JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. whereby he acquitted the accused for the charges framed against them for theirs respectively committing offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 406, and 506-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant that marriage of complainant was solemnized with accused No.1 on 21.11.2001 at her parental house in village Nakroh, Thesil Amb according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of their wed-lock a female child was born on 17.10.2003. Soon after the marriage, the accused persons told the parents of the complainant that they have given less dowry articles. The accused persons also directed to the complainant to convey their message to her parents that her parents should remove the dowry articles of inferior quality and pay them Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. Apart from dowry demand accused No.1 also started abusing the complainant and he also levelled allegations of unchastity against the complainant. She alleged that accused no. 2 to 5 threatened to beat her if she came back without Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant visited police station, Amb for reporting the incident. The police post Daulatpur called accused No. 2 to 5 and asked the complainant to live at her parental house till the arrival of accused No.1 from Indian Army and assured the complainant for legal action against the accused persons. Thereafter the matter was compromised and accused No.1 brought the complainant to Jhansi at the place of his posting. After the birth of female child accused No.1 said to the complainant that she was a characterless lady and female is born from the illicit relation of complainant with some one else and female child is not born from the relations of complainant and accused No.1. Accused No.1 ousted the complainant and her daughter from the place of his duty after 21 days of the birth of female child. On 21.3.2004 the complainant and her mother went to Jhansi but the accused did not allow them to enter in his house by saying that since the parents of the complainant have not fulfilled their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant was a characterless lady, she cannot be allowed to remain with accused No.1. On 21.3.2004 the complainant and her mother went to Jhansi but the accused did not allow them to enter in his house by saying that since the parents of the complainant have not fulfilled their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant was a characterless lady, she cannot be allowed to remain with accused No.1. On 2.6.2004 the complainant alongwith her mother went to the house of the accused at Bhaderkali and saw that accused No. 2 to 5 were using Istridhan, which was in the custody of accused No. 2 to 5 without the consent of the complainant and damaged the dowry articles. Lastly it is prayed that the accused persons may be summoned and punished according to law for alleged offence under Section 406, 498-A and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After recording of preliminary evidence Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, took cognizance against the accused and charge under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506-I of the Indian Penal Code was put to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. A charge stood put to the accused persons by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined 3 witnesses. On closure of complainants’ evidence, the respective statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They chose to lead evidence in defence and tendered into evidence documents comprised in Ext.DA to Ext.DJ. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. In the complaint lodged by the complainant/appellant, she ventilated therein a grouse, that the respondents’/accused, “since” the inception of hers solemnizing marriage with accused No.1 “taking to” harass her, for bringing insufficient dowry besides taking to harass her, on account of inferiority of quality of dowry articles given to her at the time of hers solemnizing marriage. Also she has ventilated therein, a grouse that she was subjected to physical cruelty on 24.07.2002. Furthermore, she has communicated therein that she was intimidated besides subjected to mental trauma by the accused respondents, mental trauma whereof arose from theirs raising allegations about the chastity of her character. In addition she has echoed in the complaint, that the various articles mentioned in Ext. CW-1/A constituted her “Istridhan”, items where of were locked in an Almirah, Almirah whereof was kept at her matrimonial home, yet “it” on hers along with her mother visiting her matrimonial home, a day prior to the lodging of the complaint, “was found open” also the articles reflected in Ext.CW-1/A not finding their existence there in. 10. In proof of the offences constituted against the respondents, in the apposite complaint and in respect whereof the learned trial Court put a charge upon the accused, the complainant examined herself besides led into the witness box her mother who deposed as CW-2 and her relative who deposed as CW-3. However, in the respective depositions of the aforesaid, there is no ascription with specificity, in timings with respect to occurrence of incidents of physical belabourings nor any of the aforesaid witnesses testified with specificity in timings with respect to occurrence of incidents of criminal intimidation. More over, the incident of physical belabouring which stands communicated in the complaint, to occur on 24.07.2002 is not supported by any medical evidence. More over, the incident of physical belabouring which stands communicated in the complaint, to occur on 24.07.2002 is not supported by any medical evidence. In addition with the aforesaid incident of physical cruelty occurring with gross improximity in timing vis-à-vis the timing of lodging of the complaint, hence warrants dis-imputation of the credence thereto. As aforesaid, with the complainants’ witnesses “not” deposing with specificity in timing with respect to the various incidents of intimidation besides of mental cruelty arising from theirs alleging that she did not bear a chaste character ‘does also’ constrain this Court to conclude, that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, while anvilling them upon lack of ascription, in timing qua their occurrence, by the complainant and of her witnesses’, hence not warranting any interference. At this stage this Court is enjoined to adjudicate upon the effect of the complainant immediately subsequent to 22nd and 23rd March, 2004 whereat she arrived at her parental home, in sequel to hers being ill treated at Jhansi, hence omitting to lodge a complaint rather hers proceeding to belatedly therefrom, lodge a complaint in the first week of June. The evidence which stands adduced on record, in explication of the delay, is constituted in the factum of the complainant accompanied by her mother visiting the matrimonial home of the former on 2.6.2004, hence when the complaint stood lodged, a day subsequent thereto, thereupon its not suffering the ill-fate of its warranting dismissal qua the charges framed under Section 406 IPC, “dehors” no explication with respect to the delay in the ascription vis-à-vis the accused, penal misdemeanors constituted under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. standing purveyed either by the complainant while testifying in Court nor her witnesses purveying any explication in respect thereto. As afore stated this Court for reasons afore stated, has concluded, that the penal misdemeanors alleged by the complainant against the accused/respondents, arising from theirs physically belabouring her besides intimidating her also theirs raising allegations upon her qua her bearing an unchaste character, whereupon she stood beset with a mental trauma, ‘not’ standing cogently established. The reason aforesaid acquires galvanized impetus from the trite factum of non purveying of any sound tangible explanation by the complainant in respect of the delay which occurred in respect to the relevant ascription “since” 22/23 March, 2004 upto 3rd June, 2004. The reason aforesaid acquires galvanized impetus from the trite factum of non purveying of any sound tangible explanation by the complainant in respect of the delay which occurred in respect to the relevant ascription “since” 22/23 March, 2004 upto 3rd June, 2004. Nonetheless, even if the charges framed against the accused for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506-I read with Section 34 I.P.C. may founder, yet it is also imperative to determine whether the complainant has been able to establish that the accused respondent had committed an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The learned counsel for the appellant has alluded to the testimony occurring in the examination in chief of the complainant, wherein she deposed that she had along with her mother visited her matrimonial home ‘a day prior’ to the lodging of the complaint, whereat she noticed that her ‘locked Almirah’ kept at her matrimonial home, wherein she had stored her Istridhan items and in respect thereof she tendered into evidence Ext.CW-1/A “being unlocked” also the items reflected in the list, not finding their existence therein. The learned counsel for the complainant has with much vigour contended that the complainants’ deposition corroborated by her mother qua both visiting the matrimonial home of the former on 2.6.2004, per se begetting a conclusion that the further part of their respective testifications’, that thereat they found the locked Almirah kept by the complaint at her matrimonial home, being in an unlocked condition from his hitherto locked condition and also all the items of Istridhan kept therein being removed there from, warranting imputation of implicit credence thereto. He also contends that this Court is enjoined, to, also impute implicit sanctity to Ext.CW-1/A, exhibit whereof details the various items of Ishtridhan, which the complainant had kept in the locked Almirah positioned at her matrimonial home, thereupon he contends that the charge under Section 406 IPC standing established, significantly when hence also the effect of delay, if any, with respect to an offence committed under Section 406 IPC, stands effaced. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the complainant has fortified the aforesaid submission by adverting to the lack of cross-examination of the complainant by the learned defence counsel with respect to the aforesaid visit of the complainant along with her mother to her matrimonial home, wherefrom an imperative conclusion is drawable, that the defence hence concedes to the fact of the relevant visit made by the complainant in the company of her mother, to her matrimonial home, with a further concomitant inference that it also concedes to the fact of the relevant Almirah being unlocked from his hitherto locked condition, wherefrom the natural corollary is that the articles of Ishtridhan kept therein when not finding their existence therein, hence theirs standing misappropriated by the accused/respondents. However, the aforesaid submission, does not earn any vigour, as failure, if any, of the defence counsel, to cross examine the complaint with respect to the visit of the complainant accompanied by her mother to her matrimonial home “a day” preceding the lodging of the complaint, is outweighed besides is countervailed, by the learned defence counsel while holding the complainants’ mother to cross-examination putting dis-affirmative suggestions to her that when she along with her daughter visited the matrimonial home of the latter, on 2.6.2004, theirs noticing that the locked Almirah wherein she had kept items of Ishtridhan being found in an unlocked condition also the items occurring therein not finding theirs existence therein, suggestion whereof evoked a response in the negative. Even though the aforesaid putting of a disaffirmative suggestion by the learned defence counsel while holding CW-2 to cross-examination, though does earn a conclusion that the defence hence acquiesces to the factum of the complainant accompanied by her mother hence visiting her matrimonial home on 2.6.2004 also hence the delay in the lodging of the complaint with respect to commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 standing sufficiently explained ‘nonetheless’ the ‘fulcrum’ for testing the credibility of the aforesaid deposition of the complainant, deposition whereof stood corroborated by her mother, is embedded in Ext.CW-1/A. In case this Court concludes that Ext.CW-1/A, is cogently proven by adduction of best evidence thereupon this Court would proceed to reverse the findings returned with respect to the charge framed under Section 406 IPC. For making the aforesaid determination, an allusion is enjoined to be made to the testimony of the complainant “who” during the course of her examination in chief, tendered Ext.CW-1/A yet the mere tendering of Ext.CW-1/A by the complainant “during” the course of her examination in chief would not per se warrant imputation of implicit sanctity thereto, conspicuously when in her cross-examination ‘she’ has made a communication that the relevant list was signatured by its authors. However, she has not been able to name the authors of Ext.CW-1/A. She has also feigned ignorance whether her in-laws signatured the relevant list. Moreover, she has made a communication ‘that’ the relevant list stood prepared in her presence at the time when she entered her matrimonial home and has also echoed that it then held the signatures of its “authors” whereas she omitted to name the authors of the apposite list, thereupon she has precluded emergence of best evidence comprised in the authors of the apposite list, being led into the witness box, for proving the writings/scribings held therein. The mother of the complainant in her cross-examination has feigned ignorance with respect to the authors of the list. However, she has in her cross-examination testified that two original copies of the relevant list stood prepared, one of which was retained by the complainant. Now with the complainant deposing that the relevant list stood signatured by its authors besides with the mother deposing that two original copies of the apposite list stood prepared, one of which was retained by them, when construed in conjunction with the complainant, “during” the course of her examination in chief, tendering a photocopy of the apposite list, wherein there is no occurrence of any signatures of its authors, does inevitably foreclose a conclusion that the original of the apposite list whereon the signatures of its authors occurred, was hidden from the view of the Court, for precluding emergence of best evidence, comprised in its authors deposing that the items of Ishtridhan mentioned therein, stood prepared, at the time when the complainant stepped into her matrimonial home also when she thereat kept them inside a locked Almirah. Concomitantly also with Ext.CW-1/A while being merely a photo copy, can hence be concluded to be fictitiously prepared besides the items detailed therein purportedly comprising the “Ishtridhan” of the complainant also theirs being kept in a locked Almirah by the complainant at her matrimonial home, “cannot” inspire the confidence of this Court, for its making a firm conclusion that the bald deposition of the complainant, supported by her mother that a day prior to the lodging of the complaint, they, on visiting the matrimonial home of the complainant “noticed” the Almirah in an unlocked condition from his hitherto locked condition also the items of Ishtridhan kept therein being removed, hence driving home an inference that the relevant Almirah held the items of Ishtridhan or the items she stored therein standing removed There from by the accused or is hence creditworthy, conspicuously when the apposite original list, testified by the complainant to be prepared in contemporanity with her stepping into her matrimonial home, wherein stood delineated the items stored in the locked Almirah “stood never” adduced into evidence nor its authors were led into the witness box “where as” they constituted the best evidence in proof of scribing of the relevant recitals in the apposite original list also when it constituted the best evidence in respect of the items detailed there in being kept by the complainant in a locked Almirah, at the time when she entered her matrimonial home also when there from alone it was assuredly ascertainable whether the items mentioned therein being or not found in the unlocked Almirah. Hence the charge framed under Section 406 IPC also stands not proven. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded here in above, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned court below does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forth with.