Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2006 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2006 Date of decision : February 28, 2008 Sharmila .....Petitioner Versus Diwan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Thakar, Advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL J. The complainant is in revision before this Court is challenging the judgment of the learned Court below whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 498 A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The FIR was registered against the respondents on the complaint of Sharmila wife of Dharambir. The marriage was performed on May 01, 1994. Since beginning there was dispute between the families on account of demand of dowry by the respondents. Dharambir was serving in the Army. Allegedly on October 2, 1998 the complainant was beaten up by the respondents and her husband and was expelled from her matrimonial house. She took shelter in her maternal uncle's house, who took her to her parents' house. Husband of the complainant Dharambir was not tried as the permission as required under Section 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was denied by the Army authorities on the ground that he will be tried in the Army Court. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Court below found that sufficient material was not on record to convict the respondents. The allegations regarding demand of dowry or entrustment of Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2006 -2- *** the dowry given at the time of marriage were not specific. The allegations regarding beating given to her on October 2, 1998 could not be substantiated at the time of evidence. There is no medical evidence on record to show as to whether the complainant had suffered any injury on account of alleged beating given to her on October 2, 1998. The MLR dated October 8, 1998 produced on record was not even proved as the Medical Officer was not produced. Even this has come on record that after the petitioner left in October, 1998, father-in-law and the husband of the complainant had been visiting her house to take her back to the matrimonial home and at that time there was no demand of dowry or any other condition. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, learned Court below found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly respondents were acquitted. In the revision against judgment of acquittal, this Court would not like to re-appreciate the evidence once it is found that view expressed by the Court below is possible on the basis of evidence on record. There is no misreading of evidence It is a case where the husband of the complainant is in Army and complainant had to live with her in-laws in the absence of the husband. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to differ with the view expressed by the Court below. The revision petition is dismissed. February 28, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge