IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.23 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2011 BHATERI DEVI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 1.5.2009, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 306/34, Indian Penal Code, in an FIR case. 2 The acquittal has been recorded in view of the circumstance that marriage of Geeta (deceased) with Satish (respondent No.2) was solemnised 11 years before the incident. As per the allegations, the incidents of harassment and beatings started after one year of marriage. No evidence has been brought on record by way of an application to the Panchayat, police complaint, etc., to show that for 10 years, any such Criminal Revision No.23 of 2010 2 incident had taken place. Even no medical report has been produced to show that any injury had been caused. 3 It has also come on record by way of statement of Balbir (PW-10) that Geeta started staying at her parental house two months before the occurrence. None of the accused was found staying with Geeta-deceased. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to counter the facts and circumstances. A vague argument has been raised that Geeta had been harassed for 10 years before her death and, therefore, offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, is made out. 5 The relevant pieces of evidence have been taken into account by the trial court. It has been recorded, for the right reasons, that ingredients of Section 107, Indian Penal Code, indicating abetment, are not satisfied. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that any piece of evidence, which was material, has not been considered by the trial court. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show misreading of any piece of evidence, which has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?