JUDGMENT : Ambuj Nath, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner Bablu Mandal has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 08.09.2009, passed by Sri Chandra Prakash Asthana, learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No. 11/2009, whereby and wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2009, passed by Sri Ramjeet Yadav, learned S.D.J.M. Jamtara in P.C.R. Case No. 207/2003, holding the petitioner Bablu Mandal guilty of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a complaint petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 Tulsi Devi, alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner in the year 1995. After marriage, she resided in her matrimonial home and after one year of her marriage, she became pregnant. She was asked to abort her pregnancy and when the opposite party No. 2 refused, she was tortured. The accused persons started demanding Rs.15,000/- as dowry and to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. 4. In order to prove its case, the opposite party No. 2 has adduced oral evidence. 5. The petitioner has adduced both oral and documentary evidence, in support of his case to the effect that the opposite party No2 was suicidal in nature and he had filed an application for judicial separation. On the basis of the evidence available on record, both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 6. Mr. N.P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner was submitted that the complainant has made general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It was further submitted on the basis of same evidence the learned Trial Court has acquitted the in-laws of opposite party No. 2 and convicted the petitioner. 7. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner and as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to revisit the facts of this case. 8. 7. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner and as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to revisit the facts of this case. 8. From perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the opposite party No. 2, it transpires that the opposite party No. 2 Tulsi Devi has been examined as PW-2. She has stated that she was married to the petitioner. After marriage, there was demand of Rs.15,000/- and to enforce the demand, she was tortured. The accused persons also tried to terminate her pregnancy. 9. In her cross-examination, she has stated that prior to filing of the complaint case, she was in jail for eight days for causing burn injuries to her father-in-law. She has admitted that she has filed this case after being released on bail. She has also stated that she cannot give the specific date when her ornaments were snatched from her. 10. Abni Gorai PW-1 is the father of opposite party No. 2. He has stated that after marriage of his daughter with the petitioner, there was demand of Rs.15,000/- and to enforce the demand, his daughter was tortured. The accused persons have also pushed her in the well. He has stated that the petitioner and his family members also instituted a police case against them. In his cross-examination, he has further stated that he had not seen the petitioner, torturing his daughter. He has also admitted that his daughter had caused burn injuries to her father-in-law by throwing hot boiling rice on him. It is also admitted that her daughter had gone to jail in a case and after being released on bail, she has filed this case. He has further stated that apart from this case, another case for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been filed by his daughter, which is still pending. 11. Sadanand Mandal PW-3 and Duryodhan Mandal PW-4 have stated that the opposite party No. 2 was married to the petitioner and after marriage, there was demand of Rs.15,000/-. To enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. 12. 11. Sadanand Mandal PW-3 and Duryodhan Mandal PW-4 have stated that the opposite party No. 2 was married to the petitioner and after marriage, there was demand of Rs.15,000/-. To enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. 12. Sadanand Mandal PW-3 in his cross-examination has admitted that the opposite party No. 2 Tulsi Devi had gone to jail in a case for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law and subsequently, this case was filed after she was released on bail. He has stated that he had not seen the petitioner, torturing the opposite party No. 2. He has also stated that he cannot say the date and time when the ornaments of the opposite party No. 2 was snatched by the accused persons. 13. Duryodhan Mandal PW-4 has stated that his sister had gone to jail in a case for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law and after being released on bail, this case has been instituted. 14. Lakhu Mandal PW-5 did not appear for his examination after charge. Accordingly, his examination-in-chief will not be the leading evidence. 15. Petitioner has examined Bindeswari Rai DW-1. He has proved the plaint of Title Matrimonial Case No. 19/2002, which was marked as Exhibit-A. 16. From perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears that the application for judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner being Title Matrimonial Case No. 19/2002, in which, he has taken the plea that the opposite party No. 2 had attempted to commit suicide. Charge-sheet of G.R. Case No. 182/2003 has been filed, in which, opposite party No. 2 Tulsi Devi was an accused. This case was filed under Sections 307 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law. 17. From the aforesaid facts, it transpires that though the allegation levelled by opposite party No. 2 and her witnesses that after marriage, there was demand of Rs.15,000/- and to enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she had to leave her matrimonial home, but no specific date on which the demand was made has been mentioned. It is just general assertion against the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2 and her witnesses. It is just general assertion against the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2 and her witnesses. The witnesses of opposite party No. 2 have very fairly admitted that they had not seen the petitioner, torturing her. It further appears that opposite party No. 2 had gone to jail in a criminal case, in which, she had attempted to commit murder of her father-in-law by throwing hot boiling rice on him and after she was released on bail, the complaint case was filed. 18. Though both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner, but both the Courts have not considered the aforesaid facts that the opposite party No. 2 had not substantiated her allegation by means of cogent evidence. It has also not been considered that the present case was filed after she was released on bail in a case for attempting to commit murder of her father-in-law. 19. From the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the opposite party No. 2 has failed to prove its case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts. 20. This revision application is accordingly, allowed. 21. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. 22. Pending I.A. if any, also stands disposed of.