JUDGMENT 1. - Heard 2. The learned trial court, after detailed discussion of evidence, acquitted the respondent-accused Ramesh Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 494 IPC and the respondents-accused Smt. Tulsi Devi and Ganesh Lal were acquitted from the offences under Sections 498A and 494/109 IPC. Thereafter, against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.06.2009, the State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.30/2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur (Pali) and the complainant Shanti Devi also preferred appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.4/2011. Both these appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 29.01.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur (Pali) and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 1/1996, was affirmed. Now, in the third round of litigation, complainant Smt. Shanti Devi has preferred this revision petition assailing both the impugned judgments. 3. The learned appellate court, after hearing both the parties, observed as under:- " xokg 'kkfUr nsoh Lo;a us vius c;kuksa esa bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us 'kknh ls ,d o"kZ rd mls fdlh rjg ls rax ijs'kku ugha fd;kA bl izdkj ;fn vfHk;qDrx.k dh ea'kk 'kkfUrnsoh dks ngst ds fy;s rax isj'kku djus dh gksrh rks fookg ds i'pkr~ gh ngst dh ekax dks ysdj ifjokfn;k dks rax ijs'kku djrsA vihyk.V ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g dguk gS fd x.ks'kyky ds }kjk izn'kZ ih&3 rgjhj fy[kh x;h gS ftlesa mlus viuh yM+dh dk ukrk fookg vfHk;qDr&jes'k ds lkFk fd;k tkuk crk;k gS bl vk/kkj ij /kkjk 494 Hkk0na0la0 dk vijk/k izekf.kr gS] fo}ku eftLV~sV us bl ckr ij xkSj ugha fd;k gSA esjs fouez fopkj esa f}rh; fookg dk vijk/k izekf.kr djus ds fy, vfHk;kstu i{k dks viuh iq[rk lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr djuk gksxk fd vfHk;qDr us fgUnq jhfr fjokt ls lIrinh ds }kjk nwljk fookg fd;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa dksbZ iq[rk lk[; i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gSA " 4. The learned appellate, while observing as above, dismissed the appeal of the State as well as the complainant and since there are concurrent finding of acquittal of both the court below, therefore, I do not deem it proper to interfere with the same while exercising revisional jurisdiction.The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit.Revision Dismissed. *******