IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 06, 2009. Mahi Pal Singh son of Daya Chand, business, resident of Village Gorota, District Faridabad. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Keshar Dagar son of Kishan Singh, aged 33 years, cultivator, resident of Village Jharsenthli, Police Station City Ballabgarh, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant, challenging the order of acquittal, dated 21.12.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the respondent No. 1 -accused has been acquitted of charge under Section 307/498-A I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court has totally overlooked the evidence produced by the prosecution. He contends that the first and foremost evidence is of victim i.e. Smt. Bimla P.W.6. He contends that her evidence goes beyond doubt to prove the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the respondent No. 1-accused that she was forced to drink poison at gun point by the respondent No. 1-accused as he forcibly Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006. put the barrel of his gun on her neck and administered poison to her in a glass. He further contends that the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and maltreatment at the hands of respondent No. 1-accused also stands fully proved on the basis of statement of victim Bimla Dagar P.W.6 as well as statement of P.W. 3 Mahipal Singh, who is the complainant. It has clearly come on record in their statements that soon after marriage in the year 1988, the victim was harassed by respondent No. 1-accused repeatedly for demand of dowry and used to physically assault her after consuming liquor and repeatedly turned her out of matrimonial house. He further contends that their statements further show that panchayats were convened and the matter on various occasions was resolved and money was paid to the respondent No. 1-accused. Counsel for the petitioner-complainant thereafter moved on to the statement of Dr. (Mrs.) Seema-P.W.4, Medical Officer, Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, which according to counsel for the petitioner, prove beyond doubt administering of poison by respondent No. 1-accused to the victim Smt. Bimla Dagar. He contends that the medical and oral evidence proved beyond doubt the factum of administration of poison by the respondent No. 1-accused and it was good luck of the victim that she survived. He further contends that the motive of respondent No. 1-accused to commit the crime was to get rid of her, so that illicit relations, which he had established with other women, could be continued by him as the victim objected to such act of respondent No. 1-accused. He on the basis of these submissions contends that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not sustainable and the Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and, therefore, the judgment passed by the Trial Court needs to be interfered with. -2- Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006. I have heard counsel for the petitioner-complainant and have gone through the records of the case with his able assistance. The Trial Court has in detail discussed the evidence, which has been led by the prosecution and defence. It has come on record that victim Bimla Dagar was admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, by her husband Keshar Dagar, respondent No. 1-accused within a period of one hour of the alleged incident at Village Jharsenthli. Dr. D.K. Kesar of Escorts Hospital, while appearing as P.W.14, admitted that respondent No. 1-accused Keshar Dagar arranged blood for victim Bimla Dagar and had himself donated blood for the said purpose. It had come in evidence that respondent No. 1- accused paid all expenses of the hospital for treatment of Smt. Bimla Dagar and had been visiting her in the the hospital frequently. This shows the intention of the respondent No. 1-accused. Had he wanted to kill his wife Bimla Dagar, he would have left her at the house to die and would not have taken prompt steps to take her to one of the best hospitals at Faridbad. As per evidence of Bimla Dagar-P.W.6 in her cross- examination, she has admitted that respondent No. 1-accused was holding a glass in his right hand and gun in his left hand. There was no resistance on the part of victim as both hands of respondent No. 1-accused were occupied and she could have made an effort to escape. It has also come in the medical report that there were no external injury or bruises marks on the person of Smt. Bimla Dagar. This belies the version that she was administered poison forcibly as it is common knowledge that the alleged poison i.e. organo phosphorus, when mixed in water gives a pungent smell. No evidence has been brought on record to corroborate the statement of Smt. Bimla Dagar with regard to her assertion that earlier also she was beaten up by respondent -3- Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006. No. 1-accused, when some bangles were broken and got embodied in her body and the same were got removed by way of surgical intervention in Bhatia Nursing Home. No evidence in support of this contention has been brought on record either from Bhatia Nursing Home or otherwise. No other eye witness has been produced in support of incident. P.W. 3 Mahi Pal Singh has deposed on the basis of hear-say evidence with regard to incident, of which he was informed by his sister. He had stated about alleged harassment and demand of dowry repeatedly. The record shows that not even one complaint had ever been lodged against respondent No. 1-accused either by Smt. Bimla Dagar or any of her family members, alleging such harassment or demand of dowry during the period in question i.e. from the date the marriage took place in 1988 till the date of incident i.e. the year, 2003 (about 15 years). No person has been examined with regard to the factum of panchayats being convened for bringing about a compromise. