IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 106 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 24, 2009 Saroj Bala ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rajesh Kumar,Advocate for for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Davinder Kuamr, Kalawanti and Dalip Ram, accused were tried for an offence under Sections 307, 506, 313, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No. 132 dated 26.8.2001 registered at Police Station Khuyan Sarwar. Vide judgment dated 20.11.2003, they were acquitted of the charge framed against them by the Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant Saroj Bala. The prosecution story, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, is as under:- "Facts of the prosecution case are based upon a written complaint dated 14.8.2001 filed by Saroj Bala daughter of Sugreev Kumar resident of village Kilian Wali against Dalip Kumar and Kalawanti wife of Dalip Kumar. In her complaint Saroj Bala alleged that her marriage with Devinder Kumar son of Dalip Crl. Revision No. 106 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Kumar took place about 5 years back as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. She had been given sufficient dowry as per the list attached with the complainant. However, after sometimes of her marriage, the accused started harassing her for bringing less dowry and demanding more dowry from her. Due to the harassment she kept residing in the house of her parents for the last 1½ years. A panchayat consisting of respectable persons was convened for 10/12 time for the purpose of her rehabilitation but the accused refused to rehabilitate her. Thereafter, her father Sugreev Kumar reported the matter to the police. With the intervention of the police, a compromise took place and her husband took her to matrimonial house. The said compromise was got effected by SHO of Police Station Khuyan Sarwar and the same was signed by various persons whose names were given in the compromise itself. 3.She further alleged in the said complaint that accused persons in connivance with each other and with greed of getting more and more dowry did not allow her to give birth to child and they got aborted her child. Even then also, they had got aborted child as per medical report illegally. They also put up a demand of Rs.20,000/- and held out a threat to her that if she did not bring the desired amount they would kill her. She told her mother in law that previously they had given a Scooter make Bajaj Chetak and then he had got purchased Hero Handa Motor Cycle after selling the Scooter and as such she could not fulfill their new demands every day, and she could not bring the desired amount Crl. Revision No. 106 of 2009 (O&M) -3- from her father who had got two killas of land. Then on 28.7.2001 Devinder Kumar, Dalip Kumar and Kalawanti put a rope around her neck and tried to kill her but her daughter aged about 3 years woke up on hearing her cries and also started weeping. The Dalip Kumar son of Bhoja Ram kept standing armed with a rifle telling that he would shoot her if she raised alarm. On the next day, she was turned out from her matrimonial house in three clothes. She cam back to her parental home crying and was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Abohar by Ex- Sarpanch Kapoor Singh and her father where she was medically examined. It was prayed by her that she felt danger to her life at the hands of the accused and as such her life and property be saved besides taking action against the accused, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint FIR was registered against the accused which set the law in motion. On completion of the investigation and other formalities, challan against the accused was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate" Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charge framed against them. The incident in the present case is alleged to have occurred on 28.7.2001. As per the complainant, respondents No. 2 to 4 had put a rope around her neck and tried to kill her but her daughter aged about 3 years woke up so she was saved. On the next day she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Learned trial Court after going through the evidence held that there was delay in medical examination of the petitioner. She Crl. Revision No. 106 of 2009 (O&M) -4- arrived in the hospital on 29.7.2001 at about 5.10 P.M. The rope which was produced in the Court was also of different thickness. The disclosure statement of respondent-Devinder Kumar as per which rope was recovered, was also found doubtful as the Investigating Officer deposed that Devinder Kumar was interrogated during day time, whereas, as per Exhibit P3, he was taken out from the lock up and interrogated at 5.00 A.M. The case property produced in the Court did not bear any slip showing the particulars of case in which it was recovered. In the present case, the learned trial Court also found that the complainant had failed to establish as to why Rs.20,000/- were demanded by the respondents. As per the complainant, the scooter had been given in dowry and Rs.20,000/- was demanded for purchase of motor cycle after sale of scooter, whereas, as per PW2 Radhey Shaym, the motor cycle Hero Handa had been given at the time of marriage. Hence, the learned trial Court rightly held that the demand of Rs.20,000/- for purchase of motor cycle was not duly proved. The learned trial court has further observed that as per the medical evidence, there were three injuries on the person of the complainant,whereas, the complainant herself has deposed only with regard to one injury on her neck. Since the complainant was medically examined after delay, the possibility of fabrication of injuries on the person of the complainant could not be ruled out. In these circumstances, learned trial Court had rightly acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charge frame against them. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme 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 Crl. Revision No. 106 of 2009 (O&M) -5- 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. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (Sabina) Judge Febrauary 24, 2009 arya