Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 Date of decision:24.08.2010 Surinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State, U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, Standing counsel for the U.T., Chd. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (for short as `Appellate Court'), maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A as also the fine imposed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, (for short as `trial Court') and thereby reducing the term of imprisonment from three years to one year. Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 2 2. The brief facts of the present case, as narrated in para 2 of the judgment of the learned trial Court, read as under:- “2. On 20.5.1997 a written complaint of Gurinder Kaur was forwarded by the Chair person, Punjab State Women Commissioner, Chandigarh to police station, Sector 39, Chandigarh for necessary action. The allegations levelled by Gurinder Kaur on 28.5.1989 at Chandigarh and on the very next day of her marriage, her mother-in-law snatched her purse and started ill- treating her. Her husband discontinued her studies and being fed up of his treatment she took an over dose of anti-depression pills. She was rushed to the hospital and the complaint was also made to the police. Her husband used to give her beatings after consuming alcohol and used to turn her out of the matrimonial home. He did not allow her to step out of the house or to write letters to her friends and relatives. Her mother in law removed her jewellery without her consent from her vanity box and without her permission. She also took away the jewellery which was given by her parents at the time of her marriage. She was deprived of food during her pregnancy and Surinderpal Singh used to give beatings to her children also. Fifteen days after the marriage she along with Surinderpal Singh were made to shift to another house and thereafter her in laws instigated Surinderpal Singh to leave her alone in the said house and that he should shift with them along with the children. Her husband used to hurl abuses at her and at the children after consuming alcohol and on one occasion he caught hold of her son from his leg and dangled him out of the window on the 3rd floor. Because of this behaviour of Surinderpal Singh both her sons Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 3 started mis-behaving with him and on his arrival in the house, they started hurling shoes at him. Her mother in law with the intention of isolating her from her children did not allow her to breast feed her children and insisted that she could breast feed the children only after completing the entire house hold work. Since her children were given pasteurized milk their health declined drastically. Her mother in law was suffering from a skin disease and her son contacted the same and had to suffer tremendously. She was not given proper diet during her pregnancy and 15 days after delivery she was made to do all the house work. On the one occasion she had to undergo an abortion but the accused did not care for her and she had to suffer physically and emotionally. When her mother requested Surinderpal Singh to allow her to go to her parental home he refused and declared that since she was his wife he could do anything he wanted with her. Her husband started taking money from all and sundry and his creditors started pressuring her for money. He had not paid the rent of their house since the last two years and would not give her any money to run the house. Thereafter several persons approached her and informed her that they had been sent by her husband to get friendly with her. On one occasion her husband brought his friend to stay over night in their house but he during the night made obscene advances towards her. When she approached her husband, he did not come to her rescue. When she confronted her husband, the next morning he left the house saying he would fetch his friend so that he could apologize to her. However, the said man never returned to their house to apologize for his actions. Her husband thereafter, started sending all his creditors to his house with a motive to get Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 4 them friendly opening the door of the house for such people. Few of the creditors of her husband even threatened to kill him when he failed to return his money and she saved his life by her intervention. Her mother in law, however, accused her of having adulteries relations with all these persons and she could not tolerate this fact. Her husband used to thereafter her that if she failed to arrange a sum of Rs.25,000/- he would burn her alive. On 18.07.1995 he went to the school of her son and on the way back home, he gave him several beatings on a very frivolous ground. He gave her son fist blows on his private parts and when she tried to intervene, he gave her fist blows on her hands, thighs and chest and threatened to kill her. After feeding her son she quietly left the house but her husband followed her and she had to hide in the market to save her life. Thereafter, she went to police station, Sector 39, but her complaint was not recorded by the police, thereafter she received medical treatment at CMC, Chandigarh and started residing with her parents. Her husband did not give her any financial support and also did not allow her to collect her clothes and belonging from her house, though she requested her mother in law and brother in law, they too did not allow her to collect her belongings.” 3. On completion of investigation, the accused were charge- sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, namely, Gurinder Kaur as PW1; Mohinder Singh as PW2; Harjit Kaur as PW3; Kaka Singh as Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 5 PW4; Harmesh Kumar as PW5; Tarlochan Singh as PW6; SI Ran Singh as PW7; Dr. Arvind Sahni as PW8 and ASI Kulbir Kaur as PW9. 5. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting them all the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, which they denied and pleaded false implication. In defence, the accused examined Sardar Singh as DW1; Manjit Kaur as DW2 and Rajinder Kaur as DW3. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-Surinderpal Singh for the offence and the term as indicated at the outset in para 1 of this judgment. Co-accused Bhagwant Kaur, was acquitted of the charges framed against her. 7. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence which the learned Appellate Court disposed of while modifying the order of sentence to the extent as indicated in para 1 of this judgment. 8. Still aggrieved by the order of learned Appellate Court, the accused/petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court, which was admitted on 14.3.2003. