IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1117 of 2009. Date of Decision : August 10, 2009. Meena Kumari. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Balbir Singh and others. ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sat Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 11.02.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the respondents-accused have been acquitted by the Court on an appeal preferred by them. Counsel for the petitioner contends that evidence on record has come that demand of dowry had been there by the respondents-accused all through consistently, when the marriage was in existence. He submits that Rashpal Singh had deposed before the Trial Court to the effect that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was taken by father of the girl namely Mr. Surjit Singh from him to give it to the husband of the prosecutrix namely Balbir Singh. He further contends that with regard to the evidence of having forcible abortion of the petitioner, the same is clearly culled out from her statement, which she had made before the Trial Court. The medical evidence, which was produced by the prosecution, has been disbelieved Criminal Revision No. 1117 of 2009. because the doctor has failed to maintain the records and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be faulted with. On this basis, he submits that the acquittal of the respondents-accused is not in accordance with law, therefore, the judgment dated 11.02.2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It has been admitted by counsel for the petitioner during arguments that father of the petitioner had deposed before the Trial court that he had handed over the money to the respondent No. 1-accused, but he has failed to state that the said amount was taken from Shri Rashpal Singh. This fact has also not come in the F.I.R. and, therefore, the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and put it under the cloud of doubt. As regards the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the prosecutrix was clear and specific that his brother-in-law (Jeth) namely Deep Chand and her sister-in-law (Jethani) namely Kiran Bala had taken her to Chawla Nursing Home, Mohali, for getting her forcibly aborted and, therefore, the offence was proved against the respondents- accused, again cannot be accepted because medical evidence, which has been produced before the Trial Court, does not clearly show that it was the petitioner herself who was admitted in the nursing home as neither the address nor husband's name had been mentioned in the record. Further as per allegations in the complaint, the petitioner was forcibly aborted in July, 1996, whereas the medical evidence which has come on record only shows that one Meena was admitted at Chawla Nursing Home on 30.05.1997 for medical termination of pregnancy. That being so, the allegations do not -2- Criminal Revision No. 1117 of 2009. corroborate with the records, which have been produced by the owner of Chawla Nursing Home, merely because the assertion of counsel for the petitioner that the proper medical records should not go against her, cannot be taken to be correct in view of the above factual position. Further it is the prosecution who has to prove beyond doubt the allegations which have been made against the respondents-accused. The prosecution having failed on that, no benefit can be taken by the prosecution for non maintenance of records by the Nursing Home. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 10, 2009. sjks. -3-