Dismissed

Balwinder Kaur v. Resham Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2024CRM-A/655/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed an applicant's application for leave to file a criminal appeal. Upholding the acquittal of the respondents, the court held that discrepancies in the applicant's evidence regarding dowry demands, injuries, and the filing of complaints meant no ground was made out for interference.

What did the court decide?

The application for leave to file a criminal appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Balwinder Kaur Vs Resham Singh & Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

210 Date of order: 12.08.2024

¶4

CRM-A-655-MA-2017(O&M)

Balwinder Kaur

…..Applicant(s)

Vs.

Resham Singh & Others

¶9

…..Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG P unjab.

¶13

¶14

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶15

Present application und e r Section 378(4&5) Cr.P.C. i s filed seeking leave to file appeal against jud g ment dated 10.01.2017 passe d by learned A dditional Sessions Judge, Hosh i arpur in Criminal Appeal No.3 8 of 2016, vid e which the judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learne d Judicial M a gistrate, 1^st Class, Hoshiarpur thereby convicting th e respondents in case FIR No.264 dated 26.11.2008 registered under Section s 498-A, 406 a nd 323 IPC at Police Station S adar Hoshiarpur, has been se t aside.

¶16

Learned counsel for the a pplicant inter alia submits tha t in passing t he impugned order, the learned first Appellant Court ha s considered t he evidence piecemeal in a pi c k and choose manner withou t discussing t h e evidence in context and totality. It is submitted that th e

¶17

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

Page 2 of 9

¶19

observation of the learned First Appellat e Court that the complainan t remained silent regarding the date of de m and of dowry, is not realisti c observation because it is not possible for a harassed person to note eac h and every e x act date. Even the observatio n of the learned First Appellat e Court that t h e allegations are vague and g e neral in nature on the groun d that no rec e ipt of the gold articles was gi v en by the complainant to th e police, is also unrealistic because the com p lainant and her family got th e gold ornam e nts prepared number of times; and as such, receipts were no t available. In any event, the said observatio n of the learned First Appellat e Court regar d ing non-production of receipts of dowry articles was incorrec t as Recover y Memo (Ex.PB) shows that r ecovery was made, which i s possible onl y if these articles were given at the time of marriage. It i s accordingly, prayed that the impugned jud g ment dated 10.01.2017 passe d by learned A dditional Sessions Judge, Hosh i arpur be set aside by restorin g judgment of conviction of learned trial Cour t .

¶20

No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the applicant.

¶21

I have heard learned c ounsel for the applicant and

¶22

perused the case file in great detail.

¶23

Perusal of record of the case shows that the applican t was marrie d to respondent No.1 on 14.11.2007. Respondent No.2 is th e mother-in-law of the applicant. It is the c ase of the applicant that he r parents gav e sufficient dowry at the time o f her marriage and the marriag e

¶24

was perfor m ed in a befitting manner. After some time of the marriage he r husband Re s ham Singh and mother in la w Surjit Kaur, her sister in la w

¶25

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

Page 3 of 9

¶27

Veena and h er husband's uncle (Mama) D ara and her husband's aunt' s (Massi) son S atpal @ Satti started harassin g her for brining less dowry an d made dema n ds of dowry to bring Rs.5 lacs f rom her parents and Verna ca r was also de m anded by the accused perso n s. Her parents even paid Rs. 1 lacs to her i n laws to settle Resham Singh in some business, but still Resha m Singh and o t hers used to harass her physi c ally and mentally both. In thi s regard she m oved an application to DIG Jalandhar Range, on the basis o f which enqui r y was conducted. On 26.11.20 0 8, at about 7.00 AM when sh e was present in her in laws house, her mat e rnal uncle Dara, Satpal @ Satt i and husban d of the complainant came the r e and her mother in law aske d her to prep a re the tea for them and whe n the complainant told her tha t she is not fe e ling well and she cannot mak e the tea. Upon that her mothe r in law Surjit Kaur caught hold of her from h e r hairs, her sister in law Veen a and Satpal held her from her arms and her husband gave fist blow on he r nose and pressed her neck. They tried to put cloth in her mouth and a t that time bl o od came from her nose due to t he fist blows given to her. The y also stated t o her that in the Panchayat s h e should state that she want s divorce and f or her safety she ran to the ho u se of her neighbourer Harban s Singh and f r om there she gave informatio n to her parents telephonicall y and on their arrival she has come to make t h e statement.

