The presumption of innocence in acquittals is reinforced, and revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.12.2007, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal in Criminal Case No. 979 of 2006, arising out of the FIR No. 33 dated 24.09.2000, registered under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal, whereby, the respondents had been acquitted of the charges as framed against them.

2. For the sake of convenience, the respondents shall be referred to as accused and the present petitioner shall be referred to as the complainant.

3. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant before the police alleging therein that she was married with accused Tarsem on 24.04.1998. Sufficient dowry articles had been given at the time of her marriage by her father. However, the accused, who are members of her in-laws family, being brothers-in-law, sister-in-law and husband respectively, were not satisfied with the same and they started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and she was pressurized to bring scooter and cash money. After one month of her marriage, she had returned to her parental home. A Panchayat biradari meeting was convened, wherein it was assured by the accused that they would not harass the complainant on account of demand of dowry, however, they did not mend their ways. On one particular day, they even tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil upon her. The complainant also suffered a miscarriage due to the beatings extended by the accused. The demand of the accused for giving money and scooter continued. Accused Shama even tried to ravish her but the complainant did not disclose this fact to anybody in order to save the honour of the family. On the basis of these allegations and after registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused were arrested and were released on bail. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court for trial of the accused.

4. Copies of challan were supplied to accused free of cost. On finding a prima facie case for framing charges under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC against them, they were chargesheeted accordingly, vide order dated 27.04.2002. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 03 witnesses besides relying upon documentary evidence and thereafter, its evidence was closed by Court order.

6. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded innocence and took a plea that they had been falsely implicated. In defence evidence, they examined one witness.

7. After appraising the evidence produced on record and considering the contentions as raised by both the sides, the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 24.12.2007, acquitted the accused of the charges as framed against them by observing that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case beyond doubt. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition.

8. It is submitted in the petition and learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set as the same suffers from several material infirmities. He has argued that there was overwhelming evidence in the shape of testimony of PW1 i.e. the complainant herself corroborated by the testimony of PW2 to prove that she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the accused persons and that her Istridhan had been misappropriated. However, the said evidence had not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and it was wrongly held that the charges so framed were not proved. Hence, it is argued that the impugned judgment is liable to b