Crl.Rev.No. 703 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 703 of 2007 Date of decision: 02.04.2009 Jag Parvesh ......Petitioner Versus Rukesh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.I.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were tried for an offence under Sections 498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.49 dated 3.2.2006 registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 17.1.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Aggrieved by the same, Jag Parvesh-complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.1 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The gravamen of the prosecution case, as culled out from the police report, transmitted under section 173 Crl.Rev.No. 703 of 2007 2 Cr.P.C. is that on February 2, 2006, on receipt of a telephonic message, Head Constable Om Parkash, accompanied by other police officials, rushed to the Jindal Hospital, Hisar and learnt that Rajbala was dead. However on 3.2.2006 one Jag Parvesh, deceased's brother, got recorded his statement to the effect that his sister Rajbala was married with Rukesh accused about three years ago. The accused persons ( husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law) used to maltreat her being dissatisfied with dowry and had been raising unlawful demand of a motor cycle. Just fifteen days prior to the occurrence, the matter was amicably resolved in the complaint, made to Hisar police. On 1.2.2006, one Kapoora telephoned Jag Parvesh (complainant) that his sister was ill. Thereafter, he alongwith his cousin Ramesh and uncle Rajbir went there and was apprised by his sister that his husband, mother-in-law and brother-in- law administered some poisonous substance to her. Thereafter, the complainant stayed in the house of Kapoora at night. On 2.2.2006, he went to meet his sister and her condition was deteriorated. So, they took her to their village, but she became more serious. Thereafter, they took her to Government Hospital, Hansi. Being in precarious condition, she was referred to PGI MS Crl.Rev.No. 703 of 2007 3 Rohtak. But they got her admitted in Jindal Hospital, Hisar, where she died. On the statement of decease's brother, the case was registered and the investigation agency swung into action.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in acquitting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the charge framed against them. Deceased Rajbala had died an un- natural death within three years of her marriage. As per the medical evidence on record, she had died due to consumption of poison. The prosecution had led sufficient evidence to support its case to the effect that deceased-Rajbala had been harassed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on account of insufficient dowry and due to this reason, she had consumed poison. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, has submitted that admittedly marriage of the deceased was solemnized with respondent No.1-Rukesh by way of ring ceremony. In these circumstances, it was not believable that the respondents would have raised a demand of dowry at a later stage. There was delay in lodging of the FIR, which showed that the same was result of deliberations. In the present case, admittedly, deceased Rajbala had died within three years of marriage. It has also come on record that she was a divorcee and had performed her second marriage with respondent No.1. It is evident from the judgment of the trial Court Crl.Rev.No. 703 of 2007 4 that it has transpired from the evidence on record that the marriage of the deceased and respondent No.1 was performed by way of ring ceremony in the presence of 20-25 persons. In these circumstances, the demand of dowry at a later stage does not inspire confidence. Learned trial Court has also observed that a compromise was effected between the deceased and respondent No.1 ( Ex.PJ/1). Statement of the deceased was recorded during the said compromise proceedings in a Panchayat (Ex.PJ/2), which showed that the deceased wanted to live separately with her husband. The matter was amicably resolved. Learned trial Court has further observed that this also showed that there was no demand of dowry at all on the part of the respondents at any point of time. Ramesh Kumar- PW-8 was the first cousin of the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, he showed his ignorance with regard to the name of the first husband of the deceased with whom she was married just 1 ½ year prior to her second marriage with respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has observed that PW-8 Ramesh Kumar was not well conversant with the prosecution story. As per PW-1 Dr.Anjali Gupta, Rajbala (since deceased) was admitted in her hospital on 2.2.2006 around 12.20 p.m. with history of consumption of poison. Despite her efforts, Rajbala could not be saved and she died around 2.15 p.m. In her cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that Rajbala was brought to the hospital by her brother/complainant Jag Parvesh and he disclosed to her that Crl.Rev.No. 703 of 2007 5 his sister had consumed poison on 2.2.2006 at about 9.00 a.m. The matter was, however, reported to the police by the complainant on 3.2.2006. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had observed that the delay in lodging of the FIR gained significance and was fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, the reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondents No. 1 to 3 of the charge framed against them are sound reasons and call for no interference. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 02, 2009 anita