Criminal Revision No. 1869 of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1869 of 2007 Date of decision: January 30, 2008 Rajinder Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The complainant is in revision before this Court against the judgment dated June 5, 2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby the judgment of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi convicting the husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law was reversed and the conviction of mother-in-law and brother-in-law was set aside whereas that of the husband was maintained. The FIR was lodged with the allegations that husband, brother- in-law and mother-in-law used to taunt the petitioner-complainant for bringing less dowry. They had even beaten up her. Demand of Refrigerator was made. She was thrown on the ground by catching her hair and her mother-in-law gave kick blows to her. The incident happened on April 14, 2002. She was admitted in the Hospital on April 15, 2002. However, her statement was recorded only on April 19, 2002. Initially on the plea that she was not fit to make a statement and thereafter she did not make a statement on the plea that the compromise talks are on and only her father will make a statement inpsite of the fact that on April 16, 2002 she was declared fit to make a statement. Learned Ist Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the above noted facts coupled with fact that brother-in-law was living separately though there were two independent witnesses to the alleged occurrence but they neither reported the matter to Criminal Revision No. 1869 of 2007 -2- *** the police nor took the complainant to the Hospital. The demand of refrigerator was allegedly raised nearly after three years of the marriage. Even though it was alleged that kick blows were given to her on the waist but no injury was found on the waist. Appreciating the entire evidence on record, learned Ist Appellate Court set aside the conviction of respondents no.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material on record which has either been not considered or misread by the learned Court below to reverse the conviction of respondents no.2 and 3. Infact from the evidence it was opined that the fact that the complainant was avoiding making statement even though declared fit for the purpose clearly meant that she wanted to add colour to the story. Two independent witnesses who according to the complainant were present at the time of occurrence, neither took her to the hospital nor lodged the complaint with the police, meaning thereby nothing had happened. In view of the material as briefly discussed above which has been appreciated by the learned Court below in detail, in my opinion, the order dated June 5, 2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. January 30, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge