Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.03.2010 Kamlesh Devi d/o Sh. Dharam Pal, Caste Kashyap, r/o Durga Mandir Road, Ward No. 23, Krishanpura, Distt. Panipat. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. Karambir son of Sh. Ran Singh, r/o village Didwari, P.S. Samalkha, Distt. Panipat. 3. Roshan Lal son of Sh. Dharam Singh, r/o village Muglana, P.S. Gohana, Distt. Sonepat. 4. Smt. Chanderpati w/o Sh. Roshan Lal, r/o village Muglana, P.S. Gohana, Distt. Sonepat. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of acquittal, dated 17.09.08, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which, it acquitted all the accused, for the Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 2 offences, punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Kamlesh, revision-petitioner, was married, to Karambir, respondent No. 2, on 16.03.98. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. A sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was spent, by the parents of the complainant, on her marriage. Sufficient dowry articles were also entrusted, to respondents No. 2 to 3, at the time of marriage. However, the complainant, was subjected, to cruelty, at the hands of respondents No. 2 to 3, for bringing less dowry. It was stated that, the accused, demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, from the complainant, for purchasing a scooter, however, when she showed her inability, she was treated like a servant. It was further stated that, even on 31.05.99, the complainant, was turned out of her matrimonial home by the accused. It was further stated that, even the accused, threatened the complainant with dire consequences, in case any Panchayat, was convened, in this regard. On the basis of the complaint, made by the complainant, first information report, was registered against the accused. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. All the dowry articles, were taken into possession, by the Police. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. Charge under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 3 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Kamlesh, complainant (PW1), Jai Bhagwan, Constable (PW2), Karambir Singh (PW3), Bhagat Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4), Jai Singh, Head Constable (PW5), Smt. Ram Kali (PW6), and, Vinod Kumar, Inspector (PW7). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence, was closed. 6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, examined Jai Singh (DW1), Ranjit (DW2), and, Ram Mehar (DW3), in their defence. Thereafter, they closed their defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 498-A IPC, and sentenced them accordingly. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the appellants (now respondents), which was accepted, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide the judgement impugned. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, sufficient evidence, was led, by the complainant, regarding the entrustment of dowry articles and subjecting her to cruelty, in Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 4 connection with the demand thereof. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in recording conviction and awarding sentence, to the accused/respondent No. 2 to 4. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no cogent evidence, regarding the entrustment of dowry articles or subjecting the complainant to cruelty, in connection with the demand thereof. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, acted on conjectures and surmises, in acquitting the accused. He further submitted that the judgement of the Appellate Court, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Appellate Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion that, since no cogent and convincing evidence, regarding the entrustment of dowry articles and subjecting the complainant to cruelty, in connection with the demand thereof, was produced, the accused, did not commit any offence. They further submitted that the judgement of the Appellate Court, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 13. The Appellate Court, set aside the judgement of the trial Court, and acquitted the accused/respondents No. 2 to 4, on the following grounds:- (i) That no independent witness, from the neighbourhood, was examined, that the complainant was tortured and given beatings, by the accused/respondents No. 2 to 4, in connection with the demand of dowry. Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 5 (ii) That, though, the complainant claimed that she was given beatings and was medico-legally examined, in the hospital, but, no doctor, was examined, to prove this factum. (iii) That no members of the Panchayat, which was convened, was produced, to prove, that actually, the complainant, was tortured and subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. (iv) That no documentary evidence, was led, to prove the entrustment of specific articles of dowry. (v) That the evidence, produced by the complainant was of highly interested nature. 14. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In its revisional jurisdiction, this Court, cannot interfere, into the judgement of acquittal, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, was perverse and illegal, on account of misreading or misappreciation of evidence or non- consideration of material pieces of evidence. The scope of revision, against acquittal, was well discussed by the Apex Court, in a judgement rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 61 (S.C.). In the said case, their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that, in the absence of any legal infirmity, either in the procedure, or in the conduct of trial, there was no justification, for the High Court, to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2009 6 Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), their Lordships also placed reliance on D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla AIR 1951, Supreme Court 196, K.C. Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1788, Akalu Ahir and others Vs. Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583, Patakalapti Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another, AIR 1975 SC 1854, and Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh AIR 1968 SC 707. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Gurmail Singh Vs. Boga Singh and others, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 623. The Appellate Court, in my opinion, was right, in coming to the conclusion that, in the absence of examination of a member of the Panchayat, which was convened non-production of the doctor, who allegedly medico-legally examined the complainant, in respect of the injury, allegedly caused, on her person, by the accused/respondents No. 2 to 4, and non-examination of any independent person, from the neighbourhood, it was clearly proved, that the case of the prosecution was doubtful. The view, taken by the Appellate Court, can be said to be a reasonably possible view, on the basis of the evidence produced. No interference, therefore, is called for. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is dismissed. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 08.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE