SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukhwinder Kaur vs Sudagar Singh & Ors on 16 August, 2018

CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM)
Date of decision:-16.8.2018

Sukhwinder Kaur
…Applicant

Versus

Sudagar Singh and others
…Respondents

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

Present : Mr.D.R. Punia, Advocate
for the applicant.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

Applicant – Sukhwinder Kaur has filed this application

under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking special leave to appeal.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant –

Sukhwinder Kaur had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A IPC

against her husband Sudagar Singh, father-in-law Darshan Singh,

mother-in-law Surinder Kaur, brother-in-law Amrit Pal Singh, sisters-in-

law Tajinder Kaur, Harvinderpal Kaur and one Ramji Dass on the

allegations that she was married with Sudagar Singh on 12.12.1999; that

after the marriage the spouses started residing together as husband and

wife; that marriage was consummated; that the complainant gave birth

to a female child from the loins of her husband Sudagar Singh, who is

presently in custody of complainant, thereafter, the complainant had

conceived thrice, however, first two foetus were got aborted prematurely

being females after confirming their sex through scanning; that when

1 of 7
18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::
CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -2-

she was in family-way then she was turned out of the matrimonial home

in three wearing clothes, resultantly, the foetus being carried by the

complainant in her womb expired; that there being emergency, she was

advised immediate admission as the dead foetus was to be taken out

through operation to save the life of complainant. In the complaint, the

complainant had levelled allegations of maltreatment, cruelty and torture

at the hands of her husband and his family members, so as to force her

to bring more dowry. According to the complainant, she was unable to

get those demands fulfilled, as such her maltreatment continued; that her

husband is serving as Constable in Punjab Police and is a daily drinker

and he used to come late in the night under the influence of liquor along

with a number of friends of loose character; that he used to compel the

complainant to prepare meals for him and his friends during midnight

when she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy. The complainant has

also levelled allegations of accused refusing to return her ISTRIDHAN

articles entrusted to them by her parents at the time of marriage, which

were meant for the use of complainant.

After recording of preliminary evidence, accused Sudagar

Singh, Darshan Singh, Surinder Kaur, Amrit Pal Singh, Tajinder Kaur

and Harvinderpal Kaur had been summoned, whereas it was not so as

regards Ramji Dass. They put in appearance in the Court and were

admitted to bail.

The case was fixed for pre-charge evidence of complainant,

during the course of which accused No.6 Harvinderpal Kaur had died.

The complainant led pre charge evidence and she examined Sukhminder

Singh as CW1, got her own statement recorded as CW2 besides

2 of 7
18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::
CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -3-

examining Hari Singh as CW3 and Harbans Singh as CW4.

Thereafter, finding a prima facie case, charge for the

offences under Sections 406, 498-A IPC was framed against the accused

No.1 to 5, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After framing of charge, the accused had preferred a

revision petition, which was accepted and impugned order dated

22.10.2011 framing charge against the accused was set aside and the

case was remanded to the trial Court to re-consider the matter and for

passing fresh order. The order was complied with. Finding a prima facie

case for the offences under Sections 406/498-A IPC, accused were

charge-sheeted accordingly. The accused subjected all the four PWs

examined during the pre charge evidence to further cross-examination.

Thereafter, evidence of the complainant was closed.

Statements of 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 allegations

contending that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated

in the case.

In defence evidence, accused examined ten witnesses.

With that the defence evidence stood closed.

The trial Court had formulated the following points for

determination:

1. Whether or not accused no.1 to 5 did not return the

stridhan to the complainant for her use and

enjoyment in matrimonial house and misappropriated

against the wish and consent of complainant those

3 of 7
18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::
CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -4-

against the consent danger and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Sections 406 IPC?

2. Whether or not complainant Sukhwinder Kaur after

her marriage with accused Saudagar Singh maltreated

physical and mental cruelty on the ground of bringing

less dowry and under the demand of more dowry

from her parents by the accused no.1 to 5 and thereby

committed an offence punishable Under Section 498-

A IPC?

3. Whether the evidence of the prosecution led on the

file is sufficient to hold the accused guilty and to

convict and sentence them?

After hearing arguments, learned trial Magistrate dismissed

the complaint and acquitted the accused of the charge framed against

him, which left the complainant aggrieved and she had knocked at the

door of this Court by moving an application under Section 378 (4)

Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of

acquittal.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant besides going

through the record.

Learned trial Magistrate by detailed discussion of evidence

brought on file by the complainant and contentions raised on behalf of

the complainant as well as accused came to the conclusion that charge

was not proved against the accused conclusively. While coming to the

conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove that accused had

committed any offence, learned trial Magistrate has considered various

4 of 7
18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::
CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -5-

factors, which are as under:

(i) The complainant and her father had firstly

approached the police authorities moving various

complaints to them for registration of case against the

accused but as a result of thorough inquiry, no truth

was found in such complaints.

(ii)Since the complainant and her husband Saudagar

Singh – accused No.1 and their minor child had been

residing separately as is evident from the ration card

Ex.R2 from the other accused, therefore, question of

possession of dowry articles and demand of

Rs.50,000/- could not arise.

(iii)Accused Saudagar Singh is employed in Punjab

Police and at the time of marriage, he was posted at

Bahadurgarh, Patiala and after marriage, he was

transferred to Police District Khanna, whereas the

complainant was employed in Punjab Agricultural

Department. There was no occasion for the accused

to harass the complainant for demand of dowry etc.

(iv)Failure on the part of the complainant and her

parents to place on record the bills of dowry articles

and no shopkeeper etc. having been examined in that

regard.

(v) List of dowry articles not proved legally since it does

not bear the signatures of complainant.

(vi)Accused No.5 Tajinder Kaur and accused No.6

5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::
CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -6-

Harvinderpal Kaur (since dead) were unmarried at

the time of marriage of complainant, so question of

demand of dowry by them does not arise.

(vii)Since handing over the dowry articles to any of the

accused is not proved, therefore, question of cruelty

in connection with demand of dowry does not arise.

(viii)The complainant has failed to prove the

entrustment of dowry articles to the accused.

(ix)Demand of dowry not proved specifically.

(x) The complainant has thrown a net wide to involve

everybody in her in-laws family not even sparing the

mediator.

(xi)The ingredients of Sections 406 and 498-A are not

proved.

(xii)The allegations of abortion at the instance of

accused Nos.1 to 5 for the purpose of cruelty are not

corroborated by any documentary evidence and oral

evidence does not support the case of the

complainant.

(xiii)The complainant has failed to prove her case

against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable

doubt.

The trial Court has taken into consideration the law on the

subject and given valid and proper reasoning before coming to the

conclusion that since the complainant had failed to prove her case

6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::
CRM-A-336-MA-2016(OM) -7-

against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, thereby

giving benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitting them of the charge

framed against them by dismissing the complaint.

Thus no ground is made out to grant special leave to appeal

in this case. The application is, therefore dismissed accordingly.

(H.S.MADAAN)
16.8.2018 JUDGE
Brij

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

7 of 7
18-08-2018 23:04:09 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation