Judgment Jawad Rahim, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the acquittal of the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard. 3. From the records, it is clear on the basis of complaint submitted by PW1-Padmavathi against her husband-Hariprasad alias Raju arraigned as Accused No.1 and his mother Puttathayamma and maternal uncle Puttaswamy and N. Papanna alias Dairy Papanna arraigned as Accused Nos.2.3 and 4 respectively. 4. The trial was conducted. During trial, prosecution examined in all six witnesses and produced five documents. 5. The learned trial Judge found evidence insufficient to establish the charge and acquitted the accused. The State is in appeal. 6. Mr. Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned Government Pleader, submits that evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge of cruelty, harassment and demand for dowry. He took me though the evidence on record. 7. I have perused the evidence and keeping in mind the grounds urged, it is no doubt that PW1-Padmavathi wholeheartedly spoke in examination-in-chief that the first accused-her husband married here on 11.6.1993 at Thyagarajanagar Panchamukhi Kalyanamantapa and thereafter they lived together. But, she alleged that Accused Nos.2 and 3-his parents and Accused No.4 his friend instigate him to demand and receive dowry. Fulfilling the demand raised by the accused. Hero Honda motorcycle and 65 gram gold was given which did not satisfy their greed. 8. After marriage, the accused started harassing her to get additional dowry in the form of gold. In this regard, all the accused joined together and proliferated physical and mental cruelty. 9. However, in cross-examination, the complainant admitted that she had no proof that motorcycle was purchased by her to be given to the accused whereas it was shown that the motorcycle was purchased by the accused himself and hence it was treated as a false allegation. Regarding other overt acts of assault, there was inconsistency in the statement of PW1 and other witnesses which did not infuse confidence of the learned trial Judge and the trial Court has thus acquitted the accused. 10. In fact, the trial Court has acted on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 which belied the claim of the witnesses that they had given dowry. 10. In fact, the trial Court has acted on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 which belied the claim of the witnesses that they had given dowry. Exhibit-P1 which was relied upon to show that motorcycle was delivered to the accused is also not proved. In the result, the trial Court found evidence insufficient to convict the respondents-accused and on reappreciation of the evidence, in appeal, there is no merit in the appeal. 11. The appeal is dismissed. Acquittal of the respondents-accused is affirmed.