JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.06.2007 passed by Shri Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.35 of 2007, by which judgment he found, after discussing all the evidences, that the witnesses have failed to prove the charges under Sections 498A/34, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial court i.e. C.J.M., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dated 31.01.2007 in G.R. Case No. 1857 of 1999, by which judgment the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh found O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 guilty under Sections 498A/34, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine to Rs.1, 000/-under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 15 days rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he directed that all the sentences should run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, informant in the case, that the learned appellate court has wrongly evaluated the evidences in disagreeing with the finding of the trial court, and as such, the finding of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused persons raised the points that the complaint was filed after a long delay of six days, since the occurrence took place on 22.10.1999, while the F.I.R. was lodged on 28.10.1999. It is submitted that the learned trial court has accepted the explanation for the delay of six days which occurred since the informant’s father was ill and has got heart attack, but the same was not accepted by the appellate court and he wrongly found that aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged after long delay. The complainant had also stated that during the period of 22.10.1999 to 28.10.1999, there was attempt to compromise in the matter, but both the contradictions were not accepted by the appellate court and he misdirected himself in passing the judgment of acquittal. 5. The complainant had also stated that during the period of 22.10.1999 to 28.10.1999, there was attempt to compromise in the matter, but both the contradictions were not accepted by the appellate court and he misdirected himself in passing the judgment of acquittal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons has submitted that the learned trial court had passed the order without properly considering the evidences on record, since, the complainant in her statement before the court admitted that she was assaulted on 22.10.1999 and she received injuries and she was taken to the hospital where she was treated. But learned trial court failed to appreciate that the doctor, who was examined in court, clearly stated that she was not admitted in the hospital. The doctor who was examined as PW.11 has stated that he asked the complainant to come with X-Ray plate, but she failed to do so and she never returned with any X-ray and if there was any injury it was only simple in nature. But trial court failed to bring any adverse inference from the evidence of the doctor and gave benefit to the complainant for the same. Hence, the finding of the trial court was perverse. The appellate court rightly appreciated that no occurrence took place at the alleged date of occurrence on 22.10.1999 because she was not residing on 22.10.1999 at her in-laws house nor there was any occasion for in-laws to assault her or oust her from the house. 6. In that view of the matter, the judgment passed by the appellate court is proper, well-considered and required no interference in this court in revision. 7. After hearing both the parties and after going through the records, it appears that it is a case of torture or assault, which is made out against the accused O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. While on the basis of the same evidence, the learned trial court found both the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 guilty for the offence under Sections 498A/34, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Now it has to be seen as to whether finding arrived at by the appellate court is perverse or not. 2 and 3. While on the basis of the same evidence, the learned trial court found both the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 guilty for the offence under Sections 498A/34, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Now it has to be seen as to whether finding arrived at by the appellate court is perverse or not. The two main points for considering the same are: I. As to whether any occurrence took place on 22.10.1999 as alleged by the complainant or not and whether she was present in her in-laws house i.e the house of accused O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 on 22.10.1999 or not. II. As to whether the delay in filing the F.I.R. has been properly explained by the complainant or not. These are the two grounds on which the appellate court has acquitted O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 9. From the perusal of the evidences as recorded by the court below, it appears that in order to prove the charges in the trial court the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. 10. P.W.1, Ram Chandra Singh is the father of the complainant, Manju Singh. P.W.2, Ram Nandi Devi is the mother of the complainant. P.W.3, Sudha Thakur is the elder sister of the complainant. P.W.4, Shivadhari Tiwari is the mediator of the marriage. P.W.5, Yamuna Pandey is the friend of the father of the complainant. P.W.6, Manju Singh is the complainant. P.W.7, Bihari Yadav is hostile witness. P.W.8, Subodh Kumar is the investigating officer of the case. P.W.9, Pradeep Kumar Nayak is the hostile witness. P.W.10, Naresh Kumar is another hostile witness and P.W.11, Dr. Diwakar Hansda is the doctor who examined the complainant. 