JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral).:- Alongwith the present appeal, the Court intends to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. S-1008-SBA of 1997 filed by the State of Haryana, which now survives qua the acquittal of Sanjeev Kumar-accused for offence under Section 406 IPC, as both the appeals have arisen out of judgment and order dated 21/22.5.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City. 2. Sanjeev Kumar alongwith his father Narain Dass, mother Raj Rani, brother Ravinder Kumar @ Bittu and five others, was tried for offences under Sections 406/498-A IPC on the allegations that they had misappropriated the Istridhan of the complainant, besides, committing cruelty upon her. Vide judgment dated 21.5.1997 the trial Court convicted only Sanjeev Kumar for offence under Section 498-A IPC. He was acquitted under Section 406 IPC. His co-accused, eight in all, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Vide order dated 22.5.1997, Sanjeev Kumar was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The State of Haryana had filed the present appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed upon Sanjeev Kumar-accusedrespondent for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was inadequate and the same needed to be enhanced. Similarly, the State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No. S-1008-SBA of 1997 for challenging the acquittal of Sanjeev Kumar under Section 406 IPC and of his eight co-accused for the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The said appeal was, however, admitted qua Narain Dass, Ravinder Kumar @ Bittu, Sanjeev Kumar and Raj Rani. 4. On 8.1.2010 learned counsel representing Sanjeev Kumarrespondent in the present appeal and Narain Dass, Ravinder Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Raj Rani in Criminal Appeal No. S-1008-SBA of 1997 made a statement that the aforementioned persons had already passed away. Learned State counsel prayed for an adjournment for verifying the said fact. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned. On the adjourned date, learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from HC Sukhdev Singh, informed the Court that Sanjeev Kumar-respondent in the present appeal was alive. Learned State counsel prayed for an adjournment for verifying the said fact. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned. On the adjourned date, learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from HC Sukhdev Singh, informed the Court that Sanjeev Kumar-respondent in the present appeal was alive. Similarly, in the connected appeal, affidavit executed by Smt.Bharti Arora, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Ambala was produced by learned State counsel in which it was stated that Narain Dass, Ravinder Kumar @ Bittu and Raj Rani had since passed away. This fact was verified by the local police. Even the Panches of the Gram Panchayat, Mirpur and residents of village Mubarakpur had given in writing that the aforementioned three accused had already expired. In view of the same, the said appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of Narain Dass, Ravinder Kumar @ Bittu and Raj Rani-respondents had become abated and was disposed of as such, vide order dated February 15, 2010. 5. It may also be worthwhile to mention here that against his conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC, Sanjeev Kumar had filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. However, on 23.12.2002 he made a statement that he wanted to withdraw his appeal. Accordingly, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 23.12.2002 dismissed the appeal as having been withdrawn. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. According to the prosecution, dowry articles, which the complainant termed as her ‘Istridhan’ were given to the complainant at the time of marriage. However, the prosecution did not produce the video film, which was admittedly prepared at the time of marriage. It was also the case of the prosecution that colour television and refrigerator were given at the time of marriage and the complainant had receipts in respect of their purchase. However, those receipts were not produced. Even the dealers from whom those articles were purchased had not been examined. For the aforementioned reasons, learned trial Court was justified in acquitting Sanjeev Kumar of the charge under Section 406 IPC. 8. Coming to the question of lesser sentence imposed upon Sanjeev Kumar for offence under Section 498-A IPC, it had been noticed by the learned trial Court in the order of sentence that Sanjeev Kumar was passing through a critical time as he was being treated from PGI for depression. 8. Coming to the question of lesser sentence imposed upon Sanjeev Kumar for offence under Section 498-A IPC, it had been noticed by the learned trial Court in the order of sentence that Sanjeev Kumar was passing through a critical time as he was being treated from PGI for depression. The medical certificate from PGI had already been placed on the record. In such a situation, the sentence of six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon Sanjeev Kumar for offence under Section 498-A IPC cannot be said to be inadequate. 9. In view of the above, no case is made out for holding Sanjeev Kumar guilty under Section 406 IPC or for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon Sanjeev Kumar-accused under Section 498-A IPC. Criminal Appeal No.742-SB of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.S-1008-SBA of 1997 are, accordingly, dismissed. ------------