IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.315 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 20, 2010 POOJA RANI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AK Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed against judgment dated 31.7.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala. Respondents No.2 to 6 were charged for commission of offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 328, Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.5-Sukhdev Singh was charged for commission of offence under Section 354, Indian Penal Code also. Respondents No.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges. The reasons, for which the acquittal has been recorded, are contained in paras 31 and 32 of the impugned judgment. The relevant paras of the impugned judgment are extracted herebelow:- “31. PW1 Gurbachan Singh has deposed that he has not brought the receipt regarding the payment of ornaments which Criminal Rev. No.315 of 2010 2 were prepared for Pooja Rani. Surinder Singh PW2 has deposed in his statement that compromise was effected in the Women Cell on 15.1.01 and after that Avtar Singh and Pooja Rani used to reside at Badungar separately from their other family members. He has further deposed that there is no document regarding the admission of Pooja Rani in Mata Kaushalya Hospital, Patiala. There is no prescription slip regarding treatment of Pooja Rani. There is no record regarding the purchase of dowry articles with him. Navdeep Kaur is married. He has deposed that Avtar Singh and Pooja Rani were living separately from their other family members and the marriage was simple. PW3 Dilbag Singh has deposed in his statement that in view of the compromise Pooja Rani and Avtar Singh started living separately from their other family members in Badungar in the house of Ranjit Singh. PW4 Pooja Rani has deposed in her statement that no dowry list was submitted by Avtar Singh etc. No scooter was ever demanded by Avtar Singh in writing or any person of the family. The marriage was simple. There is no receipt regarding the articles of this case and she has further deposed that she did not want to go to her matrimonial house and to reside with Avtar Singh and she only wants maintenance. She was never admitted in the hospital nor she reported the matter to the police. PW7 Ranjit Singh has deposed that Avtar Singh and Pooja Rani stayed in his house for about three months on rent in the year 2001 peacefully with each other. PW8 Bhupinder Singh Virk SP(D) has deposed in his statement that no medical certificate relating to the examination of Pooja Rani was put up before him and he has given opinion on the basis of written statements of the complainant party as the accused did not join the proceedings. 32. All this evidence clearly shows that there was no demand of any dowry on the part of the accused. No medical Criminal Rev. No.315 of 2010 3 evidence is there. No police report is there regarding the administering of some intoxication to Pooja Rani. There is no proof that any dowry articles were given. When Pooja Rani and Avtar Singh were living separately from their other family members, then there is no question of maltreatment and demand of dowry on the part of the accused. The accused cannot be said to be beneficiaries of the said alleged demand because Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh accused are the father in law and mother in law, Navdeep Kaur accused is the sister in law while Daljit Singh accused is the brother of the husband of Pooja Rani. There is no proof of entrustment of the dowry articles to the accused. ........” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the court towards any relevant piece of evidence which has not been considered or any material piece of evidence, which has not been relied upon or referred to. In view of the findings recorded, as extracted above, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. No illegality has been pointed out in the findings recorded, on appreciation of evidence, in the extracted portion above. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. April 20, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?