Crl. Rev. No. 302 of 2002 [ Page numbers ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 302 of 2002 Date of Decision: March 23,2009 Giasi Ram .....................................................................Petitioner Versus Dharam Singh and others ........................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Yash Pal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, vide which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A and 406 IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt. Briefly the facts of the case are that Giasi Ram filed a complaint wherein it was averred that his sister was married to Dharam Singh, respondent No.1, on 24.5.1989. At the time of marriage, dowry articles were given by the father of the complainant amounting to Rs.51,000/- and an amount of Rs.5300/- had also been given on the Chhuchhak ceremony. It has been averred that after the marriage of the complainant's sister, the accused started beating her for bringing less dowry. It was further alleged that Khem Chand, father-in-law, and Kashmiri, mother-in-law, used to take side of Dharam Singh and had instigated him to demand more dowry articles. Crl. Rev. No. 302 of 2002 [ Page numbers ] In order to substantiate the averments, PW1 Giasi Ram appeared in the Court and supported the allegations made in the complaint. PW2 Maya also supported the allegations made in the complaint. On the other hand, Nihal Chand was produced as DW1 who stated that the petitioner has leveled vague allegations against the accused. The trial Court after examining the entire evidence found that the complainant has not made any specific allegation with regard to the time and date of the occurrence. The description of dowry articles has not been given by the complainant and merely the production of a list Ex.P1 was insufficient to hold that dowry articles were given to the accused. There is also no evidence forthcoming to prove that the sister of the complainant was subjected to cruelty by her in- laws. Apart from the above, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the accused Dharam Singh, who is husband of the sister of the complainant, had expressed his desire to take back the complainant's sister. He had also stated at that time that his father Khem Chand is very old and that they are very poor persons and that it is his wife who has deserted him. On perusing the impugned judgment, it is clear that the complainant has not mentioned as to when the demand of dowry was made nor he has given any specific instance with regard to the cruelty inflicted upon his sister. In view of the above, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have rightly been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC by the trial Court. I find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below and, accordingly, this revision is dismised. 23.3.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE