IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc No.433-MA of 2008 Dated of Decision:- January 13, 2009 State of Haryana Versus Rajesh Kumar and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present:- Sh. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the appellant. Sh. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondents. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. State has filed an appeal against the judgment dated 5.3.2008 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby he acquitted respondents/accused Rajesh Kumar son of Suresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar son of Mangal Ram and Santosh Devi wife of Suresh Kumar of the charges framed under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406, 201 IPC, Police Station City Narnaul in FIR No.218, dated 12.6.2007. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that dowry articles i.e. one Hero Honda motorcycle, one fridge, one colour T.V., one Godrej Almirah, furniture, utensils and other household articles were given at the time of marriage to Rajesh Kumar by the complainant. Respondents being greedy persons started demanding more dowry. They demanded a Maruti car. On not giving the Maruti car, they mistreating deceased Anita. Anita’s father, other relatives and friends tried to persuade the respondents not to Criminal Misc No.433-MA of 2008 demand any more dowry, but it did not have any effect on the respondents. Since dowry demand was not met, Anita was murdered and her dead-body was thrown in the well of Babu Lal Saini at Nizampur Road, Narnaul. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued, that the State had to prove its case, which it had failed to do so, as all the prosecution witnesses resiled. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. The prosecution examined Rajesh Kumar PW1, Siri Ram PW2, Mohar Singh Complainant PW3, Pahlad PW4 and Bimla PW5. All these witnesses resiled from their statements given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigation officer. The public prosecutor did not have any alternative but to close the evidence of the prosecution on 5.3.2008. Since the main witnesses i.e. mother, father and other relatives all resiled from their statements, the learned trial Court did not have any evidence before it to find the respondents guilty. Benefit of doubt was rightly given to the respondents and they were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (L.N.MITTAL) January 13, 2009 JUDGE SKArora - 2 -