Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veenu vs Hemant Bahri And Ors on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
CRR-3706-2017
Decided on : 04.03.2022
Veenu . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Hemant Bahri and others . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
(Through Video Conferencing)
PRESENT: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is assailing the order dated 04.08.2017, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide which it upheld
the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court on 20.12.2013, in
case FIR No. 04, dated 02.01.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 406, 498-A,
506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Pinjore.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that both
the Courts below while passing the impugned orders failed to appreciate
that there were specific allegations of mental and physical cruelty levelled
against the respondents-accused i.e. her husband, father-in-law and mother-
in-law, in the FIR in question. It was further submitted that the allegations
levelled stood duly corroborated by the prosecution witnesses in their
deposition in Court. It was still further contended that the Courts below
erred by observing that the allegations of commission of offences under
Sections 498-A & 406 IPC were not made out in the absence of any
documentary evidence on record with regard to demands of dowry and
entrustment of the same to the respondents-accused, as the petitioner had
reiterated her allegations during trial when she stepped into the witness-box.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
At the outset, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the
impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting
the interference of this Court. Admittedly, there is no medical evidence on
record to prove the allegations of physical assault suffered by the petitioner.
1 of 2
Still further, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/complainant
was physically assaulted in the presence of her two cousins i.e. Gaurav and
Saurav, but strangely neither of them were examined during trial nor cited
as prosecution witnesses. Not only this, even the petitioner/complainant
while appearing as PW-1 during trial did not utter a word, much less, by
way of a whisper regarding the allegations of physical assaults.
The submissions of the learned counsel that the Courts below
failed to appreciate the specific allegations made by the
petitioner/complainant of dowry demands and misappropriation of the same
by the respondents, is yet again totally misconceived in the absence of any
corroborative evidence. As per the case of the prosecution, a panchayat was
convened between the parties with regard to the harassment meted out to the
petitioner/complainant by the respondents-accused, but again strangely none
of the members of the said panchayat were either examined during trial nor
cited as prosecution witnesses. Still further, even the allegations of
misappropriation of the dowry of the petitioner could not be proved by any
cogent or reliable evidence in the absence of any evidence of entrustment of
dowry brought on record during trial.
As a sequel to the above, the instant revision petition is devoid
of any merit and the same stands dismissed accordingly.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
March 04, 2022
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
