ORDER : 1. Impugning the judgment of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in CC No. 479 of 2000 dated 30.10.2003, this appeal is preferred by the State. By virtue of the said judgment, the Court below acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, as per the charge-sheet are as follows: The marriage of the complainant was performed on 22.8.1997 at Kavali, with the accused. Dowry was given in the form of cash and gold ornaments. The accused was working at Palvancha and used to often visit Kavali where the complainant was working as Lecturer in Jawahar Bharathi College and they led happy conjugal life. Few months after the marriage, the complainant stopped working in the college because of multifarious blames raised by the accused, suspecting her fidelity and the complainant further stopped working in Priya Darsini College, Nellore. On 28.10.1998, she gave birth to a male child. Later, the accused was transferred to Nellore and shifted their family to Nellore. Taking advantage of the loneliness of the complainant, the accused used to maltreat her. On 10.4.2000, the accused picked up a quarrel with the complainant demanding additional dowry and beat the complainant on her face, as a result of which she sustained an injury. The accused threatened the complainant to kill her by pouring kerosene, if dowry is not paid. Out of fear, she went to her parents' house alongwith her child. On the same day, she went to Government Hospital where she was treated by the doctor and thereafter, she lodged a report with the police, based on which a case in Cr. No. 13 of 2000 was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The Court below, after taking cognizance of the case and after complying with the required legal formalities, framed charges against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 marked on behalf of the prosecution. 3. The Court below, after taking cognizance of the case and after complying with the required legal formalities, framed charges against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 marked on behalf of the prosecution. After concluding the prosecution evidence and after putting to the accused, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and after hearing both sides, the Court below passed the impugned judgment, against which, the present appeal is preferred on the grounds that the Court below ought to have seen that the evidence of PW-1 is supported by the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and that the evidence of PW-1 is cogent and consistent and it ought to have convicted the accused. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. None appears for the respondent-accused. 5. A perusal of the evidence on record would show that the evidence, as observed by the Court below was shaky and inherently inconsistent. The incident in which the accused beat PW-1 took place on 10.4.2000 at about 2.30 p.m. but PW-1 went to the Government Hospital at 10.45 p.m. The Court below found that the evidence of PW-1 vis-a-vis the evidence of the doctor, is conflicting, as the doctor stated that the injury was found to be 2 to 3 hours old by the time of his examination, which is at 10.45 p.m. and the opinion of the doctor that the injury could be sustained when a person falls on rough surface was also considered in the right perspective, in the background of the age of the injury stated by the doctor. The Court below also appreciated the delay in giving the report against the credibility of PW-1. The report was not given before 10.45 p.m. though the injury was sustained at 2.30 p.m. The Court below concluded that the injury, which was found on the body of PW-1, might have been due to her falling on a rough surface. The Court below also appreciated the photographs, which show that the accused was cordial with PW-1 and their child. There can be no better appreciation of the above aspects. 6. The Court below also appreciated the photographs, which show that the accused was cordial with PW-1 and their child. There can be no better appreciation of the above aspects. 6. Apart from that, the evidence of PW-1, in the cross-examination, contains an admission that she was very proud that the accused married her without any dowry, though he had every chance of getting much dowry from a big family. She also admitted that they lived happily after marriage and that the accused put up a separate family in the year 1999 as per her wish. There is yet another admission in her cross-examination that her husband made efforts to secure employment to her as Accounts Officer and she attended an examination with hall ticket marked as Ex. P4. She also stated that her husband accompanied her to the examination hall. The Court below took this fact as reflecting cordiality between the accused and PW-1. Notices given under Exs. D8 and D9, though were received by PW-1, were not replied. The said fact was also appreciated against the credibility of PW-1. The fact that PW-1 was taken to a Gynaecologist at Tirupati by the accused and that she admitted that the accused took special care towards his child, were also appreciated by the Court below. As against the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 was considered as untrustworthy. The inconsistency between the statement of PW-1 and the evidence of PW-1 was considered as being due to an after thought and the Court below declined to place any reliance on such evidence. The Court below also took into consideration the fact that PW-1 wrote number of letters to the accused, appreciating his character and it rightly held that the question of suspecting the fidelity of PW-1 does not, hence, arise. Considering all these aspects, the Court below recorded a finding of not guilty against the accused, which, in the considered opinion of this Court needs no interference. In a judgment of acquittal, interference by the appellate Court should be only on limited ground viz. when there is any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Court below. No such illegality or infirmity is found in the judgment of the Court below. 7. The criminal appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.