Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Smt. Veena Devi And Another on 20 October, 2009
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Crl. Revision No.1361 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.1361 of 2009
Date of decision:20.10.2009
State of Haryana ....Petitioner
versus
Smt. Veena Devi and another .....Respondents
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present Mr. Sidharath Sarup, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
In FIR No.458 dated 13.11.1999 under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC registered at police station, Sector-5, Panchkula, seven persons were tried for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. Out of them, Veena Devi and Bimla respondents herein were acquitted. Out of the remaining five, husband of the complainant and his parents were convicted under Section 498-A IPC. The husband, his father and two others were convicted under Section 506 IPC by the trial Magistrate. State of Haryana preferred appeal before Sessions Court challenging acquittal of the respondents herein whereas the five convicts preferred two appeals challenging their conviction and sentence. Appeal preferred by the State has been dismissed thereby affirming the acquittal of the respondents as recorded by the trial Court whereas appeals preferred by the five convicts have been allowed, acquitting them all. The instant revision petition has been preferred assailing acquittal of respondents Veena Devi and Bimla.
Crl. Revision No.1361 of 2009 -2-
I have heard learned State counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Respondent No.1 is married sister of husband of the complainant whereas respondent No.2 is wife of maternal uncle of husband of the complainant. There is concurrent finding of their acquittal by both the Courts below based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
There is initial presumption of innocence qua every accused. In the instant case, the said presumption of innocence qua respondents has been strengthened and reinforced by judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court. Even otherwise, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, finding of acquittal cannot be converted into finding of conviction keeping in view the mandatory statutory provision of Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C).
Keeping in view the relationship of respondents with the complainant also, there was no occasion for the respondents to harass the complainant for dowry or for any other reason or to criminally intimidate her.
The revision petition is completely frivolous and devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 20.10.2009 A.Kaundal