Criminal Revision No. 2125 of 2004 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2125 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.02.2011 Ramphal ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Satraj Singh Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner-complainant. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 7. NAWAB SINGH J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated May 3 rd, 2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, respondents No.2 to 7 were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 366 dated October 3 rd, 2000 under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. 2. The story of the prosecution is as under :- Laxmi (deceased) was married with Dharampal, respondent no.2, on November 21 st, 1996. She died on June 25 th, 2000. Ramphal – complainant, father of the deceased filed complaint (Exhibit PD) on September 7 th, 2000 in the Court of Area Magistrate, Bhiwani. The complaint was sent to the Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On its basis, First Information Report (Exhibit PE) (for short “FIR”) was recorded against respondents No. 2 to 7 on October Criminal Revision No. 2125 of 2004 (O&M) 2 .. 3 rd, 2000. 3. In the complaint (Exhibit PD), it was stated that at the time of marriage of Laxmi, sufficient amount was spent. But respondents were not satisfied with the dowry. Laxmi was subjected to harassment in relation to demand for dowry. A demand of motor cycle was also made, which could not be met. At the time of birth of a son, demand of motor cycle was again made. 4. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused-respondents were arraigned for trial. 5. The respondents were charged under Sections 304- B and 498-A IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses namely Assistant Sub Inspector Dharam Chand (PW-1), Sub Inspector Ram Bilas (PW-2), Amir Chand Taneja, Draftsman (PW-3); Rikhi Ram (PW-4); HC Satbir Singh (PW-5); Ramphal – complainant (PW-6); Ramesh (PW-7) and ASI Maha Singh (PW-8). 7. The respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. They denied their complicity and pleaded innocence. It was also pleaded that relations between Laxmi, her husband and other family members were cordial. On June 25 th, 2000, she died natural death and the parents of the deceased were informed. They came to their house in village Manehru and attended the cremation. No complaint of any sort was made by them against the respondents at that point of time. 8. Counsel for the parties have been heard. The file has been perused. 9. Indeed, there is delay of 2 months and 11 days in filing complaint (Exhibit PD) . The complainant has given explanation that he approached the Police prior thereto but no action was taken. It was also stated by him that his son Ramesh (PW-7) filed complaint in writing to the Police, but even then Police did not take any action. To prove the same, complainant has not led any oral or Criminal Revision No. 2125 of 2004 (O&M) 3 .. documentary evidence. In the absence of the same, it cannot be held that prosecution succeeded in explaining the delay in lodging the complaint/FIR. It is also stated that he attended the cremation, but inspite of that he did not raise any objection to it. Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was not conducted because according to the respondents, it was a case of natural death. Firstly, if death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, the foremost duty of the complainant was to lodge the report immediately with the Police, which he did not. Secondly, post mortem examination was to be conducted, but it was not. These factors suggest that the things did not happen in the manner they have been projected by the complainant. 10. So far as the allegations of demand of dowry are concerned, there is no cogent evidence on record. Before filing of the complaint (Exhibit PD), there was no complaint against the respondents that deceased was ever subjected to cruelty by the respondents on account of demand for dowry particularly, when the death occurred four years after the marriage. The plea raised appears to be trumped up. 11. In view of above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment on any count which would call for the interference of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 12. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 1.2.2011 som