-1- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2001. Date of Decision: February 04, 2010. Chander Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Hawa Singh and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the accused-respondents. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.5.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, whereby Hawa Singh, Smt. Chhotuo, Ranbir Singh, Bimla and Rajbala were acquitted of the charge framed against them -2- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2001. under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Code and, accordingly, acquitted the accused, as mentioned above. The legal position as to the powers of this Court in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the law in this regard is very well settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 S.C 1788 held thus: “ It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.” In the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Madhya -3- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2001. Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1188, the Apex Court held: “ This Court has repeatedly held that although in an appeal against acquittal, the powers of the High Court in dealing with the case are as extensive as of the trial Court, but before reversing the acquittal, the High Court should bear in mind that the initial presumption of the innocence of the accused is in no way weakened, if not reinforced, by his acquittal at the trial, and further, the opinion of the trial Court which has the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, as to the value of their evidence should not be lightly discarded. Where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, and the trial Court has opted for one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on he ground that if it were in the position of the trial Court, it would have taken the alternative view and convicted the accused accordingly.” In the instant case, which was registered at the instance of complainant-petitioner Chander Singh (P.W.2), the allegations against the accused were that his (complainant's) -4- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2001. younger sister Krishna alias Munni was married with accused- respondent Ranbir Singh on 30.6.1998; that after the marriage Krishna alias Munni started living with her husband in village Lad; that Krishna alias Munni was being tortured by the accused on account of insufficiency of dowry; that in order to save the matrimonial life of Krishna, a scooter, television, grinder, sewing machine etc. and Rs.20,000/- in cash were given to Ranbir Singh; and that despite that the accused continued harassing Krishna. Ultimately, Krishna was turned out of her matrimonial house by the accused. In this case, the marriage of Smt.Krishna with accused-respondent Ranbir Singh had taken place on 30.6.1998. It has come in evidence that she went to her matrimonial house after her `Muklawa' ceremony which had taken place one year after marriage. According to Krishna alias Munni (P.W.4), the demand of dowry was made on the next day of her marriage. However, she did not disclose this fact to her parents. Chander Singh (P.W.2) and Bir Singh (P.W.7), who are brothers of Krishna, stated that after the marriage of Krishna with accused- respondent Ranbir Singh, she remained peacefully for some time with the accused. None of the witnesses of the prosecution stated as to which accused demanded dowry. No date, time and place of demand of dowry was given. Chandi Ram (P.W.1) pleaded complete ignorance and denied that any articles were recovered from the accused in his presence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. When the -5- Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2001. case of the prosecution against the accused itself was lacking credence, the evidence furnished by Chandi Ram (P.W.1) attains significance. In the presence of such evidence, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality nor it has caused miscarriage of justice. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 04, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE