Crl Revision No. 1827 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl Revision No. 1827 of 2007
Date of decision: 11.08.2008
Mohinder Singh S/o Diwan Singh ....Petitioner
V/s
Smt. Shanti & Others ....Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jitender Dhonda, Advocate
for the respondent.
A.N.JINDAL J.(ORAL)
This petition has been filed at the instance of the complainant
against the judgment dated 12.03.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class Hisar, whereby he acquitted all the accused (here in referred as
respondent) under Section 406 and 498-A IPC
The impugned judgment has been scrutinized and arguments of
the counsel for the petitioner have been heard.
Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the daughter
of the petitioner was married to Ranbir Singh (accused) on 11.02.1991 who
was posted at HUDA Office in Hisar. At the time of marriage petitioner had
given dowry worth Rs. 3,50,000/- to his daughter. But after few days of
Crl Revision No. 1827 of 2007 2
marriage, the accused started beating and mis-behaving with his daughter
and demanded more dowry. Once the petitioner gave Rs. 25,000/- in cash
and a colour T.V. to his daughter but the behavior of the respondents did not
improve. On 27.03.1993 his daughter gave birth to a female child at
Sharma Nursing Home, Prem Nagar, Hisar to which her in-laws got
annoyed and continued torturing her for female child’s birth. In the month of
September, 1995 Suman (daughter of the petitioner) along with her daughter
were turned out from her matrimonial home for want of more dowry. On
08.10.1995 the petitioner along with his daughter and son visited the house
of the respondents and requested them for not torturing his daughter, but the
they were not willing to take her back till the fulfillment of their demand of
a car. They beat his daughter and her son and pushed them out of his house.
A case under Section 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered
against the respondent and investigation was carried out.
The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined
Mahender Singh PW1, Suman (daughter of the petitioner) PW2, Vikas (Son
of the petitioner) PW3, Ved Pal PW4, Bal Bhushan PW5, Inspector
Surender Kaur PW6. Thereafter, in their statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., the respondent denied all the allegations and pleaded their
innocence.
Arguments heard.
The view taken by the Trial Court was not in any way
unjudicious or irrational. The proper procedure has been followed and
evidence has been appreciated in the right perspective. The law is well-
settled that in revision against the acquittal, interference would be called for
only when the judgment is palpably perverse and is based on a misreading
Crl Revision No. 1827 of 2007 3
of the evidence. However, it is equally settled that where two views are
possible, the one taken by the Trial Court should not be disturbed.
Finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
11.08.2008 (A.N. JINDAL) Ajay JUDGE