In appeals against acquittal, courts must respect the presumption of innocence and should only interfere if the trial's conclusions are shown to be perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma J. The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2018, passed by Sh. Girish Kathpalia, learned District and Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2016, whereby the learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment/order of acquittal of accused passed by the learned trial Court.

2. Brief factual background necessary for the disposal of the present petition is as under:

i. Ms. Ritu Sethi (the petitioner) and Mr. Vivek Sethi (respondent no. 2) got married on 10.12.2001, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies.

ii. The petitioner filed a complaint dated 05.08.2002 at CWC Cell, Nanakpura, culminating into registration of FIR bearing No. 36/2003, under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S. Greater Kailash-I on 27.02.2003.

iii. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognizance of the same on 18.10.2003. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 10.01.2013, framed charges against the Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2 under Section 498A of the IPC, while discharging the Mother-in-law & Sister-in-law of the petitioner, under Section 498A & 406 of the IPC. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also discharged Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2 for offence under Section 406 of the IPC.

iv. The petitioner preferred a revision petition bearing no. 09/2013 against the aforesaid order on charge dated 10.01.2013, whereby, the petitioner sought setting aside of the order discharging the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner and the discharge of her husband, Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2 under Section 406 of the IPC. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.05.2013.

v. The aforesaid order dated 10.05.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide CRL.M.C.4449/2014.

vi. During the pendency of the aforesaid CRL.M.C.4449/2014, the trial qua the husband for offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC continued and vide order dated 17.09.2016, Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2, was acquitted for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by Ms. Charu Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, SED/Saket Courts, New Delhi.

vii. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal dated 17.09.2016, was challenged by the petitioner in CRL.A. 29/2016, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said criminal appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2018 by Sh. Girish Kathpalia, District & Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

viii. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated 20.01.2018, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition being CRL.REV.P.471/2019 (being disposed of by the present judgment).

ix. During the pendency of the proceedings, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e., Smt. Suniti Sethi passed away.

x. It is pertinent to mention that the connected matters, i.e., petition bearing no. CRL.M.C.4449/2014 and the present revision petition bearing no. CRL.REV.P.471/2019, arise out of two separate impugned judgments, dated 10.05.2013 and 17.09.2016 respectively, passed at two different stages of trial, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this court by two separate judgments of the same date.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below have erred in acquitting respondent no. 2, despite there being specific instances of cruelty and dow