IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : November 19, 2009. Jasbir Kaur ...... Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Punjab and others ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. H.S. Thiara, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present revision petition is for convicting the husband of the petitioner, namely, Satnam Singh-respondent No. 2 under Section 406 I.P.C. and for conviction of Satya Kaur w/o Gurnam Singh- mother-in-law of the petitioner under Section 406/498-A I.P.C., which has been concluded by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 21.02.2009 (Annexure-P-1). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the demand of dowry and the entrustment of articles are fully proved on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. He further contends that the learned Trial Court had wrongly treated the articles given at the time of marriage to the respondents as gifts for personal use and had not treated them as dowry articles. He further contends that this cannot be accepted as it is a common practice that the goods and articles given to the relatives of the husband on demand, which cannot, therefore, be treated as gift. He further contends that the mother-in- law of the complainant/petitioner is residing with her husband and, therefore, CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . when the husband of the complainant/petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C., mother-in-law should also have been convicted of the said offence. He further contends that the abortion of the child of the petitioner was got done without her consent and this he says on the basis of tablets, which had been given to her in Soni Hospital at Bhogpur, which led to her partial abortion. On the next day, she was taken to Gian Kesri Hospital, Bhogpur, where Dr. Manorma had to conduct the abortion of the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. A perusal of the same would clearly show that the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration all the evidence, which had been led by the parties. The Court has given categoric finding on the question of facts, which are detailed in paras-13,14 and 15 of the judgment, which read as follows :- “13. I have gone through the evidence on record and considered the arguments put forth by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned defence counsel and find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case of mis-appropriation of dowry articles, meant for the complainant. There is nothing in the application moved by the complainant which could suggest that the articles as mentioned in the said application were ever entrusted to a particular accused. In her statement before the Court, the complainant has stated nothing in this regard except vague and wild allegation that dowry articles were given. To make out a case punishable under Section 406 I.P.C., firstly -2- CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . specific entrustment has to be proved, and for their mis- appropriation has to be proved. Both these ingredients are missing from the statement of the complainant. However, later on, when Sohan Singh PW6 appeared in the Court, he made specific allegations regarding specific entrustment to different accused but he also failed to make out a case that all these articles which were given at the time of marriage were dowry articles as far as golden ornaments are concerned. Gurnam Singh was given a golden Karra. A golden chain was given to Satya Kaur. Golden topus were given to Rajwinder Kaur and two golden Karas were given to Satnam Singh and Bhupinder Singh. He further deposed that seven golden rings were given to other family members of Satnam Singh but it fully shows that these are not dowry articles meant for the complainant. There were ceremonial articles which were given at the time of the marriage and the ceremonial articles do not bring the case into the ambit of Section 406 I.P.C. So, the prosecution has failed to prove that the dowry articles were the same. So, no case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 14. The other point for determination is that whether the accused without the consent of the complainant got her child aborted. For this, there is statement of the complainant. She made the allegation against her in-laws family that they administered to me tablets by which she suffered partial abortion from the Hospital of Gian Kesri run by Dr. Manorma. Now, we are to see from the circumstances whether any tablet -3- CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . was administered without the consent of the complainant. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a trained nurse and she served in different Hospitals. It cannot be said that she does not know the nature of the medicine, whether these were drugs or pills. She knew that what was it consequences. Dr. Manorma who appeared as PW8 in this case admitted that at the time of the admission of the complainant in her Hospital, she has not disclosed anything that how the partial abortion has taken place. She has not informed the police in this regard which clearly shows that initially it was a case of mis-abortion. Similarly, Dr. Manorma PW8 considered it and entered it as a case of mis-abortion. Had it been a case of forced abortion, then the complainant must have stated to the doctor that this abortion is without her consent. So keeping in view all the above said circumstances, I find that she was never administered any drug or any pills which led to her mis- abortion. In fact, it was a case of mis-abortion due to some other reasons. The conduct of the complainant shows that she admitted herself to the Hospital with the help of her husband. So, now it does not lie from her mouth that she was administered any tablets without her consent. So, I find that the allegations that it was a case of mis-abortion and she was not forcibly asked to abort the child. Hence, no case under Section 313 I.P.C. is made out. 15. Now lastly there is charge of cruelty committed by the accused against the complainant for bringing less dowry -4- CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . articles. For this there is specific allegation made by the complainant in her statement. She has categorically named all the accused who tortured her for bringing more dowry. There is specific allegation against Satnam Singh that he alongwith other accused had forced the complainant to bring Rs. 8 lacs. There is specific allegation that she was turned out of the matrimonial house for not fulfilling the demand. It is further case that the car belonging to Jasbir Kaur was sold by the accused. The money was mis-appropriated by him. The facts as narrated by the complainant find corroboration from the statement of PW6 Sohan Singh. He has supported the case of the prosecution word by word. There is noting in the cross- examination to suggest that the complainant has deposed falsely. So, from this I find that the allegations qua Satya Kaur are false and she has been living with her husband Gurnam Singh (since died) at Bathinda. So it cannot be said that Satya Kaur an old lady is harassing and torturing the complainant for bringing less dowry. In our society, we see that wife is always attached to her husband. It is the only husband who manage the affairs of his wife. So, it is mutual arrangement of husband and wife and the allegations can be trust against the husband. Accused Gurnam Singh and his wife Satya Kaur were living at Bathinda. So at no stretch of imagination it can be said that Satya Kaur treated the complainant with cruelty under the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C. There is specific allegation against accused Rajwinder Kaur who is P.O. and -5- CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . Satnam Singh. So, I find that the case of the prosecution is fully proved against Satnam Singh and Rajwinder Kaur for treating the complainant with cruelty. So, I find accused Satnam Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. As far as accused Rajwinder Kaur is concerned, she is absent from proceedings and has been declared proclaimed offender. Let accused Satnam Singh be heard on the quantum of sentence." Perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that the finding, which has been recorded by the learned Trial Court, is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. That apart, husband of the petitioner i.e. respondent No. 2 had been convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In any case, if two views are possible on appreciation of the evidence and a view, which was taken in favour of the accused, is based on the evidence on record and there is no perversity in the finding, recorded by the Court. It is a well settled proposition of law that the Revisional Court should not exercise its discretion in such like matter. Hon'ble the 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 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 -6- CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . 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 non 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. Keeping these principles in view, no legal infirmity in the procedure or conduct of trial has been pointed out, which would call for -7- CRR No. 1267 of 2009 (O/M) . 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. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 19, 2009. sjks. -8-