JUDGMENT : K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the State of Odisha-appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 02.11.1996 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad in G.R. Case No. 24 of 1993 (T.R. No. 179 of 1993) whereby he acquitted the respondents herein from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. Prosecution was launched against the respondents on the allegation that marriage between the informant and one Manoj Kumar @ Mohan Charan Nayak (respondent no.1) was solemnized on 19.04.1992 as per the caste custom. They led a peaceful conjugal life for about two 2 months, where after the in-laws of the informant started ill-treating the informant both physically and mentally demanding dowry. The informant was not given a morsel a day and she was mercilessly assaulted by the respondents. Finding no alternative, the informant had informed her parents for which her parents along with other relatives came to her in-laws house to settle the matter, but it was in vain. Ultimately, she lodged an F.I.R. (Ext.3) in Kotpad P.S. Accordingly; the police registered Kotpad P.S. Case No. 24 of 1993 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498-A I.P.C. 3. The plea of the defence was complete denial of the prosecution allegation and they pleaded their innocence. 4. The prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses, P.W.5 being the informant, P.W.6 is her father, P.W. 8 is her mother and P.W. 7 is her brother. P.W. 9 is the sister-in-law of the informant. P.W. 10 is the person, who informed about the ill-treatment of the informant by the in-laws. P.Ws. 1, 4, 11 and 12 are independent witnesses. P.W. 2 is the Medical Officer, who examined the informant on police requisition. P.W. 3 is the Grama Rakhi, who was the witnesses to the seizure. Learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses and the materials available on record held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence alleged against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he held the respondents to be not guilty of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and acquitted them from the said charge in exercise of power under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the prosecution has filed this appeal. 5. Hence, he held the respondents to be not guilty of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and acquitted them from the said charge in exercise of power under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the prosecution has filed this appeal. 5. The only question that remains for adjudication in this case is whether the husband (respondent no.1) or his relative (respondent no.2) subjected the informant to cruelty to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. The victim (informant) was examined as P.W.5. In her evidence, she supporting the story narrated in the F.I.R. (Ext.3) deposed that her marriage was solemnized in the month of April, 1992 at her parental home in village Jharigaon. After the marriage, the couple led a peaceful conjugal life, but to her ill luck, two months after the marriage, the accused (respondent no.1-husband) started assaulting her by means of fist blows and kicks demanding dowry. He also threatened to do away with the life of the informant by administering poison. On many occasions, she was also not allowed to stay inside their house and was forced to take shelter on the verandah of their house till late night. Hence, she requested one Prafulla Kumar Pradhan (P.W.11) of the same village to inform the matter to her father. Subsequently, the father of the informant had come to her in-laws house. P.W. 6, father of the informant, was also humiliated by her in-laws. Hence, she lodged the written report at Kotpad P.S. In her cross-examination, the informant at paragraph-5 deposed that she along with her father and brother had gone to the office of Sri Mani Prasad Patnaik, Advocate, Kotpad, who scribed the report, which was filed by them in Kotpad P.S. 6. On a close reading of the depositions of P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W. 8 and P.W.9, who are father, brother, mother and sister-in-law (Bhauja) of the informant respectively, it reveals that they have not whispered a single word about the demand of dowry by the in-laws of the informant. P.W. 11, 4 Prafulla Kumar Pradhan, who had informed the parents of the informant about the alleged ill-treatment, does not also utter a single word about the demand of dowry. P.W. 11, 4 Prafulla Kumar Pradhan, who had informed the parents of the informant about the alleged ill-treatment, does not also utter a single word about the demand of dowry. Except the solitary statement of the informant (P.W.5), there is no evidence on record to come to a conclusion that there was demand of dowry by the in-laws of the informant for which she was ill-treated. P.W.13, the Investigating Officer, who had seized the Inland letter, which has purportedly described the incident of torture of the informant, was although seized, not exhibited. The injury report (Ext. 1) reveals an old scar mark of lacerated wound on the middle of the right arm of the informant, but there is no material to co-relate the same with the alleged assault on her. Although there are materials on record that the informant was ill-treated, no specific overt act has been ascribed by the informant in her depositions. Further, there is no material to come to a conclusion that the alleged ill-treatment was made to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. 7. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad acquitting the respondents from the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. The respondents be set at liberty as before.