ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the complainant Dhruv Kumar challenging the judgment dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted.

2. The facts of the case necessary for adjudication are noticed first.

3. On 30.05.2005 complainant Dhruv Kumar gave an application to the police. His niece Veena was married to accused Naresh Kumar 12-13 years ago. Allegations were that sufficient dowry was given. Naresh and his brother Pawan Kumar were not happy. Veena had told them about the harassment being meted out upon her by the in-laws. Several panchayats were convened and accused Naresh and his family members had asked for pardon. On 26.05.2005 they received information that Veena was missing. The complainant searched for Veena and later learnt that Naresh and Pawan had taken Veena in a maruti van saying that she was to be taken to a hospital. Thereafter, her whereabouts could not be traced.

4. While searching, the complainant learnt that a dead body of a lady was lying on the edge of the canal and Hawa Singh had removed the ornaments. Hawa Singh was contacted. He identified the dead