IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.207
CRM-A No.836-MA of 2018
Date of decision : 4.4.2019
Sonia ….. Applicant
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ….. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the applicant.
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
The complainant has sought leave to appeal against judgment
dated 8.1.2018, passed by Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak,
on account of the acquittal of the accused of offences under Sections 406
and 376 IPC.
The complainant got married with Sunil @ Sonu son of Umed
Singh @ Pappu on 8.12.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and
ceremonies. Allegedly, adequate dowry was given at the time of marriage.
In addition, a motor cycle and a sum of Rs.4 lacs in cash were also given.
After about 20 days of the marriage, the family members of the husband
started taunting her for not bringing adequate dowry. Her husband was
indifferent to her and performed unnatural sex with her. He was also in an
illicit relationship with another woman. Allegation of outraging of modesty
was made against Umed Singh @ Pappu (father-in-law) and of rape was
made against Manish (brother-in-law). A complaint dated 15.5.2016, was
submitted before the police resulting in registration of an FIR under Sections
323, 354, 498-A, 406, 376, 377, 506, 34 IPC. Complainant’s statement
1 of 4
15-04-2019 03:37:04 :::
CRM-A No.836-MA of 2018 2
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.5.2016, whereafter, Section
376 IPC, was added against accused Manish (brother-in-law).
Vide judgment under challenge, the trial Court convicted the
accused persons under Sections 498, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The
accused-Manish was acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC and
accused Umed Singh @ Pappu (father-in-law) was acquitted of the offence
under Section 354 IPC. All the accused were acquitted of offences under
Sections 406 and 506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant presses his application for
leave to appeal only qua offences under Sections 376 and 406 IPC. His
submission is that the complainant while appearing as PW-2 specifically
stated that Manish (brother-in-law) raped her. Dr. Patibha, who appeared as
PW-10 has also opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out and thus, the
trial Court has committed an error in acquitting accused-Manish (brother-in-
law) of the offence under Section 376 IPC. It has further been argued that
the complainant appearing as PW-2, her brother appearing as PW-7 and her
mother appearing as PW-12, have all stated that the istridhan was not
returned despite demand and thus, judgment of acquittal recorded for the
offence under Section 406 IPC, is also not sustainable in law.
The law regarding interference with a judgment of acquittal is
well settled. Although, the appellate Court can re-appreciate and re-evaluate
the entire evidence on record while examining the judgment of acquittal, it
would not interfere with the same unless there are strong and compelling
circumstances for doing so. The reason is that there is a presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, which is bolstered on recording a finding
of acquittal. Thus, appellate Court would interfere with judgment of
2 of 4
15-04-2019 03:37:05 :::
CRM-A No.836-MA of 2018 3
acquittal only if material evidence has been overlooked, inadmissible
evidence has been taken into consideration or if on appreciation of evidence
it appears that a view has been taken, which could not be taken by any
ordinary person.
While acquitting accused-Manish (brother-in-law), the trial
Court has given cogent reasons. It has found on the basis of evidence on
record that the allegation of rape appears to be doubtful. This is so because
the complainant alleged that rape was committed in January, 2016, but the
first complaint made to the police was dated 15.5.2016. The information of
the incident was not even confided with her brother and mother. The brother
and mother, while getting their statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. did not say anything regarding rape having been committed by
accused-Manish (brother-in-law). Even the stand of the complainant has
been found to be inconsistent. Based on the evidence on record, the trial
Court has taken a possible view and there is no scope for interference
therewith in this appeal.
Similarly, while acquitting the accused persons of the offence
under Section 406 IPC, the trial Court has relied upon the law on the subject.
It has held that neither the complainant nor her family members have
deposed regarding which dowry articles were entrusted to which accused
persons nor when the complainant ask for the return thereof. Thus, if there
was no evidence of entrustment or demand of return, there can be no
conviction for the offence of mis-appropriation. Learned counsel for the
applicant has not been able to point out that the evidence on record in this
3 of 4
15-04-2019 03:37:05 :::
CRM-A No.836-MA of 2018 4
regard has been misread or that admissible evidence to prove the fact has
been omitted to be read.
Accordingly, there is no scope for interference as prayed for by
the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is accordingly,
dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) (SUDHIR MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
4.4.2019
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
4 of 4
15-04-2019 03:37:05 :::