Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2005 Date of Decision: 10.03.2010 Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Guldip Singh daughter of Kuldip Singh now resident of Mahmadpur Rohi, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Guldip son of Garib Dass, aged 32 years; 2. Smt. Nandi wd/o Garib Dass, aged 65 years; 3. Ranjit son of Garib Dass, aged 45 years; 4. Bakhshish Singh son of Garib Dass, aged 40 years; all residents of village Aharwan, District Fatehabad. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. None for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement dated 13.01.05, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, vide which, it acquitted the accused (now respondents). 2. Bimla Devi, was married, to Guldip Singh son of Garib Dass, resident of Aharwan, as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2005 2 Sufficient dowry, including 4 tolas of gold, 5 gms silver, utensils, bedding worth Rs. 70,000/-, had been given, at the time of marriage of Bimla Devi with Guldip Singh. Guldip Singh, being drunkard, used to beat Bimla Devi, and threaten to burn her. The complainant, brought a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each twice, and, gave the same to her husband. Bimla Devi, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. Ultimately, she was beaten and thrown out of her bridal house. When the dowry articles were demanded back, the accused, failed to return the same. On the basis of the statement of Bimla Devi, FIR, was registered. 3. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, acquitted the accused/respondents, on the ground, that entrustment of specific articles of dowry and misappropriation thereof, was not proved. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, at the very outset submitted that, he was only pressing the petition, against Guldip Singh, and not against the other respondents. He further submitted that, this Court has very limited scope, in its revisional jurisdiction, to interfere with the judgement of acquittal. It cannot reappraise and reappreciate the evidence, yet, if it comes to the conclusion, that there was complete misreading of evidence or that some material pieces of evidence, had been left out of consideration, then certainly, the Court, can interfere Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2005 3 with the judgement of acquittal and direct the trial Court, to reconsider the matter. He further submitted that Bimla Devi, when appeared, as PW1, in clear-cut terms stated, that gold ornaments, silver ornaments, utensils, bedding, and clothes, valued at about Rs. 70,000/-, were entrusted, to Guldip Singh and other accused. He further submitted that, Bimla Devi, also stated, that she used to be beaten, by Guldip Singh, as he was drunkard. He further submitted that, Bimla Devi, also stated that the jewellery, which was with her, was forcibly taken away, by Guldip Singh, before she was thrown out of her bridal house. He further submitted that the Court below, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that there was no evidence, regarding the entrustment of specific articles of dowry, to Guldip Singh, husband of the complainant, and misappropriation of the same, as also, that she was not subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of more dowry. He further submitted that the judgement of acquittal, is liable to be set aside, and the matter is required to be sent to the trial Court for reconsideration. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, qua Guldip Singh, accused/respondent, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Bimla Devi, complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated with regard to the entrustment of specific articles of dowry worth Rs. 70,000/- to Guldip Singh, her husband. She also, in categorical terms, stated that, she was beaten, from time to time, in connection with Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2005 4 the demand of dowry. It was also, in clear-cut terms stated, by her, that when she was thrown out of her bridal house, her jewellery, was forcibly taken away, by Guldip Singh. The articles of dowry, are still, in the house of Guldip Singh, and the same, have not been returned, and, thus, the same were misappropriated. In view of the statement of Bimla Devi, the judgement of acquittal, qua Guldip Singh, is liable to be set aside, and, the case, is liable to be sent back, to the trial Court for reconsideration. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted, as indicated above. The judgement of acquittal, qua Guldip Singh, is set aside. The case, is sent back, to the trial Court, for reconsideration of the evidence and passing a fresh judgement, also keeping in view the observations, made by this Court. 9. The revision-petition, against the remaining respondents, has not been pressed, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and the same, is, thus, dismissed, qua them. 10.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE