High Court dismissed criminal revision petition challenging criminal appeal court order convicting respondents under Section 498-A IPC and acquitting them on other charges. Revisioner failed to demonstrate ground for interference.
Revision petition dismissed; previous judgment upheld.
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.
Crl.Rev.No.361 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Rev.No.361 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 06 .08.2009
Manpreet Kaur
....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Sher Singh and others
....Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
*** Present:Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred by the complainant challenging the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, vide which the respondents accused have been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC but acquitted of the charges under Section 406/365/506 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence so produced by the prosecution before the trial Court goes beyond doubt to prove that the offences of which the respondents-accused have been acquitted, stood proved against them. She contends that the statement of the complainant PW-1 Manpreet Kaur was corroborated by the statement of her mother Jasbir Kaur PW-2 apart from other evidence produced by the prosecution. She submits that these two witnesses had specifically stated and proved the charges of which the respondent-accused have been acquitted.
Crl.Rev.No.361 of 2008
-2-
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case and the impugned judgment with her able assistance.
A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that for proving the charge under Section 406 Cr.P.C., the requirement of law is that the prosecution is to prove the entrustment of the articles to the accused with a clear understanding that as and when the said articles are required and claimed, the same would be returned to the person who had entrusted the said articles. In the present case, the allegation with regard to the offence under Section 406 IPC having been committed by the accusedrespondents, is the misappropriation of the dowry articles. Firstly, there is no entrustment of any of the dowry articles to each of the accused. The allegations are general in nature and do not refer to the details of the articles having been entrusted to each one of them which has neither come in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of any of the witnesses. Further, it has not come on record as to when the complainant had sought for and demanded the return of the said dowry articles from the accused and they had refused to hand over the same to her. What has been alleged is that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given. For holding the accused guilty, firstly, there must be entrustment of the dowry articles as to whom the articles were given and further that when the said entrusted articles were demanded back, the accused had refused to return the same. That being so, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
With regard to the contention of the counsel relating to the offence under Sections 365/506 IPC, suffice it to say, the petitionercomplainant filed the present F.I.R on 26.7.2002 wherein she had alleged
Crl.Rev.No.361 of 2008
-3-
that on 9.6.2002, when she along with her mother was present in the house, her mother-in-law Taswinder Kaur, father-in-law Sher Singh, sister-in-law Gurjit Kaur and her husband Balraj Singh came to village Othian Kalan in a car and they were armed with weapons and they had forcibly taken his children in a car and they also threatened her with dire consequences. She has further stated that her sister-in-law Gurjit Kaur and her husband Balraj Singh had taken her minor sons to an undisclosed place. It has come in evidence that earlier the complainant had also filed a complaint Exhibit D-1 which was addressed to Sr.Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. The said complaint was entrusted to SHO Police Station, Raja Sanshi by the Sr. Superintendent of Police on 21.6.2002 on which a thorough enquiry was made. Complainant-Manjit Kaur had admitted that the complaint Exhibit D-1 bore her signatures and she also admitted the fact that before the registration of the FIR in the present case, she had visited Police Station Raja Sanshi. According to the said complaint, she has clearly mentioned therein that her minor sons are with their grand-parents and on 9.6.2002 her sister-in-law Gurjit Kaur and her husband Balraj Singh had come to village Othian Kalan where they had demanded Rs.2 lacs from the complainant and they had also given threats to the complainant that in case she does not pay the amount, they will not return her minor sons as well as their passports. A diametrically different stand was taken by her in the present FIR which was lodged on 26.7.2002 which is contrary to what she had stated in her earlier complaint Exhibit D-1 when her minor sons were already with the accused on 9.6.2002. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Crl.Rev.No.361 of 2008
-4-
The trial Court has on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, passed a well reasoned and well-considered judgment. The conclusion reached by the Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.
August 06, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE
Whether referred to Reporters?
Yes/No
Manpreet Kaur
Sher Singh
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
