JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed for challenging the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga in appeal against judgment dated 25.03.2016, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghapurana, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of IPC in case FIR No.131 dated 09.07.2009, registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga.

2. Shorn of details, the facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner/complainant was solemnized with accused-respondent No.1 on 29.11.2001. Purportedly, the father of the petitioner had given sufficient dowry articles as per his status at the time of marriage, yet, shortly after, the in-law's family of the petitioner started demanding harassing and beating the petitioner for the sake of more dowry and left the petitioner at her parental house. A compromise, with the intervention of DSP Kashmir Kaur, Women Cell, Baghapurana through village panchayat, was effected and the petitioner moved back to her matrimonial home. However, after about 1^1/2 years, the accused started harassing the complainant again and did not even allow her to meet her parents. In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed a petition seeking divorce at Faridkot but the same was withdrawn, as the matter got compromised. Subsequently, in May 2008, respondent No.1 again filed a petition for divorce at Faridkot. Father of the petitioner filed a case in the Court against respondent No.1 and in that case, the Court concerned stayed the divorce proceedings. Thereafter, respondent No.1 changed his name from 'Bhola Singh' to 'Avtar Singh' and contracted marriage with Sarabjit Kaur on 02.03.2009. And also the mediator of their marriage even connived with her in-law's and misappropriated her dowry articles. A complaint was thereafter moved by the petitioner against her husband, in-laws and the mediator leading to the registration of the aforementioned FIR. Trial commenced, and charges against the accused persons were framed under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of IPC, however, all of them were acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2016. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court had erred in upholding the judgment passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghapurana, whereby all the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. It is submitted that the petitioner had given the detailed account of the cruelty suffered by her at the hands of respondents, and also of the numerous instances where she had been ousted from her matrimonial home by her husband. The ordeals stated by her in the complaint were also reiterated by her on oath, and the same were also corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. Yet the learned Trial Court overlooked the same and acquitted the respondents resulting in travesty of justice.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondents after considering the lack of prosecution evidence against them, which was upheld by learned first Appellate Court in the judgment dated 07.09.2017.

5. After having heard the case and perused the record, it comes out that during the trial, besides the complainant, other witnesses were also duly examined. However, upon finding lack of specific allegations against the respondents and in absence of any corroborative evidence, including medical and otherwise, they were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2016. The judgment of the learned trial Cou