Concurrent acquittal in cruelty and dowry harassment stands where the evidence-based view is reasonably possible, not perverse.

In criminal revision against concurrent acquittal for cruelty and dowry harassment, interference is justified only if the findings are perverse, legally unsustainable, or based on an unreasonable appreciation of evidence. The revisional court does not sit as a second appellate court and cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. Here, the trial court and appellate court found the dowry-demand and cruelty allegations vague, unsupported by reliable evidence, and marked by material discrepancies in the complainant's version. As the acquittal rested on a reasonably possible view of the record, no patent infirmity or perversity was shown, and the revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent acquittal of the respondent for offences relating to cruelty and dowry harassment suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference in criminal revision.

Analysis: In an appeal or revision against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is strengthened by the acquittal and interference is justified only where the findings are perverse or based on an unreasonable appreciation of evidence. The revisional court does not act as a second appellate court and cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. On the record, the trial court and the appellate court had examined the material and found the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty to be vague and unsupported by reliable evidence, while also noticing material discrepancies in the complainant's version. The view taken by the courts below was a possible view and no patent infirmity or perversity was shown.

Conclusion: The concurrent acquittal did not call for interference and the petition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal of the respondent was upheld, and the revision failed for want of perversity or any legal ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, a concurrent acquittal can be interfered with only if the impugned findings are perverse or otherwise legally unsustainable, and not when the trial court's view is a reasonably possible view on the evidence.

---