JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. Present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed while upholding the judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh whereby respondents No.2 & 3 were acquitted.

2. For clarity and convenience, the revisionist-petitioner, who lodged the impugned FIR, shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'complainant' while respondents No.2 & 3, who were arrayed as accused in the impugned FIR, shall be referred to as the 'accused' through this judgment.

3. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present revision petition, are that the FIR No.104 dated 01.06.2012 was registered against the accused, residents of Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, the 'IPC') at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh. The case proceeded to trial before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, which concluded its proceedings and, vide judgment dated 12.07.2019, acquitted the accused (respondents No. 2 & 3 herein) of all the charges.

4. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal against the said judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 16.11.2021, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence in accordance with settled legal principles and had reached a just and proper conclusion on the basis of the material on record warranting interference.

5. The petitioner, still aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking re-examination of the findings on the ground of alleged mis-appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. It is, however, well-settled law that the scope of revision is limited and does not ordinarily permit a re-appreciation of evidence unless there is manifest illegality, perversity or gross miscarriage of justice.

6. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, as detailed in the FIR, is that complainant Paramjit Kaur was married to respondent No.2 Inderjit Singh. It was alleged that sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage to the respondents, however, they were dissatisfied and subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of their demand for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was further alleged that she was turned out of the matrimonial home with threat not to return unless fulfillment of their demand of dowry. On the basis of the said allegations, the impugned FIR was got registered.

7. After completion of trial, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh vide judgment dated 12.07.2019 acquitted respondents No. 2 & 3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 16.11.2021.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant), assailed the impugned judgments as perverse, factually erroneous, legally unsustainable and violative of principles of natural justice. It was contended that both the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the detailed narration of harassment given by the complainant. On this basis, prayer was made for setting aside the acquittal of respondents No. 2 & 3 and their conviction under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further submitted that in an appeal against acquittal, where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail, an