CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 05, 2011 Suman Bala .....Petitioner VERSUS Lalit Mohan and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. D. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This revision petition is directed against the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC. Lalit Mohan, Neelam Sen, Sheela and Naresh Kumar alongwith one Monika were put to trial for the aforesaid offences. Monika was declared juvenile and separate proceedings were held against her being juvenile. Suman Bala daughter of Satpal and wife of Lalit CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Mohan moved an application, making allegation of her harassment for demand of dowry. The complainant was married to Lalit Mohan on 30.6.2002. As per the allegation, her father had spent considerable amount on her marriage and had given her sufficient dowry. On the very next day of her marriage, her father-in-law complained that very less money was spent on marriage and it was not according to the standard of a police Inspector. The father-in-law also stated that father of the complainant had promised to give Maruti Car, refrigerator and coloured T.V but had not given said items. The complainant was told that she was not worth to be a daughter-in-law and would be treated as a servant. The respondent-accused statedly had taken away her jewellery. She has also made some other allegations of payment of amount for purchasing T.V and fridge but still the respondents did not mend their ways. The complainant has also accused her husband to have slapped her and pushed her on to a fire cracker on Diwali night. Other instances of husband giving her beatings are also narrated, besides making allegations against Neelam and Monika. On the basis of such allegations, narrated in detail, a formal FIR was registered on 29.8.2003. Certain dowry articles were recovered on 2.9.2003. The respondent- accused joined investigation and were granted concession of anticipatory bail. The trial thereafter followed on CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: presentation of challan. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The main two witnesses were the complainant (PW1) and her father (PW2). The respondents made statement in their defence, denying the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them. They also led defence evidence and had placed on record exhibits D1 to D12, which were bills of articles and D13, which was the LIC policy of the accused, Lalit Mohan. Order of discharge passed by Juvenile Justice Board in respect of Monika was also produced in evidence. The respondents have also placed on record the statement of PW2, which he made before the Additional District Judge, Karnal, in a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in detail and finding holes in their story has acquitted the respondents. Though PW1 has given version on the lines as contained in her complaint but she was well exposed during her cross-examination. PW1 admitted that at the time of her marriage, she was student of M.Com, whereas her husband was studying in B.A. She conceded that her husband had taken LIC policy, where she was a nominee. The complainant admitted that the accused, though had snatched her jewellery but had given her back on the day of Karva Choth. Finally, she also agreed that on 24.12.2002, she had CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: condoned all the mistakes of the accused persons but qualified it by saying that her `heart was not clear'. It is not clear what it meant. The witness has also admitted that the list of recovered articles contained certain articles which belonged to the family of the respondents. During her examination, the complainant has conceded that the recovered articles had been purchased by her in-laws and some of the Saris were new. When confronted, she admitted that Saris, Pents and bed sheets did not belong to her. Certain photographs were also produced, which were taken on Diwali days, which belied the version given by her making the allegations about the incident, which the witness has alleged to have happened on Diwali. The state of evidence given by PW2, her father, was also not different. He admitted to have made a statement in the divorce petition pending before District and Sessions Judge, Ambala, PW2 conceded that during negotiation, his daughter (the complainant) refused to settle. PW2 also admitted that he had got the complaint typed in consultation with the family members. The witness also deposed that endevours were made to settle the girl but situation became worst and case had to be filed. The present complaint was filed after 9 months of the petition for divorce filed by the respondents. The trial Court also CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: discussed the evidence of remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution in detail and their cross-examination and after analyzing the same and the defence evidence, came to conclude that no dowry was given in this case, as was admitted by father of the complainant in a statement given before the District and Sessions Judge in a divorce petition. The bills, which were produced by the respondents, corresponded to the items recovered from them and the prosecution could not produce any bill to show that if any dowry articles were purchased by them. The Court, thus, appear justified in recording a finding that no offence under Section 406 IPC is proved. The allegations of harassment as alleged has also been examined in the light of evidence available on record and the Court found these not proved on the basis of the evidence. Each and every allegation was contradicted by evidence available on record. Photographs on Diwali night showed that the complainant was celebrating the Diwali very happily. Her sister was also present with her on that night. The relevant witnesses were not examined to lend support to the allegations of slapping. This incident