JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. Present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed while upholding the judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mahendergarh whereby respondents No.1 to 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.1 to 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.68 dated 18.02.2014 was registered against the accused, residents of village Hansawas Khurd, District Bhiwani, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, the 'IPC') at Police Station Mahendergarh. The case proceeded to trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mahendergarh, which concluded its proceedings and, vide judgment dated 12.04.2017, acquitted the accused (respondents herein) of all the charges.

4. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal against the said judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mahendergarh. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 25.01.2018, 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 Babita was married to respondent No.1 Prem Singh and that her sister Priyanka was married to respondent No.2 Narender on 19.07.2010. 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 vehicle and a sum of Rs.51,000/-. 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 Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Mahendergarh vide judgment dated 12.04.2017 acquitted respondents No. 1 to 3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide judgment dated 25.01.2018.

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. 1 to 3 and their conviction under Sections 323, 406, 498-A & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further submits that in an appe