JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) The Judgment dated 23.6.2000 be set aside and the Respondent No. 1 be convicted U/s. 498-A IPC as well as 323 and 324 IPC in alternate the matter be remand for retrial.

(ii) Any other relief for which the Petitioner is entitle, be granted.

It is, therefore, prayed that the Revision Petition be allowed with cost."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-respondent No. 1-Ladu Ram i.e. private respondent was convicted under Sections 498-A, 323 and 324 I.P.C. vide the judgment dated 18.09.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, in Cr. Case No. 9/92; for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the petitioner was ordered to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the petitioner was ordered to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, he was ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of which he was to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment; all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an appeal bearing in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1997 against the aforementioned judgment passed by the learned trial court was preferred by the accused-respondent before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereupon, the learned appellate court, vide the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2000, partly allowed the appeal, and while acquitting the private respondent for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., maintained his conviction under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C.; however, in regard to the said offences, gave him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner/complainant filed an F.I.R. on 23.12.1991 against the private respondent, stating therein that the petitioner's sister, Sushila, was married to the private respondent with whom she had two children. And that, once under the influence of alcohol, the private respondent along with Ganesh Ram, Pema Ram and Shanti (accused persons whom the learned Trial Court acquitted at the first instance while convicting the private respondent, vide its judgment dated 18.09.1996), gave beatings to Sushila, on 22.12.1991, and that a demand for dowry was made from her by the private respondent.

2.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned appellate court erred in granting the private respondent the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958, when there were categorical statements made by the victim-wife, Sushila stating that she suffered cruelty at the hands of the private respondent and the other accused, and that a demand for dowry was made from her.

2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court suffers from a misreading of evidence, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes and submits that the learned appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, before extending to the private respondent the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

4. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case.

5. This Court finds that the learned appellate court has rightly granted the private respondent the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.

6. This Court, arrive