¶28

After the completion of investigation challan wa s presented a n d charges under Sections 498- A , 406 and 323 IPC was frame d against all t h e accused, but however after t r ial the Court convicted Resha m Singh and S u rjit Kaur only; and Surjit Kau r was convicted under Section s

¶29

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

Page 4 of 9

¶31

498-A and 4 06 IPC; and whereas Rehsa m Singh was convicted unde r Sections 49 8 -A, 406, 323 of IPC by the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2015. However, in appeal by both of t hem the learned Addl. Session s Judge has a c quitted both the accused/priv a te respondents vide impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017.

¶32

The learned First Appellate Court acquitted th e accused/res p ondents No.1 and 2 herei n on the findings that afte r consideration of the entire evidence, it wa s found that the applicant/PW 1 had remain e d silent as to on which date, month, year the accused had raised demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakh and V erna car from her parents; thi s fact was ad m itted by the applicant durin g cross-examination. Moreover , the applicant and her father PW2 and her brother PW3 never made an y allegation o f demand of dowry in their e vidence; through their entir e evidence neither was there any allegation of misappropriation of dowr y articles; even further, nothing was broug h t on record to show that th e applicant or her family had ever fulfilled the demand of respondents No. 1 and 2 for Rs.5 lakh and a Verna car.

¶33

Similarly, the other e v idence on record has bee n discussed in minute detail by the First App e llate Court, which reflects tha t PW2/father of the applicant has stated in his testimony that in order t o satisfy the d e mand of the accused for a su m of Rs.5 lakh, he had paid them Rs.1 lakh ou t of which Rs.50,000/- was borr o wed from two persons namel y Ram Lal/P W 6 and Bakshi Ram/PW9. C o ntrarily, PW3/brother of th e applicant ha s stated in his evidence that he took Rs.1 lakh from his father -

¶34

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶35

Page 5 of 9

¶36

in-law to pa y to the accused. Said Ram Lal / PW6 and Bakshi Ram/PW9 an d the applican t have admitted in their cross- e xamination that Rs.1 lakh wa s never dema n ded in their presence nor was p aid in their presence.

¶37

It is also pertinent that the allegations of demand o f Verna car a n d Rs.5 lakh and giving beating to the applicant were mad e against resp o ndents No.1 and 2 as also the maternal uncle Dara Singh, on e Satpal @ Sa t ti and sister-in-law of the appli c ant namely Veena. Admittedly , proceedings against the maternal uncle D a ra Singh were quashed by thi s Court; wher e as Veena and Satpal were acq u itted by the learned trial Court . The learned First Appellate Court found it i n congruous that on the basis o f same allegations and evidence Veena and S a tpal had been acquitted by th e learned trial Court while convicting respond e nts No.1 and 2.

¶38

The learned First Appellate Court further found that th e applicant had admitted in her cross-exami n ation that she had no receipt s regarding p u rchase of gold articles and neither was any such receip t handed ove r to the police during investigat i on. Although the applicant ha d placed relia n ce upon list of dowry articl e s dated 26.11.2008 (Mark-A) , however, th e same was not accompanied b y any bill or receipts. This fac t has been a d mitted by the applicant as P W 1 and her father/PW2 durin g cross-exami n ation that there is no bill or d o cument to show the purchas e of the dow r y articles shown in Mark-A, w hich are stated to have bee n recovered fr o m respondents No.1 and 2 during investigation by the police. Furthermor e , other articles given to the ac c used were found to have been given by wa y of customary gifts.

¶39

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶40

Page 6 of 9

¶41

Most importantly, it has been admitted by the applican t during her cross-examination that she nev e r asked the accused to retur n her dowry a rticles; that she cannot discl o se which article was given t o which accus e d; that the said dowry articles are lying in her parent’s home; moreover, r e spondents No.2 and 3 never refused to hand over the same t o the applican t . Admittedly, even the articles given to respondents No.1 an d 2 and their relatives have been returned t o the applicant. It was in thi s background that the learned First Appellat e Court found that the offenc e under Secti o n 406 IPC is not made out. Moreover, in order to establish a n offence und e r Section 406 IPC, the followin g four ingredients are necessary:

¶42

a) istridhan o f the bride be entrusted to the a ccused;

¶43

b) dishones t misappropriation of the en t rusted dowry articles by th e accused;

¶44

c) that the wife makes demand for return of the said misappropriate d istridhan; and

¶45

d) lastly tha t there is a refusal on part of the accused to return the sai d articles of is t ridhan to the wife.

¶46

From the above evidenc e of the applicant, it is clear tha t the aforesai d ingredients to constitute an o f fence under section 406 IPC ar e not satisfied .

