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 :::