IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No.1981 of 2011 Date of Decision: 17.10.2011 Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Counsel contends that evidence in regard to dowry and beatings was led before the trial Court. Both the Courts have appreciated the evidence and have taken a view that the demand of dowry as well as aspect of beatings are sufficiently established. Though the Court, while interfering in the appeal or revision from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Courts, is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and can come to an independent conclusions, but this is not to be done as a matter of routine as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(10) SCC 461. In this case, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if from the same set of evidence, two views are possible and if the trial Court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Crl. Rev. No.1981 of 2011 -2- the view taken by the trial Court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial Court is not based on any material on record, it should not interfere merely because another conclusion is possible to reverse the finding of the trial Court. In the present case, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the trial Court. Each and every circumstance relied upon by the prosecution has been taken into consideration and discussed by the trial Court. There is no possibility of even taking any other view than the one taken by the trial Court. Even if that was possible, as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this cannot be done as no perversity is seen and rather the view taken by the trial Court is reasonable. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out in the order of acquittal returned by the trial Court. The present revision is, accordingly, dismissed. October 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE