JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-complainant has laid this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.09.2003 passed in criminal appeal no. 84/2003 by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the accused-respondents and acquitted them for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this revision petition, are that petitioner-complainant submitted an application before Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar on 27.06.1993 alleging therein that after entering into matrimony with second respondent-Satnam Singh, she was in-treated by the second respondent and his other relatives for bringing inadequate dowry. It is also alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage, her parents gave jewellery, furniture and all the domestic articles as dowry but the same did not satisfy the greed of his husband and in-laws. As per the version of the complainant, second respondent was fully involved in harassing her on many occasions and others also instigated him to pressurise her for bringing dowry. 3. After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondents for offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 4. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondents. The prosecution case is supported by 8 witnesses including the petitioner-complainant. After recording statements of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 08.12.2000 held all the accused-respondents guilty for offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC but benefit of probation was extended to lady, accused-respondent No.4, Harpal Kour, mother-in-law of the petitioner. Learned trial Court handed down sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment to all the accused-respondents barring respondent No.4 for offence under Section 498A IPC and also saddled them with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, it was further ordered that accused-respondents shall undergo for simple imprisonment of 15 days. In relation to offence under Section 406 IPC other than fourth respondent all the accused-respondents were sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-In default of payment of fine, it was further ordered by the learned trial Court that accused-respondents would suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 6. In relation to offence under Section 406 IPC other than fourth respondent all the accused-respondents were sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-In default of payment of fine, it was further ordered by the learned trial Court that accused-respondents would suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, all the respondents preferred appeal before the learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court made sincere endeavour to appreciate and analyse the entire prosecution evidence theadbare. Upon a close scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1-Jagraj Singh, P.W.2-Mahanga Singh, P.W.6-Sarwan Singh, P.W.5-Gurbachan Singh, learned appellate Court found that there is no positive assertion by any of these witnesses that the dowry items were entrusted to the accused-respondents which is essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 406 IPC. That apart, learned appellate Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that witness-P.W.5 and P.W.6 have retracted from their earlier version by turning hostile. While discussing the evidence of P.W.4- Hardev Singh, the appellate Court has found that he has no where stated that the dowry items were demanded from the accused-persons. It is in that background, learned appellate Court found that there is no semblance of proof about commission of offence under Section 406 IPC and the learned trial Court has seriously erred in indicting the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offence. 7. Adverting to offence under Section 498A IPC, learned appellate Court, while noticing serious discrepancies in the statements of P.W.3-Gurmeet Singh, P.W.4-Hardev Singh, has found that statements of these witnesses are not inspiring confidence to constitute offence under Section 498A IPC. Learned appellate Court has also recorded a definite finding that in her deposition petitioner-complainant and P.W.4 have not been able to prove any specific demand of the accused-respondents. That apart, learned appellate Court has also recorded its definite finding that witnesses have projected an embellished version from what has been stated in the complainant itself is sufficient to discredit their testimony for bringing home guilt against the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offence. With this finding, learned appellate Court finally concluded that accused-respondents are entitled for benefit of doubt, vis-a-vis, offence under Section 498A IPC. All these findings eventually facilitated acquittal of the accused-respondents. It is in that background, petitioner-complainant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. With this finding, learned appellate Court finally concluded that accused-respondents are entitled for benefit of doubt, vis-a-vis, offence under Section 498A IPC. All these findings eventually facilitated acquittal of the accused-respondents. It is in that background, petitioner-complainant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court as well as judgment of the learned trial Court and also thoroughly scanned the record of the case. 9. Upon close scrutiny of the impugned judgment in conjunction with the evidence and other materials available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned appellate Court are based on sound reasonings and cannot be categorised as perverse or dehors the sound legal principles. The legal position is no more res-integra that scope of judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very much limited and the endeavour of the Court is to see whether the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence or not. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, Court may scrutinize the appellate judgment as to whether it is based on misreading of evidence or eschewing the material evidence. 10. In totality, even upon delving deep into the matter, I have not been able to find any infirmity, much less legal infirmity within the four corners of Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. warranting interference with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. 11. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. *******