IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1386 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 03, 2010 Mayawati .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Rajinder Singh & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Delay in filing the revision is condoned. This petition has been filed against judgment of acquittal dated 22.9.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that evidence has been perversely read and therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction in this revision at the instance of the complainant, the matter should be remanded Crl. Rev. No.1386 of 2007 [2] back for re-adjudication. I have considered the issue. The circumstances considered by the Trial Court for acquitting the respondents are that the incident took place on 8.8.2003; there was no medical evidence to indicate un-natural death; there was no earlier report in regard to the incident of beating Suman, a few days before the incident to the police or Panchayat; after the incident, the matter was not reported to the police the same day, rather, the family attended various ceremonies after the death of Suman in her in-laws’ house; PW-6, Mayawati (mother of Suman) admits that she attended Chautha and Tehrivi ceremonies; likewise PW-7, Faquir Chand i.e. brother of Suman, also admitted that they had attended the Tehrivi ceremony alongwith Sarpanch and other respectable of village Golagarh, however, had not gone to the police station. Although an attempt has been made to set up a case that complaint was made to the police on 8.8.2003 or 9.8.2003 itself, however, the first application that has been found on the record is dated 22.8.2003. As such, it was a belated version and not on account of dowry death. Crl. Rev. No.1386 of 2007 [3] The Trial Court has acquitted the respondents also on the ground that the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused while returning from the cremation ground, is not plausible, and is unreliable as it appears abnormal. In normal conduct, one would confess before a person or authority or someone else close to him so that other person may render help. In the case in hand, extra judicial confession is alleged to have put forward by the prosecution witnesses. There was no evidence of cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion which is not permissible in law. I do not find any perverse reading of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any evidence or material that has not been considered by the Trial Court while drawing conclusion that ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not satisfied. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in any finding. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 03, 2010 JUDGE avin