IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 Manjit Kaur ...Applicant/Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4)

Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bholath, District Kapurthala in the complaint case bearing No.COMI/09/2019, whereby respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case at hand is that a complaint was moved by the complainant stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with respondent in January 1992 as per sikh rites and ceremonies and out of their wedlock, two male children were born, who unfortunately died shortly after birth. Despite sufficient dowry being given at the time of marriage, the respondent remained dissatisfied and subjected the complainant to continuous cruelty on trivial grounds, without any justifiable cause. Subsequently, the respondent even raised unlawful demands for cash from the family of the complainant. Upon their inability to fulfill such demands, the respondent abused and physically assaulted her and ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial home. Efforts were made by the mother of the complainant and relatives to reconcile and rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home, but to no avail. Trial commenced and, all evidence was recorded. Upon conclusion thereof, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent, upon failure to prove the case against the accused-respondent. Feeling aggrieved with the said finding, the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court gravely erred in acquitting the respondent, despite there being serious and specific allegations leveled against him, as the case of the prosecution was considered solely with reference to the alleged misappropriation of dowry articles. Moreover, no finding was rendered on the crucial aspects of harassment, suffered by the prosecutrix at the hands of the respondent and his relatives. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside.

4. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the judicial file.

5. Reverting to the case at hand, it was observed by the learned Trial Court, after examining the allegations in their entirety, including claims of harassment and the alleged misappropriation of dowry articles, that the evidence on record could not establish the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Material inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, coupled with the absence of independent corroboration by way of evidence or testimonies of material/independent witnesses, had weakened the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the allegations of unlawful demands of dowry, harassment and misappropriation of dowry articles were not satisfactorily proved in accordance with the stringent standard required under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. It was therefore that the learned trial Court proceeded to hold that the guilt of the accused person could not be established beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal.

6. Following the observations made by its Constitutional Bench in M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405, the Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450 elaborated as to when an order of acquittal by the trial Court can be disturbed, by holding thus:

"69. The following principles emerge from cases

1. The Appellate Court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is w