¶47

As regards the offence under Section 498-A IPC , although it i s the case of the applicant before the learned Courts below tha t she had file d a complaint to the DIG regar d ing beatings inflicted upon he r

¶48

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶49

Page 7 of 9

¶50

by the accused, however, it has been simul t aneously admitted that she di d not remem b er the date and month of th e said complaint. The applican t could not ev e n recall whether the said com p laint was filed in person or wa s sent throug h post; whether the said compl a int was in writing or typed; sh e could not r e call on which date and month was the complaint made. Th e applicant ha s further admitted that she re m ained in her parents’ house fo r one year. Reading the entire evidence in co h esion it emerges that when th e applicant co u ld not recall whether the date of the complaint made by her; whether it h ad been made personally or sent by post; whether it was i n written or t yped; when she could not remember the details of th e complaint, t h en the very filing of the compl a int is put in shadow of doubt.

¶51

Even further, during cr o ss-examination, the applican t had admitte d that she did not receive any i njury. In any event, out of tw o injuries me n tioned by Dr.Gurbax Singh P W 4 in his testimony, one is a complaint o f pain, which, as per medical ju r isprudence does not constitut e an ‘injury’. In the impugned order, it has been further noticed that th e applicant ad m itted in her cross-examination as follows:-

¶52

“20…Furthermore complainan t Balwinder Kaur PW1 durin g cross examination clearly ad m itted that at the time of he r medical examination she disclo s ed to the doctor that her hair s were pulled but the doctor n o t examined her head and sh e admitted that on the alleg e d day of occurrence date d 26.11.2008, she was suffering f rom pain in her head but ther e is no complaint of pain in the head has been referred in th e medical examination of the c o mplainant for which she wa s suffering the pain. She fu r ther admitted during cros s examination that w hen the ac c used had caught hold her fro m arms on 26.11.2008 then bluis h marks came on her arms bu t the said bluish marks were n o t shown by her to the doctor.

¶53

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶54

Page 8 of 9

¶55

Further the alleged stained clo t hes of blood which was allege d oozed from the nose of the co m plainant never taken into polic e possession or handed over to t he doctor to prove the allege d injury on the part of the ap p ellant Resham Singh allegedl y given to her nose nor produced before the trial court.

¶56

21. Hence from the abov e cross examination of th e complainant this court is of t h e opinion that the injuries fo r which the complainant was suf f ering were not disclosed by th e complainant to the doctor ra t her other injuries which hav e been disclosed to the doctor as per the MLR are injuries of pai n of complaint. Moreover co m plainant herself during cros s examination admitted that s h e did not receive any injury. Moreover the complainant Bal w inder Kaur PW1 in her evidenc e alleged the causing of injuries t o the appellants as well as othe r persons who have been acquit t ed and if the causing of injurie s is at the same date, time and place and manner against th e appellants as well as other pe r sons who have been acquitte d then this court is failed to unde r stand that how the evidence o f the complainant can be belie v ed against some persons an d disbelieved against other perso n s. Hence injuries on the perso n of the complainant Balwinder Kaur have not been proved b y the prosecution against the ap p ellants.”

¶57

There are numerous di s crepancies even regarding th e

¶58

offence und e r Section 498-A IPC inasmuch as Investigating Officer/PW8 ha d stated in his examination-in-chief that o n the date of incident i.e. 26.11.2008, w hen he was on patrolling duty , the statement of the applican t (Ex.PA) was recorded on the basis of which present FIR came to b e registered. H owever, during cross-examination, PW8/Investigating Office r has stated t h at when he reached the plac e of occurrence, the house wa s locked. Mor e over, the complaint was filed b y the applicant on 25.09.2008 , which is pri o r to the date of incident and F IR has been registered qua th e complaint d a ted 25.09.2008.

¶59

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶60

Page 9 of 9

¶61

Learned counsel for the a pplicant is unable to controver t

¶62

or dispute t h e aforesaid facts and findings.

¶63

Before parting it may b e pointed out that the presen t matter is of t he year 2017 and notice has n o t yet been issued in the matter. Perusal of o r der sheets shows that on 06.0 4 .2018, 09.10.2018, 29.11.2018 , 12.02.2020, t he matter was adjourned at re q uest of learned counsel for th e applicant. Thereafter, on 25.09.2023, th e re was no representation o n behalf of the applicant. On the last date o f hearing i.e. 08.02.2024, th e matter was a gain adjourned at request of le a rned counsel for the applicant.

¶64

In view of the discussion above, no ground is made ou t to interfere in the impugned order. Presen t application accordingly stand s

¶65

dismissed.

¶66

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶67

12.08.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶68

SUNENA 2024.08.14 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Balwinder Kaur v. Resham Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Kaur v. Resham Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babita and Anr. Vs Prem Kumar

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nasib Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Meenakshi and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rachna Devi and Another Vs Neha

Sanjiv Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.