JUDGMENT Shambhu Singh, J. 1. The applicants have preferred this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 20.3.1990 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Cr. Appeal No. 79/88 whereby the judgment and order made by A.C.J.M., Ujjain, on 20.9.1988 wherein the applicants were convicted under Sections 326 and 498A and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine 3 month's' S.I. and applicants No. 1 and 2 were further convicted Under Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine 2 months' S.I. each have beer confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of the complainant Chhotibai, (PW 1) had given Rs. 15.000/- to Jagannath, the father-in-law of the complainant for getting the land of her uncle-in-law released from mortgage made by Jagannath. The father of Chhotibai was demanding this amount of Rs. 15,000/ - and the applicants who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law wanted that this amount should not be demanded for this purpose, they subjected her to cruelty. On the date of incident i.e. 24.9.1984 in the night at about 10-11 p.m., the applicant No. 1, husband Pyarchand closed his bed-room from inside and gave' beating to Chhotibai and thereafter with the help of applicant No. 2 Umraobai, the mother-in-law and applicant No. 3-Sunita, sister-in-law of the complainant, felled Chhotibai on bed-stead and tied her with rope. Sunita pressed her mouth. Thereafter applicant No. 1 put iron rod on burning cow-dung, when it became hot, he thrusted it into true vagina of the complainant. She became unconscious. The information of burning tht complainant reached to her parents and her brother-m-law Amarsingh (PW 3). The latter Chhotibai was brought from the house of the applicants and sent her to hospital where Dr. Shailaja Pendharkar (PW2) examined her on 26.9.1984 at 12 p.m. and found three contusions on her left gleuteal region, on the outer surface of middle 1 /3rd of right thigh and on left half of back at the level of vertebra. She also found both labia, minora and majora swollen and oedemates inflammed and labia minora charred in side vide report Ex. P.2. Chandu, the chowkidar of the village lodged FIR at P.S. Chimanganj Mandi which was recorded in Roznamcha Sanha No. 1411. She also found both labia, minora and majora swollen and oedemates inflammed and labia minora charred in side vide report Ex. P.2. Chandu, the chowkidar of the village lodged FIR at P.S. Chimanganj Mandi which was recorded in Roznamcha Sanha No. 1411. Crime No. 128/84 was registered Under Sections 324,498A and 506 of the IPC. After investigation, challan was filed. After recording evidence, the learned A.C.J.M. acquitted Jagannath, the father-in-law and convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated above, and being unsuccessful in appeal, they have preferred this revision. 3. Mr. Jaisingh, learned Counsel for the applicants/submitted that the learned Courts below failed to take into consideration the admissions made by the complainant Chhotibai in paragraph 12 of her statement therein she admitted that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 Umraobai and Sunita Were outside the room when applicant No. 1 Pyarchand tied the complainant with rope and caused burn injuries to the complainant. Hence, the judgment is perverse. He also submitted that the applicant No. 1-husband also deserves acquittal. Mr. Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgments rendered by both the Courts below. 4. So far as the case of applicant No. 1 Pyarchand is concerned, the learned lower Courts properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and rightly believed the statement of Chhotibai, the complainant, which got support from medical evidence given by Dr. Shailaja Pendharkar (PW 2). It has also been proved from the evidence of Chhotibai and Dr. Pendharkar that injuries caused on the private part of complainant were grevious in nature. Chhotibai remained in hospital for more than 21-22 days, under these circumstances the learned Courts below rightly convicted the applicant No. 1 Under Section 326,506 and 498A of the IPC. The sentences awarded to him is also reasonable and it cannot be said to be excessive. Under these circumstances, so far as the applicant No. 1 is concerned, no interference can be made. Hence, the Revision Petition of applicant No. 1 is rejected. He shall surrender before C.J.M. Ujjain on or before 5.1.1998 for serving out the jail sentence. 5. The sentences awarded to him is also reasonable and it cannot be said to be excessive. Under these circumstances, so far as the applicant No. 1 is concerned, no interference can be made. Hence, the Revision Petition of applicant No. 1 is rejected. He shall surrender before C.J.M. Ujjain on or before 5.1.1998 for serving out the jail sentence. 5. It is true that complainant Chhotibai has stated in paragraph 3 of her statement that her husband applicant No. 1 closed the door of his room from inside, gave her beating and felled her on bed-stead and tied her with rope, applicant No. 2, her mother-in-law Umraobai caught her legs and Sunita, sister-in-law, pressed her mouth and thereafter her husband put iron-bar on burning cow-dung cakes and when it became hot, he brought it and thrusted into her vagina but she admitted in her cross-examination in para 12 that when her husband tied her with rope and thrusted the iron rod into her vagina, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were in a room adjacent to the room where she was being beaten and heated iron rod was thrusted into her vagina. She further admitted in para 13 that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were sitting in a room, they were not in kitchen. This evidence clearly shows that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were not present in the room where due complainant was tied with rope and was beaten and heated rod was thrusted into her vagina. Thus it is clear that the finding rendered by the Courts below that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 helped applicant No. 1, husband in putting complainant on bed-stead and applicant No. 2 caught her legs and applicant No. 3 pressed her mouth, is perverse. There is also no evidence that the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 threatened and subjected the complainant with cruelty. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the Courts below committed illegality in convicting the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 326,498A of the IPC. 7. It is true that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and normally reappreciating of evidence is not done. But here the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below resulted in miscarriage of justice, therefore, it has become necessary to make interference in the impugned judgments. 8. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the applicant Nos. It is true that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and normally reappreciating of evidence is not done. But here the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below resulted in miscarriage of justice, therefore, it has become necessary to make interference in the impugned judgments. 8. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the charges Under Sections 320/34, 506 and 498A of the IPC. Their bail bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if paid, be returned to them.