S.G. Shah, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. S. B. Tolia with learned advocate Mr. Umat for the appellants accused in Criminal Appeal Nos.1413 of 2007 and 106 of 2008, as well as for all the respondents in Criminal Revision Application No.596 of 2008, whereas learned advocate Mr. S. T. Kotia for original complainant being petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.596 of 2008 and learned APP Mr. K. L. Pandya for the State being prosecuting agency. All these matters are arising out of common judgment dated 15.11.2007 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court of Porbandar @ Porbandar.

2. Before the Sessions Court, in such Sessions Case in all there were 5 accused, amongst which accused No.1, appellant of Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2008 is husband of the victim, since his wife has died at his house. Whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of the accused No.1. Thereby brother in law of the victim. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are respectively father in law and mother in law of the victim. However, by impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has already acquitted accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 and, therefore, when the Sessions Court has convicted accused Nos. 1 and 4 i.e. husband and father in law of the victim, both have preferred separate appeals considering the fact that conviction of both of them is different.

3. By impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has convicted the accused No.1 husband of the victim to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Rs. 25,000/- penalty or to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for non payment of such fine. Whereas he is also convicted for 3 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/- fine and for non payment of fine, 1 year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, both these conviction are to be undergo concurrently and, therefore, practically total conviction is 10 years and Rs. 35,000/- fine.

4. Whereas accused No.4 being appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1413 of 2007 i.e. father in law of the victim has been convicted only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/- fine or to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for non payment of fine.

5. In both appeals, appellants being original convict accused have challenged the order of conviction and sentence. Whereas in Criminal Revision Application No.596 of 2008, original complainant being father of the victim has challenged the impugned judgment for converting the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 4 and acquittal of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 into conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code instead of conviction under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. In view of above factual situation, all these three matters were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

7. If we peruse the record of Criminal Revision Application No.596 of 2008, by an order dated 04.08.2010 it was simply ordered to be tagged along with such criminal appeals only because of the disclosure before the Court that appeals preferred by convicted accused are admitted and pending. Thereby, practically such revision was never considered on merits and never admitted for further consideration. It is also found from record that though original complainant has filed, revision petition against acquittal, prosecution agency has not challenged the impugned judgment, in any manner.

8. Therefore, at first instance, it would be necessary to verify and scrutinize that whether there is any substance in the appeal or not and if there is substance in the appeal, which requires to modify such impugned judgment of conviction or sentence, then there is least chance of interfering with the judgment of acquittal, unless, there is an extraordinary case in favour of prosecution to modify