11. The important witnesses are to consider, as to whether any occurrence of assault and torture took place on 22.10.1999 or not. The relevant witnesses to be considered are the complainant herself i.e. P.W.6, Manju Singh, P.W.1, Ram Chandra Singh, her father, P.W.5, Yamuna Pandey, who had taken the complainant to the police station on the date of occurrence and the doctor P.W.11, Dr. Diwakar Hansda. 12. P.W.6, Manju Singh in her evidence stated in Examination-in-Chief that on 22.10.1999 that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and ‘Devar’ started abusing her for not fulfilling the demand of car from her and her father. They all became violent and started assaulting her. Diwakar Hansda. 12. P.W.6, Manju Singh in her evidence stated in Examination-in-Chief that on 22.10.1999 that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and ‘Devar’ started abusing her for not fulfilling the demand of car from her and her father. They all became violent and started assaulting her. Her husband snatched her seven-month old child and threw her on the ground. Thereafter, he assaulted her with fist and feet on her stomach and body. Her mother-in-law snatched her hair and put her in a tempo and asked the tempo driver to take her to her mother’s house. Then, she asked the tempo driver to take her to the police station, but he was not ready to take her to police station, since he was knowing her in-laws. Then, suddenly, she saw Yamuna Pandey in the road, who is the friend of her father. Then, she went with him to his house and from his house she went to the police station where she stated about the occurrence. Then, the Daroga (I.O.) went with her to her in-laws’ house and brought her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and husband to the police station. Since, her condition was bad, she was sent to Telco hospital for treatment. From where, she was sent to M.G.M. hospital, where she was treated. She also stated that on 21.10.1999, one day before the occurrence, her husband talked with her father on telephone. He abused and threatened her father that if he does not gives car, then his daughter will be killed. After hearing that her father got heart attack and he was taken to Telco hospital for treatment. She stated that thus her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law assaulted her and threw her on 22.10.1999 when she was in her ‘’sasural’’. She stated that she went to her ‘’sasural’’ on 21.10.1999, in the evening with her father. Her father brought her to her ‘’sasural’’ from tempo and then went to Gobindpur to the house of her sister. She has injuries on her whole body and she was bleeding from her tooth. 13. Now, it has to be seen as to whether this statement of her was granted by the other witnesses or not. According to her statement, she was taken on 21.10.1999 by her father in the evening to the house of her husband. Now let’s consider the evidence of his father (P.W.1). 13. Now, it has to be seen as to whether this statement of her was granted by the other witnesses or not. According to her statement, she was taken on 21.10.1999 by her father in the evening to the house of her husband. Now let’s consider the evidence of his father (P.W.1). P.W.1 stated in the court that her daughter Manju Singh was married with the accused Avinash Singh on 16.02.1997 and she stayed with her husband for 10-12 days. Thereafter, since her in-laws started torturing her for dowry. Then, she came back in August 1998 to her house and since then she was residing with him. He stated that on 21.10.1998 her ‘dewar’ namely Kiran Kumar came outside and telephoned her to come to her house and then she went to the house of husband and then she was assaulted. His grand daughter (natini) was thrown by the husband. She was coming on a tampo to the house after assault when she saw Yamuna Pandey. He assaulted on 21.10.1998. He had received a call for his ‘’samdhi’’. But in the meanwhile his son-in-law began abusing him due to which he got heart attack and fell down. But the same time Professor A.K. Ojha and L.B. Tiwari took him to Telco Hospital. He was discharged on 28.10.1998 and when he came to his house then the Officer-in-Charge of Gobindpur came to his house at 9 P.M. in the night and brought the statement of her daughter which was registered in the F.I.R. 14. The third witness on this date of occurrence and point of assault is Yamuna Pandey (P.W.5). He has stated that on 22.10.1999, the complainant, Manju Singh came to his house at 8 A.M. Her condition was not good. She was weeping then he gave her a glass of water and asked her to sit coolly. Then he went to the house of Jitendra Singh and his son rebuked him then he came back to his house and asked Manju Sigh to go to the police station. Then, Manju Singh gone to police station and the ‘thanedar’ called him and asked him to make peace between the two families and stated that the matter will be settled in ten days. 15. Thus, the evidences of the three main witnesses on the date of occurrence and assault are contradictory to one another. Then, Manju Singh gone to police station and the ‘thanedar’ called him and asked him to make peace between the two families and stated that the matter will be settled in ten days. 15. Thus, the evidences of the three main witnesses on the date of occurrence and assault are contradictory to one another. While P.W.6, the complainant stated that she was staying on her in-laws house on 22.10.1999, when the occurrence took