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the marriage between appellant and the complainant was solemnised on 28.5.1989. The complainant left her matrimonial home on 18.7.1995. From the date of marriage till 18.7.1995, there is no complaint by the complainant to the police. He has further submitted that on 20.5.1997, Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 6 the complainant made a complaint to Woman and Chief Support Unit, Chandigarh and on its basis, the present FIR was registered against the appellant and his mother. In the FIR, no specific incident of harassment or alleged demand of dowry has been mentioned. Even there is no complaint as regards harassment and alleged demand of dowry before 18/7/1995, when the complainant left her matrimonial home. 10. Learned counsel has next contended that in the FIR, it has been mentioned that the appellant gave beating to the complainant but no medical record in this behalf has been placed on record. The prosecution examined Dr. Arvind Sahni, PW8, who examined the complainant and has stated that the complainant was found to be suffering from tension, headache and cervical spondelytis but this witness has not identified the complainant. 11. It has also been argued that the allegation of demand of Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of motor-cycle is not supported by any material. Allegedly, the demand of motorcycle was raised in the year 1995 which itself is doubtful as the marriage took place in the year 1989, if there had been any demand, the appellant would have made such demand at the time of marriage. 12. It has further been submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of complainant and her parents. As per the complainant, she was confined in the matrimonial home and not permitted to go out of the home, whereas as per the statement of Mohinder Singh, PW2, (father of the complainant), has stated that Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 7 matrimonial home of his daughter was near by his house and his daughter used to come to meet them after an interval of 2-3 days. This fact is further admitted by mother of the complainant Harjit Kaur, PW3 that her daughter (complainant) used to meet them after 15 or 30 days. 13. Learned counsel has also argued that from the statement of mother of complainant Harjit Kaur, PW3, it is made out that it was a love marriage. He has referred to the receipts Exhibits PW5/A, PW6/A, which show the costs of furniture of Rs.2850/-. Learned counsel has further submitted that apart from this, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had demanded or received any dowry from the complainant. He has also submitted that as it was a love marriage, therefore, there was no occasion for raising the demand of dowry. 14. It has also been argued that on the same set of evidence, the co-accused, i.e., mother-in-law, of the complainant has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. 15. Lastly, the learned counsel has argued that the absence of any specific demand particularly uptil 18.7.1995 itself belies the case of prosecution that the complainant was subjected to maltreatment and any demand of dowry was raised. The complainant left her matrimonial home with her own accord and free will. No case against the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC is made out and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 8 16. On behalf of the State, the learned counsel has argued that the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant after appreciation of evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is fully established in view of the statement of the complainant. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 18. Admittedly, the marriage took place on 28.5.1989. The complainant left the matrimonial home on 18.7.1995. The complainant lodged the complaint on 20.5.1997. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant was given severe beatings by the appellant on 18.7.1995. However, there is no MLR in this regard. As per the statement of Dr.Arvind Saini, PW8, the complainant was examined on 18.9.1995 and 2.10.1995 and she was found to be suffering from tension, headache and cervical spondelyti. From the statement of this witness, the fact of giving beating is not proved, whereas the case of the prosecution is that severe beatings were given to the complainant. In the absence of any MLR in this regard, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. 19. There are material contradictions in the statements of complainant and her parents. As per the testimony of complainant, she was not allowed to meet her parents, whereas this fact is not supported by the testimonies of her parents rather there is categorical statement of Mohinder Pal, PW2, that her daughter was living near by his house and she used to come to meet them after an interval of 2-3 Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 9 days. The complainant used to visit her parents, this fact has also been accepted by the mother of the complainant Harjit Kaur, PW3. It has also come in the statement of Harjit Kaur, PW3 that the complainant had love affair with the appellant before her marriage. 20. There is no list of articles or gifts given to the appellant at the time of marriage except the receipts, Exhibits PW5/A and PW6/A, which show the costs of furniture of Rs.2850/-. From the date of marriage till the lodging of the present complaint, no previous complaint or history of harassment or beatings has come to light. There is no medical evidence on the basis of which, it may be seen that the appellant was subjected to any physical beatings. 21. In the absence of any history of demand, this appears to be motivated and only with a view to falsely rope the appellant in the instant case after the complainant had left the matrimonial home. On the basis of the facts, as projected by the prosecution, the demand of dowry or harassment or any physical torture is not made out. In fact the real cause of separation between the parties after a long period of 8 years, has not come on record. Otherwise also, it is very difficult to pin-point precisely as to what exactly transpired between husband and the wife. 22. The Appellate Court modified the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and reduced the sentence of the appellant from 3 years to 1 year. In the absence of any MLR, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted solely on the basis of statement(s) of the parents of the Crl. Revision No.568 of 2003 10 complainant, who have alleged that the appellant raised a demand of Rs.25,000/- particularly when the marriage was the result of love affair between the complainant and the appellant and when there is nothing on record to show that any dowry or gift was given or demanded at the time of marriage. 23. This Court is fully conscious of the fact that there is limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction. However, from the sequence of events and particularly when on the same set of evidence, the co-accused has been acquitted. I do not find any ground to sustain the conviction of the appellant as well. 24. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment of the Appellant Court are hereby set aside. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. 24.8.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No