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he does not know whether respondent No. 1-accused attended those panchayats or not. He has further admitted that he was not present in any of the panchayats. The respondent No. 1-accused in his evidence had led evidence and taken a stand that an amount of Rs. 1.75 crores was deposited in the account of Bimla Dagar-P.W.6, which fact was admitted by Smt. Bimla Dagar-P.W.6 in her cross-examination and the said account, according to Bimla Dagar-P.W.6, is being taken care of and looked after by her brother Mahi Pal Singh-P.W.3. The witness stated that he did not know this fact. As regards the allegations with regard to entry of anti social elements in the house of his uncle at Ballabgarh and assaulting him, resulting in injuries and -4- Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006. registration of a case as a consequence thereof, no F.I.R. has been proved on record. This goes to show that the evidence, which was given by Mahi Pal Singh-P.W.3, is shaky and unsupported by any corroborative evidence. Bimla Dagar gave a statement dated 24.12.2003 Ex.P.5 and thereafter, supplementary statement dated 29.01.2004 Ex.P.9. No allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against respondent No. 1-accused. However, while appearing before the Trial Court as P.W.6, she made improvement by levelling such allegations as would appear to be demand of dowry. As has been mentioned above, she had admitted the deposit of Rs. 1.75 crores by respondent No. 1-accused in her account. The defence produced D.W.2 M.S. Chauhan, Head of Department, Claims, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Palwal, who proved that all the insurance policies, which were taken by respondent No. 1-accused in his name prior to the date of occurrence, the nominee is Bimla Dagar. As late as April, 1999, when the policy was taken by respondent No. 1-accused, which was to mature in April, 2019, the nominee is Bimla Dagar. The said policy is for Rs. 1.50 lakhs, whereas two other policies are for Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs respectively. That part Bimla Dagar had admitted in her cross-examination that in the year, 1992-1993, respondent No. 1-accused had received more than Rs. 7 crores as compensation from the Government as a part of his land, which was acquired. The allegations, which were made were for demand of dowry, and pertained to this very period which, therefore, cannot be accepted to be correct on the face of it. Apart from this, as has been stated above, no corroborative evidence was produced either showing any complaint having been lodged with any authority or the convening of panchayats, which were said to have been convened, was also -5- Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006. not proved as none of the person, who had joined the said panchayats, were examined. The motive, which was attributed to respondent No.1-accused for forcibly administering poison to the victim to remove her from his way, was due to some extra marital relations with other lady. No evidence was brought on record in support of this contention. Neither any person was named nor any evidence was produced. The prosecution failed to prove the motive also, which create dent on the prosecution story. The medical evidence also does not support prosecution case as no poison was detected in the gastric leverage of Bimla Dagar as per report of F.S.L. Ex.P.25. It has further come on record that the victim remained admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, for about one month, where all her blood, stool, vital organ tests were done, but none of the tests showed that any poison was detected in them. This further weakens the case of the prosecution with regard to allegations made against respondent No. 1-accused. The learned Trial Court has in detail considered all the evidence, which was led by the prosecution and defence and has drawn conclusions, which are fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. No illegality has been committed by the Trial Court either during the trial or in appreciation of evidence on record. The powers of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is very restricted and especially in case of revision preferred by a complainant. It is not such a case, which would fall within the ambit of categories of cases, which would justify interference with the finding of acquittal in revision as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Partap Singh Versus Sarju Singh and another, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707, Akalu Ahir Versus Ramdeo -6- Criminal Revision No. 2509 of 2006. Ram, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2145, and in the subsequent judgments, which has followed these principles. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further reiterated this position in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar, 2002 S.C. 2907. Finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 06, 2009. sjks. -7-