IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 Mamtesh ...Appellant Versus Bala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Manjit Singh Gahlawat, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.09.2021 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonipat in Sessions Case No.SC/91/2019 in FIR No.382, dated 24.07.2018, registered under Sections 323, 328, 406, 34 and 498-A of IPC, whereby respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

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 No.2 four years ago. Out of the said marriage, two children were born. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, respondent Nos.1 and 2 used to physically and mentally harass her for the sake of dowry. On the birth of her first child, her in-laws demanded a gold chain. Subsequently, before the birth of her second child, she was turned out of her matrimonial house, thus she was compelled to give birth at her maternal house. At the time of birth of her second child, no one from her in-laws family came to see the child. On 05.04.2018 she made a complaint at the police post, Ganaur, which was subsequently compromised, but her in-laws did not mend their ways and again started harassing the complainant, asking for more dowry. Thereafter, on 22.07.2018 at about 07:30 p.m. her mother-in-law and husband gave beatings to her and forcibly made her to drink water mixed with urea. On the said complaint, the instant FIR was lodged and after investigation challan was presented. Upon framing of charges, the trial commenced and, all the evidence was recorded. Upon conclusion thereof, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents, upon failure to prove the case against the accused-respondents. Feeling aggrieved with the said finding, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court gravely erred in acquitting the private respondents, despite there being serious and specific allegations levelled against them. Moreover, no finding was rendered on the crucial aspects of harassment, suffered by the appellant at the hands of the private respondents. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that the impugned judgment was passed after due appreciation of the entire material on record by the learned trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that as per the evidence, prima facie no case is made out against the private respondents. The learned trial Court has after due appreciation of evidence produced on record passed the impugned order and rightly acquitted the private respondents of the charged offences. Thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judicial file.

7. Reverting to the case at hand, it was observed by the learned trial Court, after examining the allegations in their entirety, including claims of physical and mental harassment for the sake of dowry, that the evidence on record could not establish the guilt of the private respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The complaint Ex.PW1/A was penned down by the aunt of the complainant, who was thus a material witness, but she has not been cited as a prosecution witness. Material inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, and her father 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 unlawfu