CRR-3107-2014 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR-3107-2014
Date of decision:-16.8.2018

Rajwanti
…Petitioner

Versus

Surinder Singh and others
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present: Mr.J.P. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated

4.8.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissing

the appeal as well as judgment dated 4.3.2011 passed by Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal acquitting respondents No.1 to 4 of the

charge framed against them.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution

story are that complainant Rajwanti wife of Surinder Singh had submitted

a private complaint in the Court alleging therein that she was married with

Surinder Singh on 24.3.2002 and at that time her parents and relatives had

given sufficient customary gifts and dowry articles, which were meant for

1 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:44 :::
CRR-3107-2014 -2-

her exclusive use and formed her ISTRIDHAN; that after the marriage the

spouses started residing together; that the marriage was consummated;

that after some time behaviour of the husband of the complainant and his

family members towards the complainant changed as they were not happy

with the dowry articles brought by the complainant and they started

maltreating her on one pretext or the other and they used to insult her so

as to force her to bring more dowry articles; that the complainant tolerated

such treatment in the hope that things would improve for the better but

that was not to be; that the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial

home on 20.7.2002; that on 1.8.2002 when the complainant was all alone

in her paternal house and time was about 10:00 a.m., then accused Jogi

Ram came, entered her house, raped her and ran away; that the

complainant submitted a written application to the police on 2.8.2002; that

complaint was inquired into and subsequently a written compromise was

effected between the parties; that accused Jogi Ram felt sorry before

Panchayat and put his signatures on the compromise in presence of

respectables; that the complainant was taken back to the matrimonial

home on 26.8.2002, however, she was again started being given beatings

and demands of more dowry in the form of cash of Rs.50,000/- were

raised; that on 23.4.2003 father of the complainant came to know that she

was in a serious condition due to suffering injuries at the hands of accused

persons, as such, he came to matrimonial home, took the complainant

along with him; that the complainant was got medico legally examined

and five injuries were found on her person; that thereafter on 27.4.2003, a

Panchayat was convened at parental house of complainant where accused

2 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:45 :::
CRR-3107-2014 -3-

came but they threatened her and her parents, kept demanding Rs.50,000/-

and refused to return her ISTRIDHAN, as such, the complainant filed a

complaint. The complainant requested that it be sent under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. and that request was accepted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Karnal. The complaint was sent to the police for registration of

the FIR. FIR was registered. The case was investigated. After completion

of investigation and other formalities, challan against accused was

prepared and filed in the Court.

On presentation of challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Karnal, copies of documents relied upon in the challan were

supplied to the accused free of cost as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal finding that

charge for offences under Sections 498A/323/34/406/506 IPC was

disclosed against all the accused, charge-sheeted the accused for the said

offences, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of its evidence, the prosecution had

examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW1 Rajpal, PW2 Rajwanti,

PW3 Hari Singh, PW4 ASI Santosh, PW5 Jaipal Singh and PW6 ASI

Satbir Singh.

Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by Court

order.

Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. in which the accused while denying the incriminating

circumstances appearing against them submitted that they were innocent

and had been falsely involved in the case.

3 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:45 :::
CRR-3107-2014 -4-

Accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing arguments, the learned trial Court had acquitted

the accused of the charge framed against them. The reasoning given for

arriving at this conclusion are as under:

The letter which has been written by the complainant

to her father is dated 22.4.2003 but in the complaint

Ex.PW2/C she has not mentioned the date of the said letter.

Also, perusal of the said letter shows that it has been

received by her parents on 24.4.2003 as per postal stamp on

the inland card but her father came to take her back on

23.4.03 i.e. one day prior to reaching this letter and as per

version of the complainant her miserable state was brought

in front of her parents due to this letter dated 22.4.03 which

compelled her father to come on 23.4.03 whereas on 23.4.03

her father had no knowledge about the letter since the date of

receiving is 24.4.03.

Bare perusal of the above deposition of the

complainant in the court shows that she is not coming to the

court with clean hands and she is not deposing truth in the

court. She has levelled a grave allegation against accused

no.4 saying that when she was in her parental house, accused

no.4 at around 10:00 AM came to her place, raped her and

interestingly despite all the fact that her modesty was

outraged by accused no.4, she entered into a compromise

just on a simple act of apologization of her father in law. She

4 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:45 :::
CRR-3107-2014 -5-

also filed complaint against accused no.4 under Sections

376/313/201/34 IPC which has been dismissed and copy of

the same is Ex.DH on the record. Not only this, she is even so

vague about the time, date and the year when the demand of

dowry being raised. As per her allegations in the complaint,

accused firstly demanded Rs.1 lac for the job of accused no.4

when she refused she was shunted out. Thereafter she was

raped by accused no.4 and thereafter matter was

compromised. She again came back and again demand of

Rs.50000/- was being raised but the facts as deposed by her

in the court in her cross examination do not substantiate even

a single allegation as levelled as accused as per her

complaint. Most important fact which raises doubt is that as

per her cross examination, she wrote a letter to her father on

22.4.03 telling about her miserable condition in the

matrimonial house being meted out by her due to the

atrocities of the accused due to which she was taken back by

her father on 23.4.03. But as per her cross in the court, she

met her father one year after writing of that letter. As already

opined the letter was written on 22.4.03, recdeived on

24.3.03 and she was taken back by her father on 23.4.03. So,

allegations in the complaint on the very face of it, have

proved to be farce. Also other witness who has come to the

court have also miserably failed to substantiate or to

corroborate the version of the complainant. Hence,

5 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:45 :::
CRR-3107-2014 -6-

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the

accused to the hilt. As far as offence under Section 406 is

concerned, complainant in her cross examination has clearly

deposed that in the Panchayat whatever articles were asked,

they were returned back. Hence, no offence under section

406 IPC is made out. Demand for the business cannot be

termed as a demand of dowry and the allegations too vague

in nature for which reference can be drawn from

2000(3)RCR(Criminal) 135 (PH) titled Raj Pal Singh vs.

State of Haryana, 1988(1) RCR, 532(PH) titled Jasbir

Kaur ec. vs. Kamaljit Kaur and 2009(2)RCR(Criminal)

956(PH) titled Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others

vs. State of Punjab and others. The authorities cited by the

ld. defence counsel are squarely applicable to the present

case.

In view of the above discussion, prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt.

Hence, accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against

them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. File

be consigned to record room.

The complainant had preferred an appeal against the said

judgment passed by trial Magistrate, which was assigned to learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, however, vide judgment dated

4.8.2014 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal affirmed the

6 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:45 :::
CRR-3107-2014 -7-

judgment passed by trial Court and dismissed the appeal, which left the

complainant aggrieved and he has approached this Court by way of filing

the present revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going

through the record.

The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this

Court is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is an

illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed

by a Court below or the same is perverse and not otherwise.

In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the

judgments passed by the Courts below, the same are upheld and the

revision is found to be without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Necessary information be sent to the quarter concerned.

16.8.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

7 of 7
18-08-2018 21:21:45 :::