Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. 43120 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.9.2009 Inderjit Kaur ..... Petitioner vs Paramjit Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. The present revision is filed against the acquittal of respondents no. 2 to 6 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, on 4.2.2008 in FIR No. 965 dated 10.11.2000 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 452, 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Patiala and that of respondent no. 1 under Section 406 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was married with respondent no. 1 in the year 1992, had lodged a complaint with the police against the accused-respondents for harassment, misappropriation of dowry articles/istridhan, and for bringing insufficient dowry. It was also alleged by her that on 4.11.2000 her husband Paramjit Singh visited her parents house on scooter. He dashed the scooter against gate. He abused her on which several persons gathered at the spot upon which Paramjit Sigh escaped from there leaving the scooter there. But as the father of the complainant wanted to talk about this incident with their relatives the report was not lodged earlier. As her in-laws did not come to compromise the matter, the complainant lodged the present FIR. The case was registered by the police and after completion of investigation challan against the accused was presented. They were charged for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the pendency of trial, one of the co-accused Amar Singh, father-in-law of the complainant expired. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-respondents denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2008 (2) Considering the evidence brought on record in the form of statements of witnesses and documents, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 4.2.2008, acquitted respondents no. 2 to 6 of the charges framed against them, but convicted respondent no. 1 under Sections 498-A, 452 and 506 IPC and acquitted him for the offence under Section 406 IPC. It is this order which is under challenge in the present revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. In so far as acquittal of the accused respondents under Section 406 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the misappropriation of dowry articles. The complainant has stated in her cross-examination that she has stayed at her matrimonial house jointly with other family members for about eight years and was using the same articles. Moreover, she had never demanded the dowry articles back or complained that the same were not given to her by the accused persons. Her father Naunihal Singh who appeared as PW5 has deposed that a list was prepared which is alleged to be shown to the police but no such list was produced during trial. The prosecution has also failed to produce any purchase bills of the dowry articles. In the absence thereof, the trial court cannot be said to have gone wrong in acquitting the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 406 IPC. As regards the acquittal of respondents no. 2 to 6 under Sections 498-A, 452 and 506 IPC is concerned, there are so many contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant in her cross-examination deposed that she visited her sister-in-law's house only once as her behaviour with her was not nice. She has also deposed that neither she know the date when she was maltreated at her matrimonial house nor she complained to any authority against the accused persons within one year after the marriage. The prosecution has also produced Harbhajan Singh as PW3 who stated that when he visited the matrimonial house of the complainant to enquire about her well being, the accused persons started beating her. They were demanding rings from her. The court below has rightly discarded his statement by observing that the accused-persons would not beat the complainant in the presence of someone from her parent's house and such type of statement cannot be accepted in proving the offence. The complainant has also implicated sisters of her husband who admittedly were married much prior to the marriage of the complainant. She has not spared their husbands and roped them also in the litigation. There are only general allegations against the accused-respondents except petitioner no.1 Paramjit Singh. He was convicted by the court below for one year. Criminal Revision No. 1915 of 2008 (3) In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. As the revision petition has been dismissed, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 10.9.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge