Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - This is an appeal filed by State of Haryana against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2003 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in appeal against judgment/order dated 05.11.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat.

2. Vide order dated 05.10.2004, Division Bench of this Court granted leave to file appeal in respect of Subhash Chand (husband of the complainant) only. For other accused/respondents leave to file appeal was declined.

3. Accused were tried in FIR No.98 dated 15.03.1999 under Section 498-A/406 IPC, Police Station City Panipat. Complainant- Anita wife of Subhash Chand set the official machinery in motion on the allegations that she was married to Subhash Chand on 20.06.1993 at Panipat. Her father spent about Rs.1,50,000/- on her marriage towards ornaments and other Ishtridhan. A scooter was also given. However, complainant was harassed for bringing inadequate dowry.

4. On 09.08.1994, a son took birth from this wedlock. Her mother was insulted when she visited the matrimonial house on the pretext of giving under-valued gift items. Complainant was turned out of the matrimonial house in February 1997 and she remained in parental house upto February 1998. On assurance of the accused, complainant went back to matrimonial house in February 1998. However she was again turned out of matrimonial house on 06.12.1998. The entire dowry/Ishtridhan was allegedly misappropriated by accused. With this background the prosecution against the accused persons proceeded.

5. During course of investigation dowry articles were recovered and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was submitted. Complainant got examined herself as PW-1, Narayan Dass as PW-2, Jawahar Lal as PW-3, Partap Singh, DSP as PW-4 and Inspector Karan Singh as PW-5. Rakesh and Suraj Parkash were given up as unnecessary. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied all the incriminating allegations against them and pleaded false implication. In defence, accused got examined Ramesh Lal as DW-1 and Sher Mohammad as DW-2.

6. Trial Court convicted all the accused i.e. Hari Chand (father-in-law), Bhago Bai (mother-in-law), Kailasho Bai (sister-inlaw), Subhash Chand (husband) and Rohtash (brother of husband) under Section 406/498-A and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Section 406 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 498-A IPC. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

7. The accused filed appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat against the conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Lower Appellate Court acquitted all the accused by setting aside their conviction.

8. Appeal was filed before this Court by State of Haryana and the Court took cognizance only qua husband i.e. Subhash Chand. In respect of remaining accused persons, leave was not granted.

9. Learned State counsel states that ingredients of offence under Section 406/498-A IPC are fully attracted.

10. The statement of PW-1 Anita was duly corroborated by Narain Dass in respect of continued cruelty meted to her on account of bringing inadequate dowry. Dowry articles were recovered from the possession of accused vide recovery memo Ex.PW2/C. Trial Court observed that since accused were unable to explain as to why dowry articles were retained by them, therefore, factum of dowry articles having been recovered from them coupled with shunting out the complainant from matrimonial house gave rise to the conclusion that complainant was harassed and dowry articles were misappropriated.

11. Trial Court ignored the testimonies of Ramesh Lal DW-1 and Sher Mohammad DW-2 in the context of their version having not seen the cruelty meted to Anita on account of bringing less dowry. The reason for aforesaid non-consideration of defence version was that the cruelty on account of not bringing sufficient dowry was committed with