi yk,xh rHkh gekjs ?kj es jgsxh and beat her by slaps and fists and left the spot. The complainant narrated the incident to her father on his return and went to Police Station Bareli, Distt. Raisen to lodge the report, on the basis of which a case under section 498-A of I.P.C. was registered against all the respondents. 3. The respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence praying that they had been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses and the defence examined one witness. After appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court did not find the respondents guilty under section 498-A of I.P.C. and acquitted them from the charge levelled against them. 3. The respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence praying that they had been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses and the defence examined one witness. After appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court did not find the respondents guilty under section 498-A of I.P.C. and acquitted them from the charge levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. Shri Sameer Chile, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution amply proved that the respondents had badly tortured complainant Sunita Bai. Therefore, the finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. He prayed that the respondents should be punished. 6. On the contrary. Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. The Court below rightly acquitted them from the aforesaid charge. Hence no interference is called for. 7. The main point for consideration by this Court is that whether the Court below committed any error in acquitting the respondents from the charge under section 498-A of I.P.C.? 8. The ingredients of section 498-A of the I.P.C. are as follows:-- “498-A. ‘Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life., limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 9. Cruelty has been defined in the explanation for the purpose of section 498-A of the I.P.C. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, of the woman are required to be, established in order to bring home the application of section 498-A of the I.P.C. 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions of law. I considered the facts of the present case. Complainant Sunita Bai (P.W.4) stated that she married Rajesh Kumar three/four years before the incident. She had gone only three-four times to her matrimonial home. Respondent did not provide meals and beat her. The respondents were demanding one lac rupees for opening a shop. She further stated that her father sold five acres of field and fulfilled their demand. She delivered a child. Then respondents demanded a jeep. She informed her parents that respondents were demanding a jeep, but her father could not give a jeep to respondents. Then respondent Rajesh Kumar left the complainant to her parental home. She further stated that when her father had gone in Barsi of her grandmother (Dadi), the respondents had come and demanded a jeep and beat her. When her father had come, she told him about the incident. Then she lodged a report (Ext. P-1). 11. Radhey Shyam (P.W.1) who is the father of complainant Sunita Bai (P.W.4), Krishan Murari (P.W.2) who is the cousin son-in-law of Radhey Shyam and Ram Kumar (P.W.3) who is maternal uncle of complainant Sunita Bai supported the version of complainant, admittedly, they are interested witnesses. There is no independent witness examined by the prosecution, while so many persons were living around the house of Radhey Shyam (P.W.1). There is no documentary evidence of sale of field by Radhey Shyam (P.W.1). Therefore, it is not reliable that Radhey Shyam had sold his land due to demand of dowry, before this incident, complainant and her family members had not complained to anyone or lodged a report of such demand. 12. It is a fact that before this Incident, respondent Rajesh Kumar had filed a case against complainant Sunita Bai (P.W.4) for divorce which was registered as 27-A/1998 before the District Judge Raisen. In that case, notice was issued to the complainant. 12. It is a fact that before this Incident, respondent Rajesh Kumar had filed a case against complainant Sunita Bai (P.W.4) for divorce which was registered as 27-A/1998 before the District Judge Raisen. In that case, notice was issued to the complainant. Premnarayan (D.W.1) process server stated that he had gone to Bareli on 19.1.1999 to serve the notice No. 9/99 to Sunita Bai, the wife of Rajesh Kumar in the house of Radhey Shyam. He further stated that no body was present there and the house was locked. Ramendra Singh, neighbour of Radhey Shyam was present. He also stated that Ramendra Singh had written in his handwriting on notice that Radhey Shyam and his family members had gone to Bamhori Baliram to attend a ritual organized after six months of their grandmother’s (Dadi) death. He had proved the notice (Ex. D-1). He is independent witness. His version is also supported by the notice (Ex. D1). Thus, it is established that complainant Sunita Bai was not present in the place of incident on 19.1.1999. It appears that when she knew about the notice (Ex. D1), she lodged the report against the respondents which was an afterthought. 13. Having regard to the totality of circumstances and the evidence on record, it is not established that the respondents subjected Sunita Bai to cruelty. 14. Thus, there are the said infirmities in the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper prospective and rightly acquitted the respondents. The view taken by the Trial Court is reasonable. In the case of Budh Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 731 , it was held that the view of the Trial Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case was a possible view, which should not have been interfered with by the High Court. 15. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, therefore, it is allowed to stand. This appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 16. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed.