Application for leave to appeal against acquittal in a dowry/cruelty/bigamy complaint case. The court noted the trial court's findings of lack of entrustment, vague allegations and no proof of second marriage; counsel could not controvert them. The application was dismissed.
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.
Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
214 CRM-A-381-MA-2015(O&M) Date of order: 07.11.2024
Kulwant Kaur
…..Applicant(s)
Vs.
Gursahib Singh & Others
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Ad v ocate for the applicant.
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, A A G Punjab.
None for respondents N o .1 and 2
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present application und e r Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is file d
seeking leav e to file appeal against judgme n t of acquittal dated 26.11.201 4 passed by t h e learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Amritsar, whereby th e accused/res p ondents No.1 and 2 herein, h a ve been acquitted in complain t case No.243 4 2/2013 registered under Secti o ns 420, 494, 406, 498-A, 120- B IPC at Police Station Sultanwind Amritsar.
Page 2 of 6
produced b y the applicant had been cross- e xamined at length. Yet nothin g adverse ca m e out in the cross-examinati o n, and the testimony of th e complainant witnesses remained unsha k en. Testimony of the thre e witnesses p r oves the entrustment and mis a ppropriation of dowry article s and therefo r e, the offence under Section 4 0 6 IPC is made out. Even offenc e under Section 498-A IPC was proven as all t h e witnesses had testified to th e fact that the applicant was kept locked in h e r room and was not even give n food for 2-3 days. In fact, the accused/resp o ndent No.1 had got her uteru s removed so that the applicant is unable to c onceive. Moreover, during th e subsistence of his marriage with the appli c ant, the respondent No.1 ha s performed s e cond marriage with one Raj K a ur. As such, cruelty against th e applicant/of f ence under Section 498-A IPC as also offence under Sectio n 494 IPC is c learly made out against the respondents No.1 and 2. It i s accordingly p rayed that the present appeal be allowed, and the impugne d judgment be set aside.
perused the case file in great detail.
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 6
Respondent no.1 is the husband and respo n dent no.2 is the brother-in-la w of the appli c ant. Present complaint was m ade by the applicant with th e allegations t h at the accused had been give n istridhan beyond the capacit y of the pare n ts of the applicant. The said i stridhan was entrusted to th e respondents No.1 and 2 in the presence o f relatives. Subsequently as th e applicant w a s unable to conceive child for f i ve years, the respondents No. 1 and 2 starte d misbehaving with the applic a nt. In actual fact, the applican t was unable t o conceive as her husband w a s impotent. Yet, the applican t was abused and tortured verbally, physica l ly and mentally. She was kep t locked in th e room by the accused persons a nd was not provided any food . Eventually, s he was turned out of the m atrimonial home in wearin g apparel. Th e respondent No.1 was also a drunkard and used to abuse th e applicant. T h e applicant also came to kno w that the respondent No.1 ha d contracted s e cond marriage with accused No.4 Raj Kaur in connivance wit h other accus e d persons without getting any d ivorce from the applicant. Th e applicant ha d even approached the police a u thorities but the police did no t take any act i on against the accused person s . In the month of July 2005, th e applicant al o ng with her family members and relatives had gone to th e house of th e accused persons to seek jus t ice. However, they refused t o provide any justice to the applicant and t h ey even refused to return he r dowry articl e s. The applicant gave informa t ion in this regard to the polic e authorities, b ut no action was taken in the matter. On these grounds, th e present complaint is filed.
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 4 of 6
time.
“22…The second ingredient need to be proved by th e complainant is that Gursahib S ingh has performed his secon d marriage with Raj Kaur duri n g the subsistence of his firs t
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 5 of 6
marriage. There is nothing a v ailable on record which coul d show that the marriage of G u rsahib Singh with complainan t Kulwant Kaur was ever disso l ved or he has ever obtaine d divorce from Kulwant Kaur fr o m any court of law. Now, th e complainant need to prove tha t Gursahib Singh performed th e second marriage with Raj Ka u r by performing religious rite s applicable to the party. The co m plainant has simply stated tha t the accused no.1 Gursahib Singh performed his secon d marriage with Raj Kaur. The c o mplainant has not mentione d the date, month and even year when Gursahib Sing h performed his second marriag e with Raj Kaur. No doubt, CW 2 Fateh Singh deposed that th e accused Gursahib Singh ha s performed second marriage w i th Raj Kaur but he admitted i n his cross examination that accu s ed no.1 Gursahib Singh has no t performed his second marriag e in his presence and he has no t attended the second marriage of accused Gursahib Singh wit h Raj Kaur, CW2 Fateh Singh f urther admitted in his cros s examination that he came to k n ow about the second marriag e of accused Gursahib Singh fr o m S waran Singh and Swara n Singh has seen Gursahib Singh p erforming his second marriag e with Raj Kaur. It is pertinent to mention that Fateh Singh is no t an eye witness of second marr i age of Gursahib Singh with Ra j Kaur. The complainant has al s o not examined CW2 Swara n Singh who was stated to be the eye witness of second marriag e of Gursahib Singh with Raj Ka u r. Even Kulwant Kaur admitte d in her cross examination that s h e has no information regardin g the marriage of Gursahib Sing h With Raj Kaur. No eye witnes s was examined by the compl a inant which could show tha t Gursahib Singh performed his s econd marriage with Raj Kaur. In order to constitute the offe n ce of bigamy, the complainan t need to prove the fact that th e second marriage was illegall y
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 6 of 6
performed by performing rel i gious rites applicable to th e parties…”.
10. I n view of the abov e , the present application i s
dismissed .
07.11.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
SUNENA 2024.11.11 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 420, 494, 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwant Kaur
Gursahib Singh
Others
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
