The court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence establishing dowry demands and related charges, highlighting the need for clarity and consistency in testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022. The learned Court of Appeal affirmed the order of conviction dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in G.R. Case No.377 of 2014, Trial No.4931 of 2022 arising out of Sahjahanpur P.S. Case No.05/2014, however, modified the sentence passed against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 directing them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 4 98A of the I.P.C. and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The above-named two accused persons were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The order of sentence passed against the petitioner No.1 remained the same without any modification.

2. It is apposite to mention the case of the prosecution, in brief, at the outset. That on 08.02.2014 one Abha Kumari lodged a written complaint in the local police station stating, inter-alia, that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 on 17.05.2013. After marriage all the accused persons started torturing her on demand of dowry in the form of one Car and a flat. They also threatened her with dire consequences, if their demands were not fulfilled. As her husband used to stay in Kolkata at the relevant point of time she went to Kolkata thrice to stay with her husband but she was driven out. She informed the said fact to the jurisdictional police station in Kolkata, which was recorded in General Diary Book. He also informed about his plight to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patna. Subsequently, on the basis of her complaint Sahjahanpur P.S. Case No.05 of 2014 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 4 1, 323, 504, 498A/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons/ petitioners under Section 4 98A of the I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. During trial, prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 Meena Devi is the mother of the informant, PW-2 Anil Chaudhary is the father of the informant, PW-3 Abha Kumari, is the informant herself and PW-4 Prabhat Shankar is the Investigating Officer. During the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution some documents were filed, which were marked Exhibits-1 to 7.

4. During trial of the case, the defence also adduced as many as five witnesses, DW-1, DW-2 & DW-5 are the accused persons/petitioners, while one Nisha Kumari and Siya Choudhary were examined as DW-3 & DW-4 respectively.

5. It is needless to say that in a revisional application challenging the order of sentence, the revisional Court should be very slow in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact. Ordinarily concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below would not be interfered by the High Court, where there is concurrent finding by the Lower Court regarding cruelty allegedly committed by the petitioners upon the defacto complainant/wife. The court should not interfere with the judgment because reapprisal of evidence like a Court of Appeal is not permissible for the Revisional Court. It is the satisfaction of the Magistrate, which is a relevance for the purposes of Section 397 read with Sectio