JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Present revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 04.12.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XIV, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned S.D.J.M Dhanbad in Complaint Case no. 1211 of 2005 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs. 3,000/-as default stipulation has been upheld and confirmed by the appellate court. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that a complaint case was instituted by Mazada Khatoon, wife of the present petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A), 341, 323, 313, 314, 406, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal code stating interalia the she was married with the present petition Riyaz Ansari as per Muslim ritual and customs on 03.06.2004. At the time of marriage her parents had gifted Rs. 25,000/-cash along with other house hold articles and ornaments. After marriage she came to her matrimonial home and started residing there but her husband and in-laws again raised demand of Rs. 25,000/-as additional dowry for starting some business. Due to non-fulfillment of the same by her parents she was subjected to cruelty and torture coupled with physical assault. She was forced to do labour work like carrying bricks and stone chips, etc due to which she became ill but was not provided proper medical facility and food. Her brother-in-law (dewar) finding her alone in the house attempted to commit rape with her on 01.02.205 but her husband did not take any cognizance of the above incident. Complainant came to know later on from the neighbor that she is the third wife of her present husband and in the months of July 2005 while she was carrying pregnancy of 2-3 months was forced to sign a blank sheet of paper thereafter she was dropped to her paternal home on 02.07.2005. Her jewelries and other housel hold articles worth Rs. 22,000/-were also seized by her husband and in-laws. Finding no way she lodged the complaint case for the offence under Section 341, 323, 313, 314, 406, 354, 498(A) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. Her jewelries and other housel hold articles worth Rs. 22,000/-were also seized by her husband and in-laws. Finding no way she lodged the complaint case for the offence under Section 341, 323, 313, 314, 406, 354, 498(A) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. Initially the trial was conducted against altogether four accused persons including present petitioner who faced trial for the charges under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. After conclusion of trial considering the evidence available on record the trial court held the present petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code only and other co-accused persons were given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 4. It appears that a Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2009 was preferred by the present petitioner against his Judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which was heard and decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIV Dhanbad who reappraised the evidence of three witnesses examined by complainant and came to conclusion that there is consistent evidence of witnesses that there was Rs.25,000/-additional demand of dowry by the petitioner and the complainant was also forced to work as a labourer due to which she fell ill and she was also not provided medical treatment and nutritious diet, rather she was dropped at her parental home by her husband. Present petitioner denied the marriage in the course of his examination which also adds in the instance of cruelty against the complainant. It was also found that one defence witness Ishaque Ansari was examined who has made reference of talak between complainant and her husband on 12.12.2004 without any documentary evidence. Accordingly, the learned appellate court find no material to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant husband and dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to substantiate the charge leveled against the petitioner only three witnesses were examined by the complainant and no documentary evidence was adduced rather a photocopy of talaknama was produced by the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to substantiate the charge leveled against the petitioner only three witnesses were examined by the complainant and no documentary evidence was adduced rather a photocopy of talaknama was produced by the complainant. The learned trial court as well as appellate court has miserably failed to property appreciate the evidence available on record which clearly indicated that just after three months of the marriage when the complainant came to know that it was 3rd marriage of the petitioner with her she started quarreling with petitioner along with all the in-law family members and was searching one pretext or other for separation with the present petitioner. The allegation of indulging in forced labour upon complainant causing deterioration of her health and not in supply of medical facilities and proper food has not been substantiated through any cogent and reliable evidence rather there appears to bare allegation devoid of any merits. There are materials contradiction in the testimony of witnesses examined by claimants and also in her own evidence which has been illegally made basis for conviction. It is obvious that charge under Section 4 of the DP Act has been found to be not true and the learned trial court recorded acquittal of all accused on above charge. On the basis of same evidence three other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court which was also confirmed by the learned appellate court and there is no iota of evidence that all the ingredients of offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. has been satisfied only against the husband/ present petitioner. Simply the petitioner being husband is more responsible, is not sufficient to convict the petitioner and curtain his personal liberty. Thus, the entire judgment of both the court below is based upon non-consideration of materials evidence in proper perspective and conviction and sentence of appellant is not justified under law, hence, impugned order is fit to be set aside allowing this revision. 6. On the other hand, learned APP as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by the learned trial court and the appellate court. 6. On the other hand, learned APP as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by the learned trial court and the appellate court. It is further submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any glaring infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by way of this revision which is devoid of any merits and fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the records and judgments passed by learned trial court and the appellate court in the light of contention raised on behalf of both the parties. It appears that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have meticulously examined the oral testimony of witnesses examined by complainant as well as by defence. So far the charge under Section 498(A) I.P.C. is concerned the learned trial court disbelieved the factum of so called talak and came to conclusion that complainant is a legally wedded wife of accused Riyaz Ansari and still relation of husband and wife subsist. Inspite of defence of talak the accused husband has also taken defence of no marriage had taken place with the complainant which is certainly a kind of mental cruelty committed with a legally wedded wife. It is also proved by complainant that her husband was already married earlier with two women who were divorced and it was third marriage of Riyaz Ansari with her. Apart from this the complainant has specifically proved that she was not being provided the medical treatment, proper food and was assaulted by her husband and ultimately left to her parental home, which certainly constitute the act of cruelty at the hands of husband Riyaz Ansari. Accordingly, petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 498A Cr.p.c. 8. It appears that the appellate court has also reappraised and analyzed again the evidence of witnesses examined by complainant and the defence and concurred with the findings of guilt of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and also the sentence awarded to him to be just and proper calling for any interference. 9. It appears that the appellate court has also reappraised and analyzed again the evidence of witnesses examined by complainant and the defence and concurred with the findings of guilt of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and also the sentence awarded to him to be just and proper calling for any interference. 9. In the case of State Of Orissa versus Nakula Sahu & Ors reported in (1979) 1 SCC 328 , it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with concurrent finding recorded by the trial court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the trial court or the Sessions Judge. 10. In the case of State of Kerala versus Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452 it was held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tentamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam reported in (2009) 13 SCC 330 while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of evidence of higher court in criminal revision observe in para nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under. 9. So far as issue no. 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt. Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. It's function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. It is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. It's function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating the evidence. 10. This court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure question of facts and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. “8. ….The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from the facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure. 11. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two views are possible on the question of fact, we, being the fourth court, should not interfere even though we may exercise discretion differently had the case come before us initially. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned nor the quantum of punishment on this count is required to be interfered with. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion and settled legal proposition, I don’t find any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC even extending benefit of doubt to other family members. There are independent evidence discussed by both the court below against the present petitioner for fastening the liability for the aforesaid offence and adequately sentencing him. As such there is no scope of any interference by way this revision in the impugned Judgment and order, hence, this revision is dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of trial court be sent back for information and needful.