Dismissed

Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2012CRM-A/111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The High Court held that the trial Court was correct in finding no case against the accused for rape or dowry-related offenses, as the evidence was insufficient and the trial Court's view favored the accused under settled legal principles regarding appeals against acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed; acquittal of the accused stands upheld.

Navdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 19.7.2012

Navdeep Kaur

... Applicant

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.

¶10

Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

Criminal Misc. No. 8939 of 2012

¶13

This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal, which is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of the reasons given in the application, it is allowed and delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012

¶15

This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 6.9.2011.

¶16

On a complaint made by Navdeep Kaur, wife of respondent No.2-Satnam Singh, an FIR bearing No. 330 dated 24.12.2009 was registered against respondents No.2 to 7 for commission of offences

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

under Section 376, 406 and 498-A IPC in Police Station Division No. 8, Jalandhar. It is interesting to mention here that respondents No.3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, respectively, whereas respondents No. 5 and 7 are her sisters-in-law and respondent No.6 is her brother-in-law.

¶20

On receipt of a complaint moved by Navdeep Kaur (PW.4) inquiry therein was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic) whereafter the above FIR was recorded. The following contents were noticed by the trial Judge from the complaint filed by Navdeep Kaur (PW.4):-

¶21

“that she was born on 13.2.1991. She met accused No.1 in January, 2007 in Science City, Kapurthala and she came under his influence. She further deposed that accused No.1 developed physical relation with her on 10.2.2007 for the first time at some friend's house of accused No.1 in Jalandhar and thereafter off and on accused used to meet the complainant and told her that when she would become major then he would marry her. When she became major, she eloped with Satnam Singh and got married on 19.3.2009 at Maharishi Balmik Mandir, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh. After marriage, complainant was produced before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and ultimately security was granted. After the said orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, all the accused started harassing the complainant and she was physically beaten in the month of April, 2009, by Gurmit Kaur and Roor Singh in the presence of accused Satnam Singh. Complainant was being mentally harassed by Harvinder Singh, Manpreet Kaur and other family members for not bringing dowry articles and on the pretext that she has run away from her house. She rang up her mother in May 2009 to

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

disclose her about the harassment being suffered by her. She further deposed that parents of complainant called the complainant and her husband to Jalandhar in May, 2009 and on 31.5.2009 other family members of Satnam Singh were also called and dowry articles, list of which has been enclosed with the complaint, were given to them. The accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles as they were expecting much more things and cash amount. In June 2009, accused demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the parents of complainant for settling Satnam Singh. When the complainant refused to meet out their demand, accused started torturing the complainant. Ultimately, on 28.7.2009 complainant was severely beaten by all the accused. On 29.7.2009 complainant informed her parents about the illegal demands of accused and on 31.7.2009 parentes of complainant visited the house of accused and requested them for rehabilitation of complainant but accused remained adamant to their demands. It has been further averred that accused No.1 and 2 threatened that they would falsely involve the family members of complainant in false case. Police started harassing the complainant after showing the orders of Hon'ble High Court and under the influence of accused, complainant gave statement in the Court on 31.7.2009. The family members of complainant tried for reconciliation many times, but accused continued demanding Rs. 5 lacs in cash. In order to safeguard himself, accused Satnam Singh filed a case under Section 9 of HMA at Chandigarh. Complainant has further averred that accused No.1 is her husband, accused No.2 is her father-in-law, accused No.3 is mother-in-law, accused No.4 is brother-in-law and accused No.5 is wife of accused No.4 and accused No.6 is sister of accused No.1 and all of them were residing in the same house and were harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry and also

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

taken away all the dowry articles and used the same for their own.”

¶28

The Investigating Officer-Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh (PW.3) completed the investigation and thereafter final report was put in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused, as per norms. Their case was committed to the competent Court for trial on 30.4.2010. They were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶29

The prosecution produced eight witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused/private respondents were recorded separately under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The facts appearing on record against them were put to them which they denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence.

¶30

The trial Judge on appraisal of the evidence found the accused/respondents guilty and accordingly they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence, this application.

¶31

The trial Judge has noted a fact that the marriage between complainant and respondent No.2 was a love marriage. As per case of the complainant, she developed physical relations with respondent No.2 on 10.2.2007. When she became major, she eloped with respondent No.2 and their marriage was solemnized at Chandigarh on 19.3.2009. Thereafter, the couple came to this Court for protection. It has come on record that the complainant was medicolegally examined on 15.2.2010

¶32

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

by Dr. Damanjit Kaur (PW.2). The trial Judge rejected the report by taking note of a fact that medical examination of the complainant was conducted after more than five years of the filing of the complaint. It has also come on record that the complainant and respondent No.2 continued residing as husband and wife till 31.7.2009. If that is so, there is no question of charging respondent No.2 with the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. It was also rightly noted by the trial Court that the alleged demand of dowry was a concoction. It was a love marriage and solemnized against the wishes of the parents. After noting contents of the statement made by the complainant, the trial Court found that no case is made out to punish respondent No.2 with offence under Section 376 IPC. Sufficient reasons have been given by the trial Court to say so in paragraph No. 16 of the impugned judgment.

¶35

The trial Court has also held that the prosecution has failed to make out a charge against the private respondents under Section 498-A IPC. After analyzing the statements made by Balwinder Kaur (PW.6), mother and Jasbir Singh (PW.7), maternal uncle of the complainant, the trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the demand of money etc. at the instance of the respondents is not proved on record. Regarding beating to the complainant, there is no evidence on record. The complainant has failed to get herself medicolegally examined. Taking note of the entire evidence on record. The trial Court has rightly held that the complainant's version that she was forced to marry respondent No.2 is not believable. It was also noted that all the family members of respondent No.2 have been roped in unnecessarily. Even

¶36

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶37

¶38

two married sisters and husband of one of them was also arrayed as accused in the present case. The trial Court has analyzed the evidence in a threadbare manner and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The view formulated by the trial Court is perfectly justified as per evidence on record.

¶39

The view taken by the trial Court appears to be justified and as per evidence on record.

¶40

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748 , held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

¶41

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775 , while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-

¶42

“ We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”

¶43

Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC

¶44

755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which

¶45

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶46

¶47

favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.

¶48

In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479 , decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

¶49

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.”

¶50

Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶51

“7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of

¶52

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶53

¶54

acquittal.

¶55

8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.”

¶56

Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments

¶57

were discussed and then it was opined as under:-

¶58

“10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view

¶59

Criminal Misc. No. A-111-MA of 2012 (O&M)

¶60

¶61

adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.”

¶62

Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Judge which may necessitate interference by this Court.

¶63

Dismissed.

¶64

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶65

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶66

July 19, 2012 “DK”

Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Des Raj Mall & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Punjab Vs Harbhajan Singh(Died) through Its Lrs & Others

Dalbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.