High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition by the complainant seeking to challenge the appellate court's acquittal of the respondent husband under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, holding the acquittal was neither perverse nor unreasonable.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed without interfering with the order of acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Revision No. 1874 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.11.2009 *****
Kamlesh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Delay condoned.
The instant revision petition is preferred by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.1.2009 rendered by the appellate Court below in respect of respondent Jasbir, her husband.
Case FIR No.168 dated 19.7.1999, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was got registered by the police of police Station Chandhat, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner before the Court, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police. In nutshell, the allegations of the complainant therein are that her marriage was solemnized with accused Jasbir Singh on 19.11.1992 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies and sufficient dowry was given by her parents but despite that her husband, Jeth Sunil, Hari Kishan and Omwati, father-inlaw and mother-in-law respectively were not happy with the same and they usually maltreated and harassed her for bringing more dowry. As per allegations in the complaint, the accused persons raised a demand of motor cycle or scooter or in alternative cash of Rs.20,000/-, which was not fulfilled and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 5.1.1998, when she was pregnant. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons retained her dowry articles and misappropriated the same and also threatened her to kill.
In the aforesaid FIR, the investigating agency booked husband
2
Jasbir Singh, Jeth Sunil, father-in-law Hari Kishan and mother-in-law Omwati. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and produced four witnesses during trial viz. C. Ramesh, complainant Kamlesh, ASI Mahesh and Bir Singh as PW1 to PW4 respectively.
On conclusion of trial, Sunil, Om Wati and Hari Kishan were acquitted but the respondent-husband Jasbir Singh was convicted under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and was awarded sentence under the aforesaid heads. Dis-satisfied with the same he preferred an appeal before the appellate Court below which has been accepted vide the impugned judgment and he has been acquitted of the charges.
Hence, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. .
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book carefully and of the view that no ground to interfere with the findings of acquittal in respect of private respondent is made out. The operative part of the judgment rendered by the appellate Court below while acquitting the respondent reads as under:-
“10... In our case, as discussed above, as there are vague and wild allegations regarding demand of dowry of simply a motor cycle or its price after five years of the marriage and only one specific incident of January 1998 has been alleged when she was allegedly thrown out from her matrimonial home. Even the complainant as PW2 has failed to prove it by uttering a single word and admitted having received the dowry articles and even admitted that she has never demanded return of the articles from the husband or other relatives which have already been recovered when the accused/ husband have produced himself before the police and the police took into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B. There was no attribution of any injury on her person or specific allegations regarding maltreatment, harassment or cruelty meeted out to her by the accused husband, there is no medical evidence, no FIR during the five years of
3
her stay with her husband. Even this complaint has been filed after 1.1/2 years of leaving the matrimonial home by her and the delay is never explained satisfactorily nor the entrustment of the dowry articles have been got proved by her which article was entrusted by whom to the accused/ husband or other members of his family and that it has not been returned to her on demand. Thus, there was no question of demand of dowry and treating her with cruelty or misappropriation as required under Sections 498A/ 406 IPC....”
From the above findings, it is apparent that the learned appellate Court below finding the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A, 406 IPC conspicuously missing coupled with the material flaws in the prosecution case, rightly acquitted the private respondent. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the 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 instant revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 13,2009 Jiten
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the appellate court's order of acquittal under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC?
Whether the findings of non-existence of cruelty and misappropriation under Section 498-A IPC were perverse or unreasonable?
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamlesh
State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
