1. Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

2. On behalf of the petitioner/complainant, this petition has been preferred under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent No.1/accused of the offence punishable section 498A of IPC vide impugned judgment dated 20.6.2008 recorded in Criminal Appeal No.679/07 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, district Guna.

3. As per the facts borne out from the record, one private complaint was filed by the petitioner Smt. Kusum Bai asserting that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs and ritual rites with Mukesh, respondent No.1, herein, prior to 5-6 years from the date of incident and from their wedlock, two children were born. She alleged that after her marriage her husband with other members of in-law’s family started raising demand of dowry and for non-fulfillment of their demands, she was off and on subjected to physical and mental torture. In these state of affairs, she filed an application under section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance which was registered as Case No.2/06 and was pending in the Court. It is stated that during hearing of the case on 20.2.2007 at Chachoda, the respondent/accused also reached the Court premises and asked her to bring money. She further alleged that on 21.2.20007, her husband with his parents also reached at the residence of the petitioner at Chachoda and threatened her to withdraw the criminal case. Due to fear the petitioner lodged the report with the police but when no action was taken she filed a private complaint against respondent/accused including his parents for commission of the alleged offence in the competent Court.

4. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence on record held guilty the present respondent No.1-Mukesh of the offence under section 498A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said impugned findings of conviction and sentence, the respondent No.1/accused Mukesh preferred Cri. Appeal No.679/07, which was allowed by the appellate Court under the impugned judgment, hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the appellate Court passed the judgment of acquittal against the evidence on record and the law applicable to the case. It is contended that from the evidence of the witnesses, the offence was proved against the accused but despite of that the evidence was ignored and the findings of acquittal were recorded in favour of the accused. It is therefore prayed that by allowing the petition, the judgment of acquittal may kindly be set aside and the accused may be convicted and punished in accordance with law.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-accused, on the other hand, supported the judgment of acquittal and contended that the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the charge against the accused and the judgment of acquittal is passed on the sound reasonings, therefore, it is prayed that by confirming the findings of the trial Court, the petition preferred by the complainant may be dismissed.

7. Having regard to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for either side, the entire evidence and the impugned judgment have been perused.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the evidence of complainant Kusum Bai (PW2), Premnarayan (PW1), Munnibai (PW4), parents of the complainant and one independent witness Trilok Singh (PW3) was broadly considered. The Court has also considered the fact that the marriage of the petitioner was performed prior to five years and and during this period, she did not make any complaint against her husband towards cruel some behaviour. Though the complainant alleged that she was assaulted by the respondent/accused but she failed to explain the nature of injuries and also faile