Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 10.09.2009 Navdeep Kaur ....Petitioner(s) vs. Tejpal Singh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr.K.B.S.Mann, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 19.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Jalandhar, whereby the accused- respondent No.1 on being given benefit of doubt stands acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 406/498-A and 308 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence led by the prosecution and has taken a totally wrong and contrary view on the statement given by the complainant before it. He submits that a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was given to the accused -Tej Pal Singh (husband of the petitioner) at the time of marriage as Shagun along with the bracelet has been termed by the trial Court as a gift whereas it was a dowry and falls within the definition of “dowry” as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In support of his contention, counsel relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 776. He, apart from this, submits that the learned trial Court Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -2- has totally over-looked the medical evidence which was led by the prosecution which proved beyond doubt the commission of an offence under Sections 498-A and 308 IPC. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. There can be no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal's case (supra). The basic requirement for the application of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is the demand of dowry as a consideration for the marriage and even, at or before or after the marriage. The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove the basic ingredients for bringing the case within the ambit of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as it has failed to prove that there was any demand on the part of the accused-respondents for marriage, at or before or thereafter as consideration. The Shagun without a demand for a particular amount if given to the husband at the time of marriage along with other gifts cannot be termed as a dowry article unless it is proved that the same was given to the husband or any other person on the demand made thereof. Ceremonial gifts which are given at the time of the marriage without there being any specific demand thereof cannot be termed as dowry articles. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and the evidence which has been led by the prosecution and, therefore, cannot be pressed into service to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to misreading of the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, suffice it to say that the Court has properly appreciated the evidence and Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -3- has come to a conclusion which is just and reasonable. In any case, where two views are possible, the view which has been formed by the trial Court and goes in favour of the accused cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse or based on no evidence. Paras 13 to 16 of the judgment of the learned trial Court do not leave any scope for interference by this Court in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction. The said paragraphs read as follows:- “13. The prosecution was under obligation to prove the entrustment of dowry articles and further their mis- appropriation. It was further to prove the cruelty to the complainant for bringing less dowry and the beating of the complainant by the accused which was dangerous to life with an intention to kill her. Now these points will be taken up one by one. (1) The first allegation against the accused is of mis- appropriation of dowry articles meant for Navdeep Kaur. To prove this, there is statement on oath made by the complainant and her father. Now before the police there is not even a single word from the side of the complainant that the dowry articles were entrusted to different family members of the accused and the dowry articles were also entrusted to the accused which were meant for the complainant. In the list of dowry articles and in the statement before the court, there is nothing to show that any dowry articles was given to the accused Taj Pal Singh. Here it is to be noted that only accused Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -4- Tej Pal Singh is facing trial, whereas his mother and sister against whom the allegations have been levelled are not facing trial. So, we have to see the allegations against accused Tej Pal Singh only. In her statement before the Court, she has stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was given to accused Tej Pal Singh at the time of marriage as Shagan along with one bracelet. I find that this is not dowry article. These were ceremonial gifts given to accused Tej Pal Singh at the time of marriage. Further, it has been alleged that golden Kara, chain and diamond ring were given to accused Tej Pal Singh. These articles were only meant for Tej Pal Singh and never meant for Navdeep Kaur. So from this above statement of Navdeep Kaur to prove Section 406 IPC, I find that she has miserably failed to prove that some dowry articles meant for her were entrusted to Taj Pal Singh and he has mis-appropriated the same. Ceremonial articles cannot be termed as dowry articles. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this. Even father of the complainant Ajit Singh has miserably failed to prove that the dowry articles were entrusted to accused Tej Pal Singh. So, I find that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. Sections 498-A and 308 IPC 14. Both these points are inter connected. It has been alleged by the prosecution that there were beating for the Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -5- demand of dowry and the complainant was treated with cruelty. To prove this, the complainant is only witness. As far as her father is concerned, his evidence is hear say which is inadmissible in evidence. He never saw the beating given to the complainant neither the complainant was treated with cruelty in his presence. From the scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant, I find that there are many improvements in her statement in the Court from the statement made before the police. Before the police, she has not alleged that she was given beatings due to bringing less dowry. She herself has admitted that on the day of the occurrence, Tej Pal Singh and her mother had gone to Amritsar and when Tej Pal Singh came back, he was offered a glass of water and then telephone rang up which was picked up by Tej Pal Singh and on the voice, he threw the receiver and caught her hold from her long hairs. Now this version is missing from her statement in the Court. A vague story has been given by her. She has improved the version by saying that there was talk between the accused and her father. I find that this fact is missing from her statement before the police. Now the stand taken by the defence is relevant. The case of the defence from the very beginning is that Navdeep Kaur used to telephone her friend namely Navdeep Singh at Chandigarh this is being objected by accused Tej Pal Singh. She showed her Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -6- reluctance to discontinue her relations with Navdeep Singh and on the day when Tej Pal Singh came to the house, he picked up the receiver and he might have found Navdeep Singh calling and on this there was fight between both. Here it may be stated that in the Indian Society, no husband will tolerate the relations of his wife with any other man and even if on his advice, she continued with it. Then this type of situation comes. The defence has been able to prove that there was regular talk in between Navdeep Singh and Navdeep Kaur. Specific telephone number has been given which has been put in the cross-examination to the complainant. She has admitted that she used to call on this telephone No. She has further admitted that telephone No.172,22,33,467 is that of Navdeep Singh at Chandigarh. 15. Now coming to the medical evidence led by the prosecution, I find that first version is the best version. The doctor to whom the complainant was taken at first is the best evidence. She was taken to S.G.L.Hospital where she was examined and medical aid was given to her. Dr.Prem Parkash has stated that there was no visible injury on the person of the patient namely Navdeep Kaur. She was complaining of her pain in the whole of her body. PW-6 is Dr.Gurpal Singh. He has medico legally examined her at 11 P.M. and found four Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -7- injuries. All the injuries were simple in nature and in the cross-examination he has admitted that they could be the result of fall and the duration of the injuries was given half hour to 45 minutes. It is pertinent to note that Navdeep Kaur appeared before Dr.Prem Parkash at S.G.L.Hospital between 8 to 9 P.M. So, it clearly shows that between 8 to 9 P.M. there was not any visible injury and later on it were caused with friendly hand. Otherwise, the duration cannot be between half hour to 45 minutes. 16. Now coming to the conduct of the complainant, I find that she was treated well. She was taken for honeymoon to Goa. She also went with her husband to Shimla. Even at the time of occurrence, she was on way to Massouri along with her sister-in-law Jiwan Jot Kaur and her husband Sikandar Singh. It is very strange to believe that two families are on excursion to hill station and while going there, a sum of Rs.20 lacs was demanded from the parents of the complainant and on its refusal beating was given. Trip to Massouri was completed. If there was such heated exchange between them, then no case is made out for going to Massouri. So the story of demand of Rs.25 lacs is totally unbelievable. The other witness who has been examined by the prosecution Randeep Kaur is also unreliable. She says nothing about the demand of dowry. Her only evidence is that one morning Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -8- there was fight in between Tej Pal Singh and Navdeep Kaur. Other part of her is here say, which cannot be accepted. She further stated that on 20.6.06, she heard noise. Accused Tej Pal Singh was beating Navdeep Kaur. She saw it from back side of the window. She knocked the door. Navdeep Kaur fell down unconscious. She took Navdeep Kaur to S.G.L.Hospital, Garha. Then she rang up to the father of Navdeep Kaur and Jiwanjot Kaur. In her cross-examination she stated that no person from the neighbourhood reached at the spot after hearing the alarm. She admits that she is receptionist in Akal Hospital. She failed to prove any rent agreement in between them. She also failed to prove any rent receipts. The improvements made by her in the statement made in the Court from the statement made before the police was put to this witness and I find that there is no satisfactory reply. So keeping in view the judgment Ashok Vishnu Davare versus State of Maharashtra (Supra) her statement cannot be relied upon. It is further observed that this witness is an interested witness and she has every reason to depose against the accused as she wanted her conviction.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the powers being exercised by the Revisional Court are limited in nature,especially to set aside the order of acquittal and that too at the instance of private party. In the case of Mahendra Partap Singh Versus Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -9- Sarju Singh and another, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has said that the High Court is entitled to set aside the acquittal in a revision or order of retrial, where there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not entitled to interfere, if wrong view is taken by Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. However, the High Court can interfere, if there is an error on point of law or no appraisal of evidence at all. The High Court can also exercise its jurisdiction, if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence, which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. This position has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Akalu Ahir Versus Ramdeo Ram, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2145. This has been the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which has been followed by the Courts. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar, 2002 S.C. 2907, again this position has been reiterated. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts, should not be lightly exercised, particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. This jurisdiction being limited one, should not be equated and exercised as one which an Appellate Court exercises, which is much wider as the Court exercising such jurisdiction can go into the question of facts and law and convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The revisional jurisdiction and that too at the instance of complainant has to be exercised by the High Courts with care, caution, circumspect and sparingly that too in very exceptional cases. Crl.Rev.No.2719 of 2008 -10- Keeping these principles in view, no legal infirmity in the procedure or conduct of trial has been pointed out, which would call for interference by this Court as the assertion of counsel for the petitioner is non consideration of evidence by the Trial Court in the proper perspective, while reaching the conclusion. This cannot be said to be a case, which would call for interference by this Court or one which would fall within the parameters, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction as has been laid down in various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. September 10, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE