IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Monika …..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Reserved on : 23.03.2026 Pronounced on : 30.03.2026 Uploaded on : 30.03.2026 Whether full judgment is pronounced or operative part thereof : Full CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Rahul Gahlian, Advocate and Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J .

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Narnaul in Criminal Case No. 60 of 2016 whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted, was dismissed and the acquittal of the respondents No. 2 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section

34 IPC was affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the complainant. It is contended that the complainant had clearly deposed regarding harassment and cruelty meted out to her in connection with demand of dowry and her version stood corroborated by the statements of PW-3 and and PW-4, who are her parents. It is further argued that absence of medical evidence cannot be treated as fatal, particularly when the cruelty alleged is mental in nature. According to the petitioner, matrimonial cruelty is often continuous and therefore the absence of specific dates or instances ought not to have been treated as a ground to discard the prosecution case.

3. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

4. The respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted by the learned trial Court upon appreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul after re-appraisal of the material available on record. Thus, the findings recorded by the trial court stand affirmed by the appellate court.

5. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of acquittal is well settled. Unless the impugned judgments suffer from manifest illegality, perversity or gross misappreciation of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice, the revisional Court would not be justified in disturbing such findings.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the complainant. The Courts below have concurrently found that the allegations regarding cruelty and demand of dowry were general in nature and devoid of particulars. No specific incident, time or circumstance reflecting a concrete demand of dowry or an act constituting cruelty was brought on record. The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 were also found to be broadly similar and lacking in specific attribution of acts to the respondents.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul while affirming the judgment of acquittal, observed that the evidence led by the prosecution did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and that the view taken by the trial Court was a reasonable and plausible one. The submission that cruelty may be mental and continuous in nature is undoubtedly correct as a proposition of law. However, even in such circumstances, the prosecution must still establish through cogent and reliable evidence that the conduct complained of, satisfies the legal ingredients of cruelty within the meaning of law. The Courts below have concurrently held that such evidence is lacking in the present case.

7. It has also been noticed that the matrimonial relationship between the parties has already come to an end and the complainant has subsequently remarried. While this circumstance may not determine the culpability of the