-1- Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.754 of of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: February 22, 2010. Sarita alias Krishna ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Revision No.754 of 1999. Monika Verma ... Petitioner VERSUS Baldev Raj and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. R.K. Battas, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision No.754 of 1999. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Sarita alias Krishna, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999, along with Baldev Raj and Kanchan, was -2- Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.754 of of 1999. tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 323, 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Baldev Raj and Kanchan were acquitted by the trial Court of all the charges framed against them whereas appellant Sarita alias Krishna was convicted under Section 498-A of the Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 has been filed by appellant Sarita alias Krishna challenging her aforesaid conviction and sentence whereas Criminal Revision No.754 of 1999 has been preferred by complainant-petitioner Monika Verma challenging the judgment of the trial Court whereby Baldev Raj and Kanchan (co- accused of appellant Sarita alias Krishna) have been acquitted of all the charges framed against them and appellant Sarita alias Krishna has been convicted and sentenced only under Section 498-A of the Code, as mentioned above. Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.754 of of 1999 are being disposed of by this common judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Monika Verma (complainant) was married with Jatinder Kumar, son of appellant Sarita alias Krishna, brother of Kanchan (acquitted accused) and nephew of Baldev Raj (acquitted accused). A son was born out of this wed-lock. Her -3- Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.754 of of 1999. allegation was that appellant Sarita alias Krishna and the acquitted accused were harassing her on account of insufficiency of dowry. In support of the case of the prosecution, Monika Verma (P.W.1), Ashok Kumar, father of complainant Monika Verma (P.W.2), Dr.Sukhwinder Kaur, who had observed injuries on the person of Monika Verma (P.W.3), Assistant Sub Inspector Hardev Singh, Investigating Officer (P.W.4), Avtar Singh (P.W.5) and Draftsman Dalip Singh (P.W.6) were examined. According to the complainant, the accused had tried to poison her. When they failed in their attempt to poison her, they started beating her. This statement of Monika does not find corroboration from any direct evidence. The complainant stated that Baldev Raj (acquitted accused) had given kicks in her stomach. Appellant Sarita alias Krishna and Kanchan gave her fist blows on account of which she started bleeding. Dr. Sukhwinder Kaur (P.W.3), in her cross- examination, stated that she had not seen any marks of violence on the vagina or the abdomen of the complainant. Baldev Raj (acquitted accused), was aged about 70 years and was resident of Naya Nangal, Una (Himachal Pradesh). The version of the complainant is that he caused injuries to her after the other two accused told him that the complainant had not brought the demanded amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, video and camera from her parents. Even if some dowry articles were given by the parents of the complainant, Baldev Raj was not the beneficiary. The father-in-law and the husband of Monika are not the accused in this -4- Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.754 of of 1999. case. Once the version of complainant against Baldev Raj regarding dowry is not accepted, it cannot be said that he caused injuries to the complainant on account of sufficiency of dowry leading to her abortion. Complainant also did not mention specifically as to which part of her body was hit by appellant Sarita alias Krishna and Kanchan (acquitted accused). The statement of the complainant that Kanchan (acquitted accused) demanded dowry and harassed her on account of insufficiency of dowry does not even find corroboration from the statement of her father Ashok Kumar (P.W.2). Kanchan, who at that that time was unmarried, had nothing to do with the dowry. However, so far as appellant Sarita alias Krishna, who is mother-in-law of the complainant, is concerned, both the complainant and her father Ashok Kumar are in corroboration with each other that she (appellant Sarita alias Krishna) subjected the complainant to cruelty on account of unlawful demands. Otherwise, there was no reason for her to get registered a criminal case against the appellant. It has also come in the statements of complainant Monika Verma (P.W.1) and her father Ashok Kumar (P.W.2) that earlier also the matter had been referred to the police, which was later on compromised. Appellant Sarita alias Krishna has, thus, rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 filed by appellant Sarita alias Krishna and Criminal Revision No.754 of 1999 filed by complainant- -5- Criminal Appeal No.348-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.754 of of 1999. petitioner Monika Verma. Both are, accordingly, hereby dismissed. February 22, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE