Criminal Revision No.502 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of Decision:05.09.2012 [ENTITY] petitioner Versus [ENTITY] and others respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. [ENTITY] J.(ORAL).
The present criminal revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby the judgement of acquittal dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, was upheld and appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts of the case, when put in narrow compass, are that the complaint filed by the petitioner - [ENTITY] against the accused - respondents, was sent by the Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ( for short '[ACT]') for registration of the case against the accused persons. The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant was married to [ENTITY] - accused No.1 on 26.11.2000 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Kaithal. Accused No.2 was brother-in- law, accused No.3 was mother-in-law and accused No.4 was her sister-in- law. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by the mother and brother of the complainant. A sum of Rs.2 lacs was spent on the marriage. Dowry articles were entrusted to the accused jointly in the presence of one [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. After the marriage, accused Nos.2 and 4 started harassing the complainant on the ground of bringing insufficient dowry. They demanded a motorcycle for accused No.1 and gold chain for accused No.4. On 01.12.2000, accused Nos.3 and 4 took all the gold jewellery of the complainant and thereafter the said jewellery was never returned to the complainant. It was next alleged that in the mid of December, 2000, the accused raised a demand of Rs.50,000/- for motorcycle from the complainant. In the month of May, 2001, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from the complainant for paying the installments of loan for residential house. The complainant told the entire matter to her brother and mother and panchayat was convened. The brother of the complainant handed over a sum of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1. However, the behaviour of the accused towards the complainant did not change. In the month of March, 2002, the complainant wrote a letter to her brother depicting her condition. On 26.8.2002, the accused gave beatings to the complainant mercilessly and turned her out of her matrimonial house. Panchayat was again convened on 15.8.2003. All the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. They refused to hand over the dowry articles to the complainant.
The FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted by the police. The accused were arrested. Dowry articles were taken in possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] After conclusion of the investigation, report under [SECTION] [ACT] was presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Having found a prima-facie case against the accused, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short 'the [ACT]') vide order dated 23.7.2004. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined as many as four PWs, besides tendering some documents in evidence. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] The accused pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. They opted for leading defence evidence and produced two DWs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the learned trial Court vide judgement of acquittal dated 16.8.2010, acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them, holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgement dated 16.8.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgement dated 17.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, again re- appreciated the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, and came to the definite conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgement, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence and documents in the right perspective. He further submitted that overwhelming and well convincing evidence has neither been considered nor appreciated but the same has been illegally ignored by the Courts below. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgements are unsustainable in law and may be set aside.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. I say so for more than one reasons being recorded hereinafter.
Firstly it is the settled proposition of law that the revisional jurisdiction is limited one. The patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement is sine qua non for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. No patent illegality or perversity has been pointed out in either of the impugned judgements passed by the learned courts below. Both the judgements under challenge have been examined by this Court and no patent illegality has been found therein.
Secondly, it is again the settled principle of law that whenver two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the accused, is to be accepted. Further, it is not the scope of the revisional jurisdiction to re- appreciate the entire evidence No glaring illegality or perversity has been pointed out in either of the impugned judgements to take a view different from the one taken by the learned courts below.
Thirdly, the view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] & anr. vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and anr. 2009(4) RCR (Crl.) 638. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.39,40 and 41 in the case of [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) read as under:
"In [PRECEDENT], a two Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us ([ENTITY], J.) was a member had an occasion to deal with most of the cases referred in this judgment. This Court provided guidelines for the Appellate Court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.
3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"for doing so.
5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
40. This Court in a recently delivered judgment [PRECEDENT] again examined judgments of this Court and laid down that A "n order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases."
41. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT], which I respectfully follow.
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, after considering each and every aspect of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned judgements do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The present criminal revision petition is bereft of any merit, without any substance and it must fail.
Resultantly, the instant criminal revision petition is ordered to be dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE 05.09.2012 sk