R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 1st August, 2000, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 276/1997, whereby the learned Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of any of the accused persons and thereby acquitted the accused – Ashok Kumar, Rajender Prasad, Bimla and Suda of an offence under Section 328/498-A/406/34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as under:
“As per the prosecution story the parents of complainant Sudesh Kumari performed her marriage with accused Ashok on 21.6.95 and at that time sufficient dowry articles were given in marriage. After four months of the marriage a demand of scooter was raised by husband Ashok, mother in law Gando Devi, Nanad Sudha, Jethani Bimla and Jeth Rajinder Prasad, who used to give beatings to her in order to press demand of dowry. It is also in allegations that on 13.5.96 prosecutrix was turned out of the house and she was asked to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her parents, which matter was reported to her parents and on 14.5.1996 the parents of prosecutrix along with other persons came to the house of accused persons, where they were maltreated. But Sudesh was kept at the in laws house. It is further the prosecution case that on 16.6.96 the prosecutrix was not feeling well and she was administered forcible diazapum tablets by husband Ashok and Jethani Bimla. As a result of which the prosecutrix had to be removed to hospital. During the trial accused Gando Devi died and vide order dated 27.4.2000 proceedings against her were dropped.”
3. In order to establish its case the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Of these, PW1 is Sudesh Kumari, the complainant, PW-2 is Samval Dass, the grand father, PW-3 is Kisan Lal and PW-4 Mohar Kali is the mother, PW-5 Krisan Lal a relation and PW-11 Prahlad Singh, is the uncle of the complainant.
4. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the prosecution’s version. Accused Ashok has stated that on 13th May, 1996, Sudesh left the matrimonial home with her sister, who had come there after quarreling. On 14th May, 1996, relations of Sudesh Kumari mediated between Sudesh and Ashok but Ashok refused to accept Sudesh after 13th May, 1996. Consequently, as a backlash the case has been filed against them. Accused Sudha has denied her presence at house on 13th May, 1996. All the accused persons have denied causing any harassment to Sudesh and/or demanding any dowry.
5. The Trial Court, upon an appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the mention of ‘diazapum’ tablets in the MLC by the complainant indicates that the complainant knew the name of the tablet that was allegedly administered to her, which could only have been possible had she seen the tablets. He also notes that there appears to be tampering with the MLC and that the same is not a credible document. He also takes into consideration the statement made in the first instance to the Police where the accused persons were exonerated of any offence. After discussing the evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the incident dated 16th June, 1996, was not proved. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the other allegations regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/- on 13th May, 1996, and giving beatings also stand disproved. From the consideration of the statements of PW-2 and PW-1, which are contradictory to each other, the Trial Court has held that the version given by PW-1 does not find corroboration with the statement of PW-2 and the fact remains that the incident of 13th May, 1996 and 14th May, 1996 were not mentioned in their statements under Section 161 recorded on 16th June, 1996. The Trial Court also found that the defense taken by the accused was more probable and consequently, acquitted all the accused by giving them benefit of doubt.
6. Counsel for the Petitioner has merely re-agitated the grounds raised before the Trial Court and has taken me through the record of the case as also the judgment under challenge. He has not been able to point out any error of law or procedure which has occasioned failure of justice. It is not proper for this Court to interfere where the Petitioner merely re-argues the case without showing any error of jurisdiction or of procedure, nor shows any perversity in the judgment under challenge. In that view of the matter, having carefully gone through the record of the case and having heard Counsel for the Petitioner, I find no grounds to interfere in the judgment under challenge. The same is upheld.
7. Crl.Rev.P.561/2000 is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back.