SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Babita vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 November, 2018

Crl. Revision No. 126 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No. 126 of 2016(OM)
Date of Decision: 27.11.2018
***

Babita

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana Ors.

.. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Argued by:- Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.05.2014

rendered by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh.

Respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 406,

498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Challenge has also been laid to

the judgment dated 31.10.2015 vide which the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner was married to respondent No.4 Sanjay on

17.04.2003. Respondent No.2 Om Parkash is the father-in-law while

respondent No.3 Kamla Devi is the mother-in-law.

The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court, which was

forwarded to the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 16 dated 30.03.2006

under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was

registered. The allegations were that her father had died and sufficient

dowry was given to the accused in the marriage by her mother, but the

husband and parents-in-law were not satisfied and she was harassed and

1 of 4
30-12-2018 02:35:15 :::
Crl. Revision No. 126 of 2016 2

maltreated by them. Demand of Rs.40000/- was raised and she was beaten

up on 12.08.2003 and turned out of the matrimonial home and they

criminally intimidated her. She was rehabilitated only on receipt of

Rs.20,000/-which was paid by her mother, which she borrowed from

Jaiparkash, her maternal uncle. For sometime, she was kept nicely. On

13.10.2005 she was again turned out of the matrimonial house owing to

non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.20,000/- and her dowry article were

retained. Panchayat was convened, but did not yield results.

The case was investigated. Some household articles were

recovered. On completion of investigation, challan was filed. Charge was

framed. At the trial the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the

applicant (PW1), brother Sunil (PW2), maternal uncle Jai Parkash (PW3)

and Inspector Partap Singh (PW5), the investigating officer. The accused

abjured the trial in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence

was produced in defence.

On analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted

the accused. The complainant failed in appeal, leading to the filing of the

instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the records of the Courts below.

A perusal of the complainant as well as the statements of

applicant, her brother and maternal uncle, would reveal that there was no

reference to entrustment of dowry articles to the accused. It was generally

said that sufficient items were given in the marriage without specifying as to

what items were entrusted to which accused. Entrustment is sine quo non

for attracting the provisions of Section 406 IPC which are conspicuously

2 of 4
30-12-2018 02:35:15 :::
Crl. Revision No. 126 of 2016 3

missing in this case. Not only this, no proof regarding purchase of any items

was produced. The applicant showed ignorance of having knowledge of

purchase and entrustment of articles mentioned in list Ex.PW1/C, at the time

of marriage. PW2 and PW3 were also not specific about the items given in

the marriage. With regard to the other household articles given to the

accused, it was held that those did not constitute dowry and the amount

given were customary ceremony and could not be termed as dowry

The applicant and her witnesses had deposed that there were

demands of cash of Rs.40,000/- by the accused and later they demanded

Rs.20,000/- during the ceremony after the birth of the son. The complainant

and her witnesses failed to give specific date or time when she was beaten

by the accused. The ocular version was not corroborated by medical

evidence. The witnesses were found to be discrepant so far as demand is

concerned.

The complainant deposed that Rs.40,000/- and a motor cycle

was demanded, while her brother PW2 Sunil Kumar mentioned about the

demand of dowry including motor-cycle. PW3 Jai Parkash had deposed that

a motor cycle and Rs.20,000/- were demanded. The case of the prosecution

was that the father of the complainant had died prior to her marriage and Jai

Parkash had arranged the marriage expenses as the mother of complainant

had no source. PW Jai Parkash had also accompanied the Panchayat and he

had given Rs.20,000/- to the mother of the complainant for settlement of

daughter at her matrimonial home. When he had stepped into the witness

box, this witness failed to corroborate the testimony of complainant. He just

stated that he was told by the complainant that there was demand of motor

cycle and Rs.20,000/- and his sister had paid some amount to the accused.

3 of 4
30-12-2018 02:35:15 :::
Crl. Revision No. 126 of 2016 4

No independent person from the Panchayat was examined. All the three

witnesses were closely related to each other. The allegation regarding

criminal intimidation were general in nature. It was not specifically stated

by the complainant that who had extended threat to her and in what manner.

PW2 Sunil and PW3 Jai Parkash were silent about the threat.

The Courts below had elaborately discussed the facts and

evidence and had given reasons to disbelieve the prosecution case. The

findings returned are based on correct appreciation of evidence.

The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of

acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable

as held in Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh, 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 423. In the

instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court below is

neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the court based

its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, the

revision petition is dismissed.

November 27, 2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
Jiten JUDGE

Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No

Whether reportable Yes/ No

4 of 4
30-12-2018 02:35:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation