Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 114 (CHH)

PARAMJEET KAUR v. KEHAR SINGH

2007-02-14

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2007
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD on admission. ( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 14/8/2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006 by the Sessions Judge, Durg, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons (respondents No. 1 to 6 herein) of the charges framed against them under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, reversing the judgment of conviction dated 24/4/2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Durg in Criminal Case No. 892/2002. ( 3 ) THE brief facts are that on the report of the applicant/complainant, a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry prohibition Act was registered by the concerned Police Station and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of the trial, punished the accused/respondents No. 1 to 6 under Section 498-A of ipc and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. ( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused persons filed a Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006 before the Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the accused/respondents No. 1 to 6. ( 7 ) IT is against this order the applicant/complainant has filed this criminal Revision. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant argues that the Appellate court erred in law by not holding the evidence of applicant/complainant-Paramjeet Kaur (PW-1) as trustworthy on the ground that for an incident, which took place in the year 1996-97, the report was lodged by the complainant on 31/5/98. ( 9 ) I have perused the entire judgment passed by the Appellate Court. ( 10 ) THE Appellate Court has discussed the evidence of PW-1 in detail and has held that the marriage of PW-1 had taken place on 20/11/95 and she was residing with her in-laws. The family members of the husband started treating her with cruelty just after 2 months of the marriage on the pretext of demand of one scooter and Rs. 50,000. The family members of the husband started treating her with cruelty just after 2 months of the marriage on the pretext of demand of one scooter and Rs. 50,000. This statement of PW-1 was tested by the court on various grounds and the ground that for the incident of demand of dowry and cruelty, which took place in the year 1996-97, the report was lodged on 31/5/98. The court below has disbelieved the testimony of this witness and has held that when some incident took place on 27/5/97, which had taken place in between the father of complainant and her father-in-law namely Rudh singh and Kehar Singh in Section 9 Hospital, Bhilai, just after one year of the said incident, the complainant started making allegations against the family members of her husband regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/- and one scooter and a report was lodged. ( 11 ) THESE are the grounds taken by the appellate Court for disbelieving the evidence of PW-1 and holding so, the judgment of acquittal has been recorded by the said court. ( 12 ) THE revisional power of High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 does not create any right in the litigant, but only conserves the power to see that justice is done and the subordinate Courts do not exceed jurisdiction or abuse their powers. The order of lower Court ought not to be lightly set aside unless it has entailed miscarriage of justice or where two views are possible merely because the revisional court takes the other view. It is only in glaring cases of injustice, resulting from some violation of fundamental principle of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. The mere circumstances that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may, in the opinion of the High Court, be wrong, will not justify setting aside the acquittal and directing re-trial. The revisional court is entitled to reverse the finding only when it reaches to the conclusion that finding of the trial Court is perverse and the jurisdiction cannot be invoked lightly. Even in the cases where it is possible to take two views on the same matter then in the ordinary course the view taken by the Court below should not be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. Even in the cases where it is possible to take two views on the same matter then in the ordinary course the view taken by the Court below should not be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, when the Appellate Court has taken a particular view of evidence and has acquitted the respondents no. 1 to 6 from the charges framed against them as aforementioned disbelieving the story set forth by the prosecution particularly evidence of pw-1-applicant/complainant, there is no reason with this Court to interfere in such a finding recorded by the appellate Court, as such finding reasonably appears to be one, which could have been recorded by a Court of law. ( 14 ) AFTER going through the entire evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Appellate. Court. ( 15 ) THE revision carries no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .