This revision is directed against the judgment dated 26th June, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

2. The short fact relating to this case is that initially on the basis of written report of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.72 of 2007 registered under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after taking cognizance charges were explained. After conclusion of the trial, the Court of S.D.J.M., Bokaro passed the order of conviction against the accused/opposite parties no.2 to 8 and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. They were also sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Opposite Parties No.2 to 8 aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence challenged in the appeal before the court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011. After considering the materials available on record, the appellate court held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubts. Resultantly, the appellants/accused persons were given benefit of doubt while allowing the appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentences were set aside.

4. Judgment passed in appeal by the then Sessions Judge, Bokaro is challenged in revision herein, on the ground that the court below has not considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and without application of mind mechanically set aside the judgment of conviction which was passed after taking account of the prosecution evidences.

5. Ms. Asmita Srivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the trial court have found that due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry the torture was meted out on the wife Anita Devi. She further submitted that when the court found that cruelty committed upon her then the acquittal by the appellate court is bad in the eye of law. She also submitted that administering of medicine by the husband led to the miscarriage of pregnency. The prosecution has able to establish that there was a demand of cash, colour television and other articles. She has relied upon the case of Satpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1998) 5 SCC 687.

6. Mr. Vipul Poddar appearing on behalf of the O.P. Nos.2 to 8 opposed and submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the miscarriage was caused due to administration of medicine but no medical evidence was brought on record in support thereof. He also submitted that the wife Anita Devi was getting continuous treatment in a mental hospital and the medical prescriptions were also marked exhibits in this case. The wife was suffering from severe depression with psychiatric symptom shows her behaviour was not normal. He also submitted that only interested witness have been examined to prove the case. The appellate court after consideration of the materials brought on record by the prosecution as well as the defence came to the finding that the prosecution could not be able to prove its case and thereby extended the benefit of doubt. He relied on the judgments of Satyajit Banerjee and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 115 [: 2005 (3) JLJR (SC) 123] and submitted that this Court has very limited revisional jurisdiction to convert the acquittal into a conviction as the settled legal position. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh a