Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1691 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Sukhwant Kaur

2010-05-17

RAJAN GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment delivered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, whereby he acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Prerna wife of Madanjit Singh lodged a complaint with the police alleging that accused had misappropriated the dowry items and treated her with cruelty. She stated that she was married to Madanjit Singh Narang on 20th February, 1994 according to Sikh rites at Hotel Kamal Palace, Jalandhar. According to her, proposal was made by accused Kuljit Kaur and her father Dalip Singh because Dalip Singh was Guru Bhai of mother of the complainant. Believing her Guru Bhai, mother of the complainant agreed to the proposal of marriage and did not verify anything about the boy. Certain ceremonies took place on 19.2.1994. Number of articles were given as gifts to the bridegrooms side. As desired by the accused, marriage was celebrated at Jalandhar and Rs. 70,000/- was spent thereon. The complainant gave a list of articles, which were entrusted to the accused. The complainant further alleged that her husband, namely, Madanjit Singh stayed with complainant for two months and thereafter left for Germany promising her that he would call her there after completion of necessary formalities. The complainant lived with family of her husband (accused Nos. 2 to 5) till September, 1995 when she came to know that a fraud had been played on her. During this period, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid by the complainant as she was told by the accused that the same were to be given to travel agent who had made arrangements to send her to Germany. In second week of March, 1995, the complainant came to know that Madanjit Singh was already married in Germany. In September, 1995 accused Nos. 2 to 4 demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant to send her abroad but she showed her inability. Due to this, the accused got angry and beat her with sticks and Chappals. She was thereafter thrown out of the matrimonial home. The family of the complainant thereafter requested the accused for rehabilitating the complainant, but again a demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made. Complainant alleged that on 15th July, 1996, her husband refused to call her to join his company in Germany. She was thereafter thrown out of the matrimonial home. The family of the complainant thereafter requested the accused for rehabilitating the complainant, but again a demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made. Complainant alleged that on 15th July, 1996, her husband refused to call her to join his company in Germany. He also refused to leave the German lady, with whom he was living. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, investigation ensued and challan was presented by the investigating agency. Thereafter, charges under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty. They also alleged false implication. They examined four witnesses in their defence. 4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused were not guilty of the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and thus acquitted them of the same. 5. Learned State counsel has argued that the trial court did not take into consideration the material evidence on record in support of the prosecution case and thus, committed a grave error in law. He submitted that prosecution has brought sufficient evidence to show that the accused were guilty of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, argued that ingredients of offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC were not made out and thus, the accused were rightly acquitted by the court below. This apart, he submitted that the complaint was motivated and accused had been falsely implicated. He further submitted that this false implication is proved from the fact that distant relatives had been named in the FIR. According to him, accused Kuljit Kaur and Gurinder Singh only gave the marriage proposal and thus, no offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was made out qua them. As regards mother of the accused (Sukhwant Kaur), learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence to show that she was guilty in any manner. In any case, he submitted that she had expired during the pendency of the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record received from the trial court. 8. As regards mother of the accused (Sukhwant Kaur), learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence to show that she was guilty in any manner. In any case, he submitted that she had expired during the pendency of the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record received from the trial court. 8. Before proceeding further with the case, it may be noticed that accused Puran Singh is stated to have expired during the pendency of the trial and accused Sukhwant Kaur is stated to have died during the pendency of this appeal. Accused Madanjit Singh, husband of the complainant was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial court. As regards accused Kuljit Kaur and Gurinder Singh, only allegations against them in the entire complaint is that the marriage proposal was given by them. A perusal of testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not show that any role has been attributed to these two accused which can attract offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Admittedly, dowry articles were never entrusted to these two accused, thus, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against them. Since the complainant never lived with the accused Gurinder Singh and Kuljit Kaur, the question of any of them subjecting her to any cruelty also does not arise, thereby ruling out the possibility of crime under Section 498-A IPC. This apart, a perusal of testimonies of PW1 to PW3 shows that the persons, to whom the dowry articles were allegedly entrusted, have not been specifically named. It has not been stated by any of the witnesses as to whom the particular items were entrusted. Only general allegations have been made by the complainant against these accused. Rest of the witnesses being formal in nature, it is not necessary for this court to advert to their deposition. As regards offence under Section 498-A IPC, the complainant never deposed before the court that she was subjected to maltreatment for not bringing sufficient dowry. She mainly stated that when she disclosed the telephonic conversation with her husband to her in-laws, they gave her beating and inflicted injuries. In her cross-examination, however, she admitted that she had not informed anybody regarding the alleged injuries received by her nor any complaint was filed by her. She mainly stated that when she disclosed the telephonic conversation with her husband to her in-laws, they gave her beating and inflicted injuries. In her cross-examination, however, she admitted that she had not informed anybody regarding the alleged injuries received by her nor any complaint was filed by her. Only allegation appears to be that husband of the complainant refused to take her abroad, due to which she felt harassed. There is, however, no convincing evidence on record to show that the complainant was maltreated or injuries were inflicted on her person for bringing insufficient dowry. Even the testimonies of the complainant (PW1) as well as PW2 and PW3, do not show any specific allegations qua the accused. Only general allegations have been levelled by them in their evidence on stepping into the witness-box. Rest of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal/official witnesses. 9. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial court thereby acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 10. I am, thus, of the considered view that the appeal filed by the State is without any merit. The same is hereby dismissed.