place as she had came with her father on the previous evening i.e. on 21.10.1999. On the request of her brother-in-law from there, her father had left for the house of her sister to Gobindpur but the father P.W.1 says a different story. He stated that on 21.10.1998, when he was talking to his ‘’samdhi’’ then his son-in-law began abusing him due to which he got heart attack and fell down. But at the same time Professor A.K. Ojha and L.B. Tiwari took him to Telco Hospital. He stated that he was admitted in the hospital on 21.10.1999 itself and as such there is no occasion for him to take his daughter to her in-laws on 21.10.1999 and he does not say that he had taken Manju to her in-laws house on 21.10.1999. Moreover, he stated in his cross-examination at Para 3 that her daughter lodged the F.I.R. on 22.10.1999 itself but no F.I.R. was registered on 22.10.1999. 16. Fourthly, in the statement of the complainant, Manju Singh she stated that when she was sent on a tempo to her house by her in-laws, after the assault, then the tempo driver refused to took her to .the police station and suddenly she saw her father’s friend Yamuna Pandey. Then, Yamuna Pandey took her to his house and from there she went to the police station. But, when Yamuna Pandey was examined as P.W.5, he stated that he never met her on road while she was coming on a tempo. He stated that on 22.10.1999 Manju Singh came to his house at 8 A.M. and stated that she has been assaulted by her in-laws. She was weeping then he gave her a glass of water and asked her to sit coolly. Then he went to the house of Jitendra Singh and his son rebuked him then he came back to his house and asked Manju Sigh to go to the police station alone. 17. She was weeping then he gave her a glass of water and asked her to sit coolly. Then he went to the house of Jitendra Singh and his son rebuked him then he came back to his house and asked Manju Sigh to go to the police station alone. 17. The third witnesses to verify the statement of the complainant on the point of occurrence and assault is the doctor P.W.11, Dr. Dewakar Hansda, since the complainant P.W.6 stated that she had injuries on her body and she was bleeding from her tooth and mouth. The doctor, P.W.11 stated in the court that he examined Manju Kumari on 22.10.1999 at Telco Buksa hospital and Periferal Dispensary and asked her to get X-Ray done on her, but till 2.11.1999 nobody came to him with X-Ray plate and so no injury report was made by him. He also stated in his cross examination that he was not knowing Manju Singh before she had came to her own. There was no external injury on her body and hence he asked her to get X-Ray done since there is no X-Ray Department in his dispensary. He had never sent her to M.G.M. hospital for her X-Ray. 18. Thus, I find from the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses that the complainant story, as given by her, in her statement when she was examined as P.W.6 and same has not been corroborated by her own witnesses. As per her father, his daughter was residing of her father’s house till the date of occurrence i.e. on 22.10.1999. She stated that on 22.10.1999 as per the telephonic call of her brother-in-law, her father took her to the husband’s house and left her outside and went to sister’s house, but her father stated that on 21.10.1998, due to telephonic call from her husband he got heart attack and was admitted in hospital on 21.10.1999 itself. So there was no one to accompany her to her in-laws house. She stated that on the way she met with the witness Yamuna Pandey, who took her to his house, but P.W.5, Yamuna Pandey, stated that Manju Singh herself came to his house on 22.10.1999. She stated that she had several injuries on her body caused by her in-laws assault, but P.W.11, the doctor, as discussed above found .no external injuries on the person of Manju Singh. She stated that she had several injuries on her body caused by her in-laws assault, but P.W.11, the doctor, as discussed above found .no external injuries on the person of Manju Singh. Even her sister was examined in the court as P.W.3, Sudha Thakur did not corroborate her. She stated in her cross examination, at Para 2, that she gave her statement to the police on 28.10.1999, when she had gone to her house to see her father. Although she stated that Manju Singh was assaulted by her in-laws on 22.10.1999, but she never went to see her nor made any complaint to the police. She stated that on 22.10.1999 before going to the hospital to see her father she has gone to the house, where she met the Manju Singh and mother, but still no information was lodged to the police. She stated that there was no occasion to lodge any F.I.R. 19. Thus, after discussing all the aforesaid evidences, I find that learned appellate court, while discussing all these evidences, has rightly came to a finding that no occurrence took place on 22.10.1999 and the entire story as given by the complainant with regard to the occurrence on 22.10.1999 is not supported and corroborated by any witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts. He has also very correctly found as discussed above that there is no explanation for filing the F.I.R. on 28.10.1999 with regard to the occurrence which took place on 22.10.1999. 20. I find that there is no perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court rather the learned trial court had convicted the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, in spite of so many contradictions in the statement of witnesses. 21. I find no merit in this revision application. The same is accordingly dismissed.