IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1409 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Jatinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Panag, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondents, which was sent to Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. As per the allegation, Jatinder Kaur was married to Subhash Chander on 17.04.1994. On demand of parents of the complainant, dowry articles worth ` 5.50 lacs were handed over. It is stated that the said dowry articles were misappropriated and, accordingly, this complaint was filed. On the basis of evidence led, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents, which the petitioner had challenged through the present petition. What has weighed with the trial Court to record acquittal is the evidence given by the complainant, who was examined as PW-4. It is admitted by PW-4 during her cross examination that on very next day of her marriage dispute arose between her husband and her parents. PW-4 has also conceded that her parents had not disclosed that her leg had got burnt and that she was taking medicine and treatment for depression from Dr. Narang. Criminal Revision No. 1409 of 2010 -2- She conceded that electric shocks were given to her by Dr. Narang on account of this. She had hardly lived in her matrimonial home for a month or quarter. There are some other contradictions pointed out in the version of the complainant to highlight the mental condition of complainant. The evidence led by the other witnesses, in my view, was rightly not given much weightage as they have interest to support the prosecution whereas the complainant apparently came out with the true state of affairs either because of her innocence or because of her mental condition. The Court also found that prosecution evidence was silent about the date, month and year of the dowry demands and so also the maltreatment, which the complainant was made to suffer. Reference is made to the case law in support of the view that the trial Court has ultimately taken. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Even if some other view is possible, it would not be appropriate to substitute the same while exercising revisional jurisdiction. No case for interference, thus, in this order of acquittal is made out. Dismissed. November 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE