JUDGMENT P. K. Lohra, J —Appellant-Complainant has laid this Leave to Appeal under Section 372 read with Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to challenge verdict dated 05.12.2017, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, whereby learned Court below has convicted accused-respondents for offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, while acquitting them for offence under Section 304B IPC. Leave to appeal by the appellant is with limited grievance of not convicting respondents for offence under Section 304B IPC. The facts, in brief, are that appellant-complainant submitted a written report on 14.07.2013 before Police Station Deshnok, inter-alia, alleging therein that his daughter Suman was married to respondent Bishnaram about two years back and soon after marriage Bishnaram and his family members started harassing her for demand of dowry. It is further averred in the report that she died an unnatural death by drowning within two years of marriage and being a case of dowry death case against the respondents be registered under Section 498A and 304B IPC. 2. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence against respondents before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner and later on case was committed to the learned trial Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and on denial the accused-respondents were put on trial. 3. During trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited thirteen documents. After completion of prosecution evidence statements of accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, learned trial Court heard final arguments. 4. Learned trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence and other materials available on record found no evidence of sterling worth to constitute offence under Section 304B IPC. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, has recorded its finding that though the unnatural death of deceased, Ms. Suman, has occasioned within two years of matrimony, but there is no evidence to show that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondents in connection with any demand for dowry. It is in that background, the trial Court has found that respondents cannot be indicted for offence under Section 304B IPC. While considering overall facts of the case, in the backdrop of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has found that accused-respondents subjected deceased Ms. It is in that background, the trial Court has found that respondents cannot be indicted for offence under Section 304B IPC. While considering overall facts of the case, in the backdrop of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has found that accused-respondents subjected deceased Ms. Suman to cruelty with unlawful demand of property and consequently convicted respondents for offence under Section 498A IPC. Furthermore, learned trial Court has also noticed that there is evidence available on record to show that the respondents were responsible for instigating or intentionally aiding Ms. Suman to commit suicide and consequently convicted the respondents for offence under Section 306 IPC, i.e. abetment for suicide. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accusedrespondents, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned the entire record of the case. 6. After perusal of the statements of witnesses, more particularly P.W.3 Ramuram and P.W.7 Anshuyia it is clearly discernible that soon before death deceased Ms. Suman was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondents. In totality, a cumulative reading of the evidence of these two material witnesses and other witnesses, unhesitatingly, in my opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence and acquitting the respondents for offence under Section 304B IPC. I am also constrained to observe that learned trial Court has made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and the conclusions drawn by learned trial Court are not perverse or inherently improbable in the backdrop of evidence and materials available on record. 7. It is trite that appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is to be examined as per yardsticks and parameters set out under Section 378 Cr.P.C. and normally any verdict of acquittal or punishment for a lessor offence cannot be interfered with unless and until the Court comes to the conclusion that the Court below has eschewed the material evidence; misread the evidence, or appreciation of evidence is perverse. In this case no such infirmity is forthcoming upon perusal of impugned judgment. Moreover, in my view, by the impugned judgment no injustice has resulted much less grave failure of justice. 8. In this case no such infirmity is forthcoming upon perusal of impugned judgment. Moreover, in my view, by the impugned judgment no injustice has resulted much less grave failure of justice. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, neither I am able to find any perversity in appreciation of evidence, nor it is noticeable that learned trial Court has overlooked the material evidence while passing the impugned verdict. 9. In view thereof, I feel disinclined to grant leave in the matter. Consequently, the leave craved for is declined and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.