Criminal Revision No. 2765 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2765 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 18, 2009 Charan Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Sanjiv Kumar and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina, J. Respondents-Sanjeev Kumar, Gurcharan Singh, Dulari and Usha @ Babli were tried for an offence under Sections 304-B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No. 49 dated 25.2.2006 registered at Police Station Chhappar. Vide judgment dated 16.11.2007 they were acquitted of the charge framed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “The sequence of the events and catalogue of the facts giving rise to this prosecution can be summed up as under:- On 25.2.2006 PW7 Om Parkash, the then Station House Officer of Police Station Chhappar along with other police personnel was present at bus stand of village Chhappar, whereas PW9 Charan Criminal Revision No. 2765 of 2008 2 Singh/Complainant got his statement Ex.P4 recorded to the effect that he is a labourer by profession. He has two sons namely, Khem Singh and Harnek Singh and two daughters, namely, Usha Rani and Kulwant Rani. Kulwant Rani was married with Sanjeev Kumar (accused) on 16.4.2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. In the marriage, he had given dowry articles according to his capacity. After the marriage, his daughter was kept by her in-laws in proper manner. After that husband of his daughter, namley, Sanjeev Kumar, her mother-in-law Dulari, sister-in-law (Jethani) Babli and brother-in-law Kukku started harassing his daughter on the demand of dowry and they also used to taunt his daughter for bringing less dowry. Her daughter informed them on telephone that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and Sanjeev Kumar are raising a demand of Rs.30,000/-. Upon that, he came to the matrimonial home of his daughter and persuaded her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law that he is a poor man and has no money to pay but they did not agree and abused him. He made his daughter to understand and came back. However, they remained adamant on their demand of Rs.30,000/- and continued to harass his daughter and give her beatings. About three months before, he had called his son-in-law Sanjeev Kumar (accused) to his village and paid him Rs.10,000/- in the presence of his (complainant) wife Bhagwanti, brother-in-law Rattan Singh and son Khem Singh. After that they carried on their demand of Rs.20,000/- but h could not fulfill their demand. On 24.2.2006 at about 6 A.M., son of his neighbuorer Jaspal Patwari Criminal Revision No. 2765 of 2008 3 came to his house and informed that a telephonic message has been received from Village Daulatpur that his daughter Kulwant Rani is ill. On receipt of that information, they hired a car and reached village Daulatpur at about 9 A.M. By that time cremation of his daughter was already performed. Till now, they remained making enquiry about the cause of death of his daughter, but, nobody has co-operated them. He is sure that Sanjeev Kumar, husband of his daughter, her mother in law Dulari, sister-in-law (Jethani) Babli and brother-in-law (jeth) Kukku have murdered his daughter by giving some poisoned substance or by strangulation and have cremated her before their arrival. On this statement Ex.P4, the present case was registered under Sections 304-B/201/34 IPC vide FIR Ex.P6 and investigation was put into action. During investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded. On 26.2.2006 PW7 S.I. Om Parkash Investigating Officer of the case reached village Daulatpur alongwith the complainant and conducted the spot inspection and also prepared the rough site plan Ex.P8. He visited the cremation ground with PW6 Ram Nath and collected the last ashes and burnt bone of deceased Kulwant, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P7. All the accused were arrested in the case. During further investigation, scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.P1 was got prepared. On completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate” Criminal Revision No. 2765 of 2008 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased daughter of the petitioner had died an unnatural death in the house of her in-laws within seven years of her marriage and hence, the respondents were liable to be convicted under Section 304,201/34 IPC. In the present case, Kulwant Rani was cremated on 24.2.2006. At that time, the matter was not reported to the police. FIR in question was lodged on the next day i.e. 25.2.2006. Hence, there is no post- mortem examination report to disclose the cause of death of deceased Kulwant Rani. Prosecution case is that Kulwant Rani had either been administered poison or had been killed by strangulation. In the absence of post mortem report in this regard, the learned trial Court rightly held that it could not be said that the deceased had died due to strangulation or consumption of poison. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the parents of the deceased were duly informed by the respondent on 23.2.2006 in the evening regarding death of Kulwant Rani and they had attended the cremation of Kulwant Rani on 24.2.2006 at 11.00 A.M. However, by that time, no objection was raised by the complainant party. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that the amount received by the respondents at the time of kanyadan was deposited in the shape of FDR in the name of the deceased and the said amount is still lying in tact. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the demand of Rs.30,000/- by the respondents in these circumstances could not be believed. Hence, the reasons given by the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents are sound reasons 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 Criminal Revision No. 2765 of 2008 5 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 a retrial. A finding of acquittal, as per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned order does not call for interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge March 18,2009 arya