Crl. Revision No. 832 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No. 832 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: 12.07.2018
***

Paramjit Kaur

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Jugraj Singh Ors.

.. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Argued by:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

Delay condoned.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.02.2016

rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baba Bakala Sahib.

Respondents No.1 to 6 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 406

and 498-A IPC. A challenge has also been laid to the judgment dated

25.10.2016 vide which the appeal has been dismissed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge.

The facts first. The petitioner was married to respondent No.1

Jugraj Singh on 15.01.2007. Respondent No.2 Sukhdev Singh is brother-in-

law; respondent No.3 Mohinder Singh is father-in-law while respondent

No.4 Gurpreet Kaur is wife of respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.5 and 6

Lakhwinder Kaur and Maninder Kaur are sisters-in-law.

The petitioner lodged FIR No. 201 dated 28.09.2009 under

1 of 4
22-07-2018 19:25:40 :::
Crl. Revision No. 832 of 2017 2

Sections 406 and 498-A IPC on the allegations that sufficient dowry was

given to the accused in the marriage, but they were not satisfied and she was

harassed and maltreated by them. It was averred that a demand of Rs.1 lac

was made which was not fulfilled and she was turned out of the matrimonial

home. Later Rs.50,000/- was given to the accused and she returned to the

matrimonial home. The complainant also averred that in the month of

January, 2007 she was given beatings by the accused and on her refusal to

bring a motor cycle and balance Rs.50,000/-, she was turned out of the

matrimonial home and her dowry articles were misappropriated. The case

was registered and investigated. The accused were put to trial.

At the trial for the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC,

the complainant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and her mother was

examined as PW3 besides other official witnesses.

The accused abjured the trial in their statements under Section

313 Cr.P.C. They examined Surinder Singh as DW 1.

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.

It is evident that in the complaint given to the police there was

no reference to entrustment. During her statement in the Court she made

improvements and stated that rings and been given to the in-laws while a

gold ring and gold kada was given to the husband. The trial Court

specifically held that initially there was no specific entrustment to the

accused and whatever was said in the Court did not fall within the definition

2 of 4
22-07-2018 19:25:40 :::
Crl. Revision No. 832 of 2017 3

of dowry and were gifts given to the husband and in-laws at the time of

marriage. Nothing was recovered from them during investigation. It was

held that in absence of any specific entrustment of dowry articles, no

offence under Section 406 IPC was made out.

It had come on record that the other accused were residing

separately from the couple and their ration cards were proved on record.

General allegations of harassment were levelled against all the accused

without specifying any date of the incident. It was held that to settle scores

with the husband all of his relatives were implicated by exaggerating the

allegations.

The prosecution case rests on the testimony of the complainant

and her mother. The accused examined DW1 Sawinder Singh who produced

the compromise, Ex.D1, entered before the Panchayat and was signed by the

complainant and her mother, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant

would not repeat the mistakes done in the past and both the parties would

live peacefully. The allegations regarding demand of dowry were also found

baseless. The complainant though denied its execution, but did not raise any

objection at the time of its exhibition. The complainant failed to narrate any

specific date or time when she was beaten by the accused. Her ocular

version was not corroborated by medical evidence.

The trial Court 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

3 of 4
22-07-2018 19:25:40 :::
Crl. Revision No. 832 of 2017 4

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.

July 12, 2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
Jiten JUDGE
Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No

Whether reportable Yes/ No

4 of 4
22-07-2018 19:25:40 :::