IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

216 CRR-1468-2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 Soma ...Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

The instant revision petition has been filed for challenging the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted in a complaint case under Sections 406 and 498-A, of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Shorn of details, the facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant was solemnised with accused-respondent No.1 on 17.04.1998. A huge amount was spent on the same by her family and many valuables, including gold jewellery and household articles, were given to the accused. However, after some time of marriage, the respondents, i.e., the husband and in-laws of the complainant, started harassing her to bring less dowry and started pressuring her to bring Rs.50,000/- to expand their business of karyana and when she expressed her helplessness, all the accused, merely within 15/16 days of her marriage, tried to strangulate her and even threw an iron chair on her. She was turned out of the house of her in-laws in the month of July, 1998 at night hours. She filed a complaint about the same before the Raj Mahila Commission, and was rehabilitated in the matrimonial home after a compromise was effected between her and the accused. In the same way, when the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home in April 1999, she moved an application before the Raj Mahila Mandal, Chandigarh, which even summoned her husband and two other accused, but they did not appear there. Subsequently on 12.12.1999 the petitioner along with her brother and one other person went to her matrimonial home and asked her husband and in-laws to either rehabilitate her or to return her dowry articles lying in their possession, however, her pleas were not listened to. A complaint was moved by the petitioner against her husband, parents- in-law and siblings of her husband, however, only her husband was convicted under Section 498-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- while all the others were acquitted. In the appeals filed challenging the order of conviction dated 12.08.2010, acquittal of the in-law family of the complainant was upheld and the conviction of her husband was also set aside, thereby acquitting him of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-husband, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate court had erred in setting aside the conviction and acquitting the respondent/husband from the charge under Section 498-A IPC. It is submitted that the petitioner had given the detailed account of the cruelty suffered by her at the hands of respondent, 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 and PW-3. Yet the learned Trial Court overlooked the same and acquitted the respondent resulting in travesty of justice.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that respondent was convicted under section 498-A IPC to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. However, the learned Appellate Court, while upholding the acquittal of the family members of the respondent, over turned his conviction and acquitted him of the charge under Section 498-A IPC citing lack of evidence.

5. After having heard the case and perused the record, it comes out that during the t