Criminal Revision No.851 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.851 of 1999 Date of decision: 31.01.2008 Vedwanti ..Petitioner versus Baljit Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with, Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J(Oral) Vedwanti wife of Jagdish instituted a complaint against the sister and relations of her husband-Jagdish with a primary grievance that since matrimonial relations between her and her husband were strained, her five years old son Bablu was taken away from her custody from the school and this amounted to kidnapping qua the husband and other relations. Later on, the allegations against the husband were dropped and it was stated that only the relations of the husband were involved. She had also made a complaint to the police which was investigated. Versions as mentioned therein were not found to be true. Therefore, she instituted a complaint in which the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani summoned the relations of the husband for the offence under Sections 364, 120-B IPC. After summoning the accused, the case was committed to the court Criminal Revision No.851 of 1999 2 of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who at that stage, discharged the accused and came to the conclusion that no charge under Section 364 IPC was made out. It would be apposite to re-produce the reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, discharging the accused:- “Smt. Vedwanti complainant has specifically pleaded that her minor son Bablu was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of herself and her husband Jagdish with intention to commit his murder, on the pretext of taking him to school, CW6, the husband of complainant was a very important witness. He categorically stated that it is not correct that his brother Baljit Singh, sister Surjo, her husband Ramphal, his father Khem Chand, and other Smt. Risalo (all accused) have forcibly taken Bablu to his sister's house Smt. Surjo. It is not disputed that on the application of the complainant Ex. C4/1 dated 29.10.1996, made to the Station House Officer, Bhiwani, complainant Vedwanti has stated that her husband Jagdish kidnapped Bablu, aged about five years. Complainant Ex. C4/1 has been proved by the prosecution itself, it does not indict the present accused and in the complaint before the Magistrate she has not indicted her husband Jagdish but have indicted other accused, who are her in-laws. On this complaint, enquiry was made by the police and as per report Ex.C5/1, it was reported that a false case has been made by the complainant Vedwanti against her husband Jagdish regarding kidnapping of her son Bablu. Bablu has expressed the desire to live with his father Jagdish. Ex. C5/2, is the D.D.Entry to the same effect wherein Bablu has stated that he has gone out of his own free will to stay with his Bua (father's sister) at Village Chillar and he is also studying there. It was also stated that Bablu wants to live with his father out of his own free will and in presence of respectable person. Bablu was handed over to his father Jagdish. Another glaring contradiction which was pointed out was that CW1 complainant Vedwanti in her statement before the Court made on 15.11.1996 Criminal Revision No.851 of 1999 3 stated that on 29.10.1996, she had reported the matter to S.P.Bhiwani and she also went to the Station House Officer, Bhiwani, for inquiry but till today i.e. (15.11.96) she does not know the whereabouts of her son Bablu but this is in direct contradiction to her own documents moved before the police i.e. complaint Ex.C4/1 and report of the police Ex.C5/1 wherein Bablu had already been recovered as a result of search warrant prior to 15.11.96 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, from the house of his own Bua and handed over to his father Jagdish. Otherwise, also, the testimony of CW1 Vedwanti is of hear-say nature as she has stated that she came to know about the incident from the conversation between the family members. Similarly, the testimony of CW2 Mahabir Sigh, who is the maternal uncle of complainant is also hear-say nature as he has stated that on 29.10.96, he was told regarding the incident. Both the parties are closely related to each other i.e. accused Smt.Risalo is the mother-in-law, accused Khem Chand is the father-in-law of the complainant while accused Ramphal is the brother-in- law of complainant, accused Smt.Surjo is the wife of Ramphal and Baljit Singh younger brother of complainant's husband. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, no kidnapping of any kind in furtherance of any conspiracy or common intention of the accused is made out. There is not even an iota of evidence on the file to show that they ever had intention to murder Master Bablu. Therefore, all accused are discharged. File be consigned to the record room”. Mr.Bali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error by resorting to realm of appreciation of evidence and has not applied the test of prima facie. He has further stated that the facts stated in the order are not in consonance with the statements recorded. Another Criminal Revision No.851 of 1999 4 grievance made by Mr.Bali is that the Additional Sessions Judge, committed an error by relying upon the statement of Bablu which was made to the police. Be as it may, it is not disputed that the relations between the parties were strained. The husband had appeared as complainant witness and demolished the case by saying that his son was with his sister and was not kidnapped. Bablu who was said to be aged five years in the year 1996 is now near the age of attaining maturity. Any interference caused by the Revisional Court at this stage will not be in paramount interest of the child who is caught between tug of war between father and mother. After 11 years to put the accused at trial who are close relations of husband, will play havoc with the child. Even otherwise, the reasoning of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, cannot said to be wrong. He had not shut his eyes to the evidence recorded. Therefore, statement of Jagdish, CW-6-husband of the complainant was a material testimony which could not be brushed aside. I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. January 31,2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE