JUDGMENT : K.S. Mudagal, J. This is the State's appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18-1-2010 passed by the XIII Fast Track Court, Bangalore in S.C. No. 688 of 2006. The appellant charge-sheeted respondents-accused in Crime No. 131 of 2006 of their Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the basis of the complaint filed by P.W. 1 at Ex. P. 1. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : P.W. 2-Sreedevi is the daughter of the complainant-P.W. 1. The marriage of Sreedevi and accused 1 was solemnized on 18-8-2005. Accused 2 and 3 are the parents and accused 4 and 5 are married sisters of accused 1. Soon after the marriage accused 1 subjected Sreedevi (P.W. 2) to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their demand for dowry. In that regard, the complainant (P.W. 1) and victim (P.W. 2) had approached the police and Mahila Sahayavani. Accused 1 had dropped the victim-P.W. 2 in the parental house on 7-9-2005 and she was not taken back to the matrimonial home. On 20-11-2005, accused 1 assaulted P.W. 2 in her parental house. On the police intervention, P.W. 2 was taken to the matrimonial home on 2-6-2006. Again there was harassment. Therefore, P.W. 1 had filed police complaint on 5-6-2006. On 6-6-2006 at 2.00 p.m., the accused with the common intention of committing the murder of P.W. 2 offered her rice laced with stupefying substance which she consumed when she was semiconscious due to such poisoning, they assaulted and hanged her, thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 3. On filing the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the XIII Fast Track Court, Bangalore by complying Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court summoned the accused and after hearing framed following charges: VERNACULAR MATTER 4. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore the Trial Court conducted the trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 and got marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 32. The accused are examined under section 313 of Cr. P.C., 1973 to explain the incriminating evidence. The accused got marked Exhibits D. 1 to D. 5 on their behalf. Therefore the Trial Court conducted the trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 and got marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 32. The accused are examined under section 313 of Cr. P.C., 1973 to explain the incriminating evidence. The accused got marked Exhibits D. 1 to D. 5 on their behalf. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides by the impugned judgment convicted the accused 1 to 3 alone for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and acquitted the accused of other charges. 5. The State challenges the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 6. Sri S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader contends thal the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the medical witnesses-P.Ws. 16 and 17 and M.L.C. intimation-Ex. P. 31, wound certificate-Ex. P. 25 and discharge summary-Ex. P. 32. He further contends that the Trial Court committed error in disbelieving Ex. P. 3. 7. As against that, Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the basis of charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 328 of I.P.C. is the alleged cruelty of the accused to the victim in connection with their demand for dowry for which they were tried for the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. He further contends that challenging conviction under Section 498A of I.P.C., accused 1 to 3 filed Cri. A. No. 132 of 2010 and the adequacy of sentence, under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the State had filed Cri. A. No. 527 of 2010 before this Court. He further contends that this Court in Cri. A. No. 132 of 2010 reversed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 498A of I.P.C. and dismissed the State appeal in Cri. A. No. 527 of 2010. Therefore, he contends that the whole case of the prosecution for the offences under Sections 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has no legs to stand. A. No. 527 of 2010. Therefore, he contends that the whole case of the prosecution for the offences under Sections 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has no legs to stand. He further contends that the accused 1 had filed M.C. No. 150 of 2009 before the IV Additional Family Court, Bangalore in that case there was compromise between the victim and the accused 1 and the marriage came to be dissolved, that goes to show that there was no attempt of any murder on the victim, but the complaint was the outcome of only a matrimonial discard between the parties. He further contends that the evidence recorded shows that the accused 1 was suffering from Epilepsy and on revelation of the same P.W. 2 was dejected in life and therefore she herself committed suicide. 8. The marriage between the parties and the complaint and counter complaint between the parties are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that P.W. 2 the accused 1 admitted P.W. 2 into Yellamma Dasappa Hospital on 6-6-2006 with the history of consumption of poison and partial hanging. Therefore, the only questions for consideration is: "whether the said consumption of poison and hanging was homicidal one or suicidal one?" 9. Ex. P. 31-M.L.C. intimation and Ex. P. 32, the entries are made at the earliest point of time regarding history of the incident. In these two documents it is only mentioned that the patient was brought with the history of consumption of poison and partial hanging. The Investigating Officer has not collected and produced the MLC/accident register. In M.L.C-intimation, discharge summary and wound certificate there is no mention of the accused or any other person administering poisonous substance to P.W. 2 or hanged her. 10. In the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 it is elicited that P.W. 2 was disappointed with the Epilepsy ailment of her husband, therefore she was not willing to lead matrimonial life with the accused 1 and therefore, she attempted to commit suicide. 11. There is no dispute that P.W. 1 surfaced the epilepsy ailment of accused 1 after marriage. It is the case of the P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused suppressed the said fact and performed the marriage of the accused and P.W. 2. 11. There is no dispute that P.W. 1 surfaced the epilepsy ailment of accused 1 after marriage. It is the case of the P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused suppressed the said fact and performed the marriage of the accused and P.W. 2. According to the prosecution the accused subjected P.W. 2 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demand for dowry and further offences of attempt to commit murder and administration of stupefying substances are the continuity of the dowry harassment. 12. As already pointed out the conviction under Section 498-A is set aside by this Court in Cri. A. No. 132 of 2010 on 13-4-2011. The State's appeal for challenging adequacy of the sentence under Section 498A of I.P.C. is also dismissed. Learned Counsel for the accused has produced the copies of the aforesaid two judgment and the memorandum of settlement between the parties entered into in M.C. No. 150 of 2009 before the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. The said memorandum of settlement shows that on 31-3-2011, the parties settled the matter and by virtue of such settlement such marriage came to be dissolved. 13. The Trial Court acquits the accused for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. holding that if at all the accused intended to commit murder of P.W. 2 they could have completed that offences as soon as she fell unconscious on administration of poison in their house. The Trial Court holds that there was no reason for the accused to admit the P.W. 2 to the hospital to save her life. 14. As rightly pointed by the Trial Court, when the consumption of poison and hanging took place in the house of the accused and they were five in number and victim was alone. Under Section 307 of I.P.C. the intention is a prime factor. If they intended to commit murder of P.W. 2 they could not have taken her to the hospital. P.W. 2 herself states that on consumption of poison she fell semiconscious. Certainly if they intended to commit murder of P.W. 2, they would have taken the advantage of such situation as she was not able to resist also. 15. If they intended to commit murder of P.W. 2 they could not have taken her to the hospital. P.W. 2 herself states that on consumption of poison she fell semiconscious. Certainly if they intended to commit murder of P.W. 2, they would have taken the advantage of such situation as she was not able to resist also. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no fault can be found in the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court, its reasoning or conclusion. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court sustains. Appeal is dismissed. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondent, at this stage, seeks liberty to withdraw the fine amount in deposit. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to withdraw the fine amount, if any deposited.