Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 458 (PNJ)

Kiran Deep v. Rajesh Kumar

2003-03-26

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the wife against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 6.1.1999 acquitting the respondents for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises is that the marriage between Kiran Deep and Rajesh Kumar was solemnized on 12.6.1984 and three children i.e. two females and one male was borne out of the said wedlock. On the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, an FIR for offence under Section 49B-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered against the husband, Rajesh Kumar, Dwarka Dass, father-in-law. Sheela Devi, mother-in-law Prem Kumar, brother of Rajesh Kumar and Darshna, wife of Prem Kumar i.e. sister-in-law of Rajesh Kumar. 3. In complaint dated 25.4.1994 by Kiran Deep, it is stated that she is married to Rajesh Kumar for last 10/12 years and is having three children from his loins. Her parents have expired. Her brothers on the demand of Sheela Devi and Dwarka Dass, mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased respectively, have given dowry as per list annexed. On the day of marriage the golden ornaments were handed over to her mother-in-law Sheela Devi with Rs. 1000/- in cash and the keys of the trunk were handed over to her husband Rajesh Kumar and rest of the dowry articles were given to her father-in-law. However, her mother-in-law and husband refused to give for ornaments and clothes and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. Her husband asked her to bring television and her mother-in-law demanded a fridge. When Kiran Deep pleaded that her brothers were poor having eight sisters and they could not bear such a burden, all the three accused namely Dwarka Dass, father-in-law, Sheela Devi, mother-in-law and Rajesh Kumar, husband gave beatings to her and expelled her from her home. However, her brothers persuaded her in-laws and left her in her matrimonial home. However, subsequently, she was expelled from matrimonial home after being given beatings. She was again sent to matrimonial home by the respectables and other Panchayat members four or five times. But accused continued to maltreat her. However, her brothers persuaded her in-laws and left her in her matrimonial home. However, subsequently, she was expelled from matrimonial home after being given beatings. She was again sent to matrimonial home by the respectables and other Panchayat members four or five times. But accused continued to maltreat her. In the month of November/December, 1995, her husband Rajesh Kumar and mother-in-law, Sheela Devi gave her severe beatings and then her father-in-law Dwarka Dass told that now she is injured, so she he finished once for all by giving her some poisonous substance. Since she over-heard the conversion, she refused to take the same. At this, her husband caught hold her from her arms and her father-in-law caught hold her from her legs and then her mother-in-law Sheela Devi forcibly poured the material from a glass in her mouth. Fortunately, her brothers Sham Lal and Sudarshan Kumar came there and rescued her. On hearing cries, Sh. Birkam Singh, Advocate along with his wife-Chanda came to the spot. Ultimately, she was taken to the Doctor. 4. On the basis of this complaint, Ex. PW5/A, FIR No. PW8/A was registered. On completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. The prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove charge against the accused. Keeping in view the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted Rajesh Kumar - husband, Dwarka Dass, father-in-law and Sheela Devi, mother-in-law for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Rajesh Kumar and Dwarka Dass to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years whereas Sheela Devi was released on probation. 5. Two separate appeals, namely, one by Rajesh Kumar and Dwarka Dass and another by Sheela Devi were filed before the learned Sessions Judge. Both the appeals were allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgments. Since Sheela Devi has died during the pendency of the present proceedings, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said judgment stands dismissed as abated. 6. The learned Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail to return a finding that the allegations levelled against the accused are not proved. The allegation of administering of poison in the month fo November/December, 1993 was found to be a cooked up story only. 6. The learned Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail to return a finding that the allegations levelled against the accused are not proved. The allegation of administering of poison in the month fo November/December, 1993 was found to be a cooked up story only. It was found that the wife did not go to the matrimonial home after 17.6.1993. This fact has been admitted by the wife in para 4 of the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has so admitted in her statement as well. Thus, it was found by the appellate court that there was no question of administration of poison to the complainant in the month of November/December, 1993. The Appellate Court found that the evidence in support of this is wholly discrepant. The petitioner has produced PW.10-Sh. B.S. Minhas in order to support her allegation of being administered the poison in November/December, 1993. This evidence has been discussed thread-bare by the Appellate Court and it was found that the testimony of these witnesses is not reliable. The Appellate Court has pointed out the discrepancies in detail in the evidence led by the prosecution. 7. The counsel for the petitioner also pointed that the prosecution has proved the demand of dowry from the letter Ex. PW5/C dated 20.11.1989. Such letter was delivered by PW3-Harbhajan Singh to the brother of the petitioner. However, this aspect has again been considered by the Appellate Court. It has been found that the authenticity of the letter is very much doubted because neither the envelope has been produced which contained this letter nor there is any proof that the letter was written on the date which it bears. The complainant has not mentioned such letter in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was lodged. It was found by the Appellate Court that omission of such letter in the complaint is a material consideration as the letter was important piece of evidence and was in the knowledge on the complainant. 8. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 4000/- was withdrawn from the account of brother vide Ex. PW6/A is not sufficient to hold that the said amount was, in fact, paid to the accused. Ex. PW6/A is a bank statement of account of brother of the petitioner. It only shows that amount of Rs. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 4000/- was withdrawn from the account of brother vide Ex. PW6/A is not sufficient to hold that the said amount was, in fact, paid to the accused. Ex. PW6/A is a bank statement of account of brother of the petitioner. It only shows that amount of Rs. 4000/- was withdrawn. Such withdrawal is not proved to be for the purpose of payment of refrigerator to the accused. 9. Keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788 stating the cases in which the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised, I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the present revision petition is made out. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that the High Court in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice can exercise a revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court indicated some of the following cases of exceptional nature :- "These cases may be : where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law." 10. The present is not a case falling in any of the exceptional cases. The entire evidence has been discussed by the Appellate Court to return a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondents. 11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.