Revisional courts must ensure substantial justice; lack of specific evidence in dowry cases warrants setting aside conviction under Section 498A.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. The petitioner was husband of the Opposite Party No. 2. At the instance of Opposite Party No. 2 on the basis of a complaint, the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The said case was registered as Complaint Case No. 773 of 2010, T.R. No. 769 of 2018 before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East). The learned Magistrate on completion of trial found the accused/petitioner guilty for committing offence under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for further period of 3 months. The petitioner challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2019. The said appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 18^th Court at Muzaffarpur and by his judgement and order dated 17^th of October, 2023, the Court of appeal also affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

2. In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged the order of conviction and sentence, questioning its legality, correctness and propriety.

3. It is needless to say that the revisional Court has the jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence ……………, recorded or passed. When no appeal lies against the Appellate Court’s order, affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the aggrieved person has the statutory right to challenge the said order of conviction and sentence in revision. Therefore, this Court does not have any doubt as to the maintainability of the instant revision. A question naturally comes next to consider the power and scope of the revisional Court while dealing with a revision against the order of conviction and sentence. Is it similar as that of appellate power or something more or confined to lesser jurisdiction. Law on this point is no longer res integra that when a matter comes up in revisional jurisdiction, the appellant has no right whatsoever beyond the right of bringing his case into the notice of Court. It is for the Court to interfere in exceptional cases where it seems that some real and substantial injustice has been caused. That is the main point which the Court has to consider. A revisional application is not to be regarded as some sort of a second appeal on question of law; a revision is a procedural facility afforded to a party, but it is not a continuation of the suit, appeal or trial, while the appeal is a statutory right conferred on a party. When it is an application in revision, the main question which the High Court has to consider is whether substantial justice has been done. In the case of appeal, on the other hand, the appellants, no doubt, are entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact and law which they wish to raise, but in revision, the only question is whether the High Court should interfere in the interest of justice.

4. As a corollary to the above jurisprudence in the criminal administration of justice with regard to the scope of revisional application, it is held in a number of cases by the Apex Court as well as different High Courts that in revision, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence. Of course, the revisional Court can look into the evidence adduced during the trial only in very exceptional cases where appreciation of evidence appears to be absolutely perverse.

5. Bearing this age-old principals aforesaid, let me now briefly state the fact of the case.

6. The Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging, inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 12^th of December, 2008. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner and his family membe