Crl. Rev. No. 2861 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 2861 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 25, 2010 Meenakshi .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) The petition filed at the instance of the complainant of FIR No. 101 dated 08.09.2001 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, P.S. Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar is directed against order dated 10.06.2009 vide which respondent Arun Kumar, the husband has been acquitted. The acquittal has been recorded on the ground that no independent witness had been examined. PW-3 Bhupinder Singh, who treated the petitioner/complainant Meenakshi as his sister and was an interested witness had stated that the accused demanded Rs. 2 lacs in his presence, however, there was no such mention in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 or in complaint Ex. PB and, therefore, on the material aspects of the case, the witnesses had given contradictory statements. The Court has also taken into account that the defence has examined Gian Singh and Crl. Rev. No. 2861 of 2009 2 Sanjay Kumar who lived near the house of the couple and have stated that at no point in time was the demand of dowry raised and further that the petitioner had not been maltreated. The Trial Court has also taken into account the first version given out on behalf of the complainant i.e. a Daily Diary Report authored by the complainant. In the said report, no such allegations as made in the FIR were made. Under these circumstances, it has been held that there was no evidence or material to indicate commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC. So far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, the Trial Court has recorded acquittal on the ground that the complainant had not stated anything in regard to the ingredients of the Section. There was no material to show that specific articles were entrusted to the accused or the same were demanded back. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able draw the attention of the Court towards any material/evidence that has not been considered or any material/evidence that has been perversely read. Learned counsel wants this Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion in revisional jurisdiction. In such circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Petition dismissed. 25.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE