CRIMINAL REVISION NO.508 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 03, 2011 Baljinder Kaur @ Gurpreet Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS Balbir Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Garg,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order, acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 4 of the allegations under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Baljinder Kaur @ Gurmeet Kaur daughter of Piara Singh is the complainant. She was married to one Tejinder CRIMINAL REVISION NO.508 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Singh son of Balbir Singh, resident of Dharmkot on 2.12.1995. It is alleged that her parents had given various articles in dowry i.e. One bajaj chetak scooter, coloured television, 15 tolas of gold including four bangles, two karras, necklace, ear rings, four rings, one chain, two watches, one sofa set, one table, one almirah, one Peti (iron), double bed, 35 suits, 15 beddings, one dressing table, 150 utensils and other articles for her use. The complainant would also plead that these articles of dowry were entrusted to the accused persons in the presence of her father, Piara Singh, Chuhar Singh, Bogha Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Chand Singh and some other persons. She alleged that 15 tolas of gold was given to her mother-in-law, Surinder Kaur in the presence of said persons. Allegation of entrustment of `peti' (iron box), almirah etc. to different persons was also made in the complaint. To similar effect, evidence was led before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, convicted all the respondents for offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. The Court had also sentenced the respondents to undergo RI for one year under Section 406 IPC coupled with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the respondents were to undergo RI for one month. They were further sentenced to undergo sentence of 2 years under Section 498A IPC alongwith fine of `2,000/-. In default, they were required to undergo RI for two months. The CRIMINAL REVISION NO.508 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: respondents had impugned their conviction and sentence so imposed by filing an appeal. The Appellate Court has now acquitted the respondents, against which the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The Appellate Court has considered and analyzed the evidence of the complainant and her father in detail. What primarily has weighed with the Appellate Court is that an affidavit, Ex.DB, given by the complainant with which she was confronted during her cross-examination before the Court. In the affidavit, the complainant-petitioner had given a totally contrary version than what she had narrated in her evidence before the Court. To explain this contradiction, the petitioner had admitted her signatures on the affidavit but took up the plea that her signatures were obtained in blank under the pretext of compromising the matter. The Appellate Court considered this aspect but found holes in the explanation so given by the complainant. I have minutely gone through the reasoning given by the Appellate Court. There are various contradictions inherently noticed in the version and the affidavit, which would show that perhaps this defence was taken just in order to explain the affidavit, which apparently was given by the complainant. Not much can be said to the credit of the father, who appeared as PW2. He was also confronted with his previous statement, Ex.DA, where he had not made any CRIMINAL REVISION NO.508 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: specific or separate allegation of entrustment as he had mentioned before the Court. The Appellate Court accordingly found that he had a motive to change the version in order to bring home the charges against the respondents. The allegations of entrustment of certain items to mother-in-law, father-in-law, brothers of the husband and paying of shaguns etc. appear to have been made just to support the allegations, which the complainant had given in her evidence before the Court. In view of these contradictions, the Appellate Court did not consider these witnesses worthy of reliance. The view formed by the Appellate Court appears just and reasonable. May be that another view is possible but that ground would not be sufficient or enough to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, reference can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(10) SCC 461. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal as recorded by the Appellate Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. November 03, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE