The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any delay in reporting the incident or inconsistencies in the evidence may affect the credibility of the prosecution case.

The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, hereafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' ) has been sought to be invoked seeking interference with the judgment and order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in criminal appeal No.67/98 (90/96) acquitting the respondent Nos.2 to 5 of the charge under section 498A, IPC by reversing the judgment and order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi in criminal case No.3/95.

2. I have heard Mr. S.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. P. S. Chou-dhary, learned Public Prosector, Rajasthan and Mr. M.K. Garg & Mr. R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. A written report was lodged by one Rajkumar with the Police Station Tibbi alleging that his sister Harpreet Kaur alias Nirmala, who had been given in marriage to respondent No.2 Raj Singh about 5 years back, had been subjected to dowry demands since after one and half months therefrom and had eventually been turned out of the matrimonial home following the assaults. It was elaborated that though at the time of marriage, the bride-s family had given sufficient dowry by way of ornaments, wearing apparels and household articles, the respondents had been demanding motorcycle, cooler and cash amount of Rs.20,000/- and that on the failure to provide the same, Harpreet alias Nirmala was being humiliated and ill-treated. The written report disclosed that in view of the persistent demands, an amount of Rs.2000/- for the cooler had been paid for which though Harpreet Kaur alias Nirmala was taken back for a few days, she was again assaulted and externed from the nuptial house. That the informant as he tried to intervene, was also assaulted, was alleged.

4. On this written report, a case under sections 498A and 406, IPC was registered against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was also laid against them under the said provisions of the law. They denied the charges and trial followed. The prosecution examined six witnesses including the complainant, his sister Harpreet Kaur alias Nirmala and others. The accused persons in course of their statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. stood by their denial. The respondent No.2 in particular has stated that they had been falsely implicated to pressurize them to part with their land to be registered in the name of the bride as a deal to allow her to return to her matrimonial home.

5. The learned trial court, on a consideration of the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 5 of the charge under section 406, IPC, but convicted them for the offence under section 498A, IPC and sentenced to suffer one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to further undergo four days SI. Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 preferred an appeal in which by the impugned judgment and order, they have been acquitted of the charge under section 498A, IPC as well.

6. Whereas Mr. Dhillon has emphatically argued that the impugned judgment and order suffers from patent omission to consider the materials on record and thus, is perverse warranting interference therewith, it has been urged on behalf of the private respondents that not only the prosecution has totally failed to prove the charge, the case has been instituted as a weapon of oppression and a measure of intimidation to coerce the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to submission and convey their family land in favour of the alleged victim. As against the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the learned lower appellate court had totally over-looked the evidence of the witnesses, who had attended the Panchayat on the issue, it has been insisted to the contrary on behalf of the private respondents.

7. Having regard to the fact that this Court in the instant proceeding is called upon to exercise its revisional jurisd