CRR No. 1582 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No. 1582 of 2016
DATE OF DECISION :- August 24, 2018

Manjit Kaur …Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
***

Complainant Manjit Kaur had filed a complaint under Section

498-A and 406 IPC against her husband Sukhjit Singh and his family

members i.e. father-in-law Avtar Singh, mother-in-law Gurbachan Kaur,

husband’s brother Rajwinder Singh, sister of her husband Pushpinder Kaur

on the allegations that she was married with Sukhjit Singh on 1.4.1998 at

Taran Taran. At that time her parents had given sufficient dowry however,

the accused were not satisfied with the same and they had been harassing

and maltreating her to bring more dowry articles, which demand the

complainant could not get conceded. For that reason the complainant was

given beatings also. According to the complainant she has not only been

harassed, maltreated and tortured by the accused in connection with demand

of dowry but the accused have committed criminal breach of trust with

regard to her dowry articles. As such she prayed that accused be summoned

1 of 5
01-09-2018 12:24:35 :::
CRR No. 1582 of 2016 2

and dealt with according to law.

Accused were accordingly summoned. They put in appearance

and were admitted to bail. The complainant led pre charge evidence,

thereafter, formal charge for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC

was framed against the accused. During post charge evidence the accused

subjected the CWs to further cross examination.

Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against such

accused were put to them but they denied the same pleading innocence. The

accused led evidence in defence.

After hearing the arguments, the trial Magistrate convicted

Sukhjit Singh and Avtar Singh under Section 498A IPC and sentenced them

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year each and the

complainant was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from

the accused, whereas remaining accused were acquitted.

Sukhjit Singh and Avtar Singh filed appeal against the

judgment of their conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions.

That appeal was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, who

vide judgment dated 5.2.2016 accepted the appeal as regards Avtar Singh,

he was acquitted of the charge whereas appeal qua Sukhjit Singh was

dismissed. The operative part of the judgment is as under :-

“11. Accused Avtar Singh is a very old person, who even
cannot walk properly. Alleging that he on 13.2.2002 was armed
with Sotta has not been substantiated proved beyond any
reasonable shadow of doubts through evidence by the
complainant. Giving of an injury by Sotta should have been

2 of 5
01-09-2018 12:24:36 :::
CRR No. 1582 of 2016 3

resulted in some injury on the person to complainant and
thereafter getting treatment by her. In the case in hand, no such
evidence has come on record. Otherwise also complainant has
not specifically stated as to on her which part the injury was
given by accused Avtar Singh through the means of Sotta. She
has further not attributed any specific act and conduct on the
part of accused Avtar Singh to have subjected her to cruelty.
The case of the complainant has already been disbelieved at the
stage of summoning the accused as Rajwinder Singh and
Pushpinder Kaur, named as accused by the complainant, have
not been summoned and thereafter at the time of final judgment
when as per the case of the complainant, accused have been
acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC.

12. Criminal case are required to be proved beyond any
reasonable shadow of doubt, which in the case in hand
complainant Manjit Kaur has failed regarding her beating either
by accused Avtar Singh, an old and infirm person, which appears
to have been merely roped in being her father-in-law. Therefore,
accused Avtar Singh deserves the benefit of doubt in the
commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, on
account of which he deserves to be acquitted.

13. On the other hand, accused Sukhjit Singh is the husband of
Manjit Kaur. The taking place of marriage has not been disputed.
Manjit Kaur is residing at her parental house. No legally wedded
wife would like to stay at her parents house provided she is
treated well by her husband in her matrimonial house. Sukhjit
Singh having wedded Manjit Kaur was duty bound to keep and
maintain her with dignity and self respect. Though the
complainant has exaggerated the things, however, certainly she is
subjected to cruelty by her husband, who was wedded her with a
promise to keep and maintain her in a dignified manner.

14. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence has

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2018 12:24:36 :::
CRR No. 1582 of 2016 4

rightly held that accused Sukhjit Singh, being the husband of the
complainant, is guilty of having committed an offence
punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

15. In these facts and circumstances and in the light of said
discussion and observations, this Court is of an opinion that
complainant has failed to prove beyond any reasonable shadow
of doubt that accused Avtar Singh has committed an offence
punishable under Section 498-A. Accordingly, giving him
benefit of doubt, the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2013 is set
aside against accused Avtar Singh and he stands acquitted from
the charge of having committed an offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC. As far as accused Sukhjit Singh is
concerned, the judgment of the learned trial Court dated
15.3.2013 regarding his conviction under Section 498-A IPC is
hereby upheld and affirmed. Accordingly, the instant Criminal
Appeal stands accepted on behalf of appellant/accused Avtar
Singh and stands dismissed on behalf of appellant/accused
Sukhjit Singh. Appeal file be consigned to the record, whereas
record of the learned trial Court be returned forthwith.
Pronounced in the open Court.”

The complainant has challenged the judgment of Additional

Sessions Judge acquitting Avtar Singh by way of filing the present revision

petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State

counsel besides going through the record.

The scope of revision petition is quite limited. The Court

exercising revisional jurisdiction is to interfere only when the order passed

by the Court below is perverse or is in violation of settled principles of

criminal law or there is an error or illegality on the face of it. Here I find

that judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any

4 of 5
01-09-2018 12:24:36 :::
CRR No. 1582 of 2016 5

such defect rather the same is well reasoned one based on proper appraisal

of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is no ground to upset

the judgment while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the revision petition being without merit is

dismissed.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
August 24, 2018
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
01-09-2018 12:24:36 :::