IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.2640 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 10, 2010 PALWI ARORA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SONIA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. KS Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. DS Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The trial court convicted respondent No.1 for commission of offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.1 carried an appeal, which has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 18.9.2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The allegation of abduction of the child has been held to be disproved by the lower appellate court, on the ground that a news item was published in a newspaper on 16.6.2003, in regard to the fact that Criminal Rev. No.2640 of 2006 2 respondent No.1/accused had surrendered in the police station. The news item was proved on record as Exhibit P-2. When Harpreet Kaur, Lady Constable, stepped into the witness box as PW-4, the document i.e. the newspaper, was put to her. PW-4 admitted that the news item was published and stated that Sonia had come to the police station herself at that time. She also admitted that it had been disclosed by respondent No.1/accused that she had love affair with Vicky and, on account of that, the complainant had lodged a false complaint against the accused. Other than the statement of PW-4, reliance has been placed on the statement of Inderjit Sayal, who admitted in his cross-examination that on 16.6.2003, the complainant, her son-Himanshu and the accused were present in Police Station, 'D' Division, Amritsar. As against this evidence, the prosecution has tried to set up a case that Himanshu – the child, had been recovered on 17.6.2003 from the custody of Sonia (respondent No.1) from Guru Ram Dass Sarai at Golden Temple. Clearly, the prosecution case stands disproved by the statement of Harpreet Kaur, PW, and Inderjeet Sayal, PW, as also Exhibit P-2. In view of the above, the lower appellate court has drawn a conclusion that there is no truth in the story put forward by the prosecution and respondent No.1/accused had been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to deny the evidence, on which reliance has been placed by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further not been able to draw the attention of the court towards any piece of evidence that has Criminal Rev. No.2640 of 2006 3 been perversely read. In view of the above, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. May 10, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?