allegedly happened in the presence of Sneh, who was not examined. The allegation made against Monika and Neelam were not corroborated by any medical or any ocular account. The Court accordingly was justified in observing that these CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: allegations appears to have been made with the aim to rope in all family members, which is the general trend. The view formed by the trial Court is well supported by the evidence on record and is a reasonable one. The same, therefore, does not call for any interference. Petitioner, Suman Bala, perhaps being aware of this difficulty of lack of evidence has filed a miscellaneous application making prayer for leading additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C to place on record documents, Annexures P-1 to P-8. These annexures are the documents showing that Naresh Kumar, father of the respondent- husband of the complainant had disowned his son, which notice was subsequently withdrawn. One of the Annexure is photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt of a complaint, which the petitioner had filed to DGP, alleging that the Investigating Officer was not making fair investigation. One document is a prescription of a sick report, indicating treatment received by the petitioner for injuries etc. When questioned about the maintainability of such an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence at the stage of revision, the counsel could not offer any justification. Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on the party to lead an additional evidence as a matter of right either during trial or at the appellate stage. Permission has to be sought for leading of additional evidence, be at the CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 7 }: stage of trial or at any subsequent stage. Additional evidence can be permitted at the appellate stage but under Section 391 Cr.P.C. There is a substantial difference in regard to the rights and consideration for leading additional evidence during the course of trial or at the appellate stage. In large number of cases, the Court has taken a view that re- trial or leading of additional evidence can not be permitted where it would lead to filling up of lacunas in the prosecution. Reference may be made to Makhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1992(2) RCR 109. In Shyam Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 1986 (1) RCR (Criminal) 555, the order remanding the case back for retrial was held unjustified on the ground that it would lead to allowing the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in its case. In Machander Vs. The State of Hyderabad, The Punjab Law Reporter 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made very relevant observations in regard to re-opening of the case where some questions had not been asked to the accused while rejecting the prayer for retrial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “We are not prepared to keep persons who are on trial for their lives under indefinite suspense because trial judges omit to do their duty. Justice is not one-sided. It has many facets and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on us to see that CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 8 }: the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detection of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go. Except in cler cases of guilty, where the error is purely technical, the forces that are arrayed against the accused should no more be permitted in special appeal to repair the effects of their bungling that an accused should be permitted to repair gaps in his defence which he could and ought to have made in the lower courts. The scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for the accused or against him, whether in favour of the State or not and one broad rule must apply in all cases.” Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that scale of justice, as per the above observations, are to be kept on an even balance whether for or against the accused or whether in favour of the State or not and one broad rule is to apply in all cases. In any case, the mode adopted by the petitioner is not a permissible mode to lead additional evidence. The CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 9 }: petitioner ought to have realised that additional evidence led either at the stage of trial or subsequently, has to be subjected to cross-examination. Simply by moving an application, as has been done by the petitioner, the documents can not be placed on record and taken into consideration. Otherwise also, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are available for use at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code and if anyone intends to lead any additional evidence after the conclusion of trial, then perhaps such a move can only be made under Section 391 Cr.P.C, where the primary discretion is of the Court and such additional evidence can be permitted, if the Court thinks that such additional evidence to be necessary for which it has to record its reason and then may either take such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate etc. Thus, additional evidence can be permitted only if it is considered necessary, for which the Courts have to records its reasons. No such prayer has been made by the petitioner and simply an application under Section 311 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to place on record some additional documents, which is not the proper mode or method to seek a prayer for additional evidence at this stage. This prayer, thus, can neither be considered nor is CRL. MISC. NO.27176 OF 2011 (O&M) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1439 OF 2010 :{ 10 }: justified for being considered and accordingly this application is dismissed. So would be the fate of the revision and the same is also dismissed. December 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE