-1- Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 10, 2010. Mukesh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap Singh Gill, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Mukesh, in this revision petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has challenged the judgment dated 18.4.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') was -2- Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, on each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Lekhraj Arora, Dalip and Yograj, co-accused of the petitioner, were, however, acquitted of the charges framed against them. The instant F.I.R was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Smt.Jyoti Arora, wife of the petitioner, whereby she stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in March, 1991; that several articles, viz, scooter, refrigerator, almirah, sofa set, washing machine, four tolas gold besides cash were given in dowry; that her in-laws were not happy with the dowry articles; that they started harassing and beating the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry so as to pressurize her to bring colour television and cash of Rs.10,000/- from her parents. She was even threatened to be set ablaze. On 8.11.1991, a son was born to her. On that occasion, her father gave clothes for all the family members of the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- in cash. However, the petitioner taunted her as to why gold chain had not been given. The complainant was not being allowed to meet anybody including her relatives. The complainant further alleged that she had written several letters to her parents, but they kept silence to avoid humiliation. The complainant also prayed that her dowry articles be got returned to her. -3- Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint dated 9.10.1993 filed by the complainant, which led to the registration of the instant case against the accused, remained unproved on record and on that account the petitioner deserves acquittal. Secondly, it was argued that entrustment of dowry articles either to the petitioner or other members of his family was not proved. Thirdly, it was argued that though there is evidence of the parents of the complainant to show that she was harassed for insufficiency of dowry, but there was no corroboration to their statements. Lastly, it was argued that the letters (Exhibits P.A to P.D), allegedly written by the complainant, have also not been proved on record. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State, has argued that the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are based on sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused-petitioner and that no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, complainant Smt.Jyoti Arora died before -4- Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. her deposition in Court, but the allegations contained in the complaint filed by her on 9.10.1993 leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused with regard to harassment at the hands of the accused for insufficiency of dowry, mal-treatment and misappropriation of dowry articles stand proved on record from the statements of Satish Bhatia (P.W.1) and Smt.Satyawati (P.W.2), parents of the deceased. Both of them were subjected to probing cross-examination by the counsel for the petitioner- accused in the trial Court, but nothing could be elicited therefrom to doubt the veracity of the testimonies furnished by them. The version given by Satish Bhatia (P.W.1) and Smt.Satyawati (P.W.2) gets corroboration from the letters (Exhibits P.A to P.D) written by Smt.Jyoti Arora (since deceased) to her parents. If Smt.Jyoti Arora had not been harassed by the accused, there was no necessity for her to write letters to her parents complaining against the accused. These letters were taken into possession by the police from the custody of Satish Bhatia (P.W.1) vide recovery memo Exhibit P.E. In letter Exhibit P.A, the complainant expressed her suspicion that the accused-petitioner might ditch her as he had no love for her. It also appears from this letter that the parents of the complainant had promised to give a gas cylinder, but the accused was insisting that Rs.5,000/- more would be required. Letter Exhibit P.B shows that the accused- petitioner was not giving anything to the complainant and it compelled her parents to send regular cash to her so that she could -5- Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. look after her son properly. It also appears from the letter that the complainant and accused-petitioner Mukesh were residing in a rented accommodation at Indore and the landlord had warned the accused not to beat the complainant. In letter Exhibit P.C, the complainant has clearly mentioned that the accused used to beat her and asked her as to when her father would give colour television. It was further mentioned by her that the petitioner was demanding cash and for that purpose he was harassing the complainant. The only defence put forth by the petitioner was that since the parents of the deceased wanted to retain the custody of the minor son of Smt.Jyoti Arora and the accused and the petitioner-accused refused to do so, the instant case against the accused was pursued by the parents of Smt. Jyoti Arora. In this regard, the accused had examined Sukhpal Singh (D.W.1) and Fakir Chand Joshi (D.W.2). They stated that the deceased wanted to give her son in adoption to her aunt Usha Bhatia and differences arose between the complainant and the accused on that account. This defence is not plausible. It is highly improbable that the complainant would like to give her only son in adoption to her aunt. It has come in evidence that the complainant and the petitioner were residing in Indore. Both the D.Ws are residents of Faridabad. They never went to Indore. The case of the prosecution is that everything happened when accused-petitioner Mukesh shifted to Indore. The statements of Sukhpal Singh (D.W.1) and Fakir Chand Joshi (D.W.2) have, thus, -6- Criminal Revision No.1129 of 2003. rightly been discarded by both the Courts below. The evidence on record suggests that the petitioner-accused had also committed the offence of breach of trust. It is clear from the statements of Satish Bhatia (P.W.1) and Smt.Satyawati (P.W.2) that after leaving his service at Faridabad, the accused-petitioner had shifted to Indore. In all probabilities, the petitioner had taken all the dowry articles of the complainant to Indore. It has come in the statement of Satish Bhatia (P.W.1), father of the complainant, that the complainant was brought to Faridabad from Indore by her father-in-law Lekhraj Arora and from Faridabad she was turned out. It means the complainant was empty handed when she was turned out of her matrimonial house at Faridabad. It was on this account that she had also prayed in her complaint to the police that her dowry articles be got returned to her. The petitioner had failed to return the Istridhan of the complaint despite her demand in this regard. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 10, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE