JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. Heard Ms. Rakhi Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

2. The present revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2011, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, so far as his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The learned Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide Judgment dated 20.7.2011 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) for simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/- and also for offence under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act for simple imprisonment of six months. The Trial Court’s Judgment was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

Arguments for the Petitioner.

4. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner (husband of the informant) has submitted that most of the witnesses are the relative of the lady and accordingly, the learned court below has not scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses properly. She also submits that P.W.-5 is a doctor who has stated that there was no external injury found in her body and she only complained of body pain. She has submitted that although there is allegation of harassment, but the demand of dowry has not been proved before the learned court below. She submits that as the demand of dowry was not proved, therefore, the learned appellate court had acquitted the petitioner for alleged offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and since the petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. She has further submitted that there is no specific date of incident mentioned in the evidence and the victim has stated that she was tried to be burnt pouring kerosene and the neighbor had saved her, but none of the neighbor has come forward for the prosecution evidence.

5. The learned amicus curiae has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281 para-19 to submit that there has been abuse in making allegations under Section 498A of I.P.C. regarding which judicial notice has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well. She has also relied upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Wasim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) of reported in (2019) 7 SCC 435 para-12 to submit that the basic ingredients for offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. has not been satisfied in the present case.

6. The learned amicus has further submitted that the entire allegation was levelled by the informant of the case, as she was the Para Teacher and she wanted the petitioner to live with her at her working place and she was never interested in going to her in-laws’ house and continue the matrimonial relationship. She submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is perverse and is fit to be set-aside.

7. During the course of hearing, it transpired from the records that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below during the pendency of this case on 30.10.2012 and was released on bail on 02.11.2012.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State while opposing the prayer has submitted that in the case of concurrent findings of fact, there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences on r