Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 725 (HP)

Pooja Bhalla v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-08-08

A.M.KHANWILKAR

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THIS Revision Petition takes exception to the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Rd August, 2007 in Criminal Appeal Nahan dated No.4-N/10 of 2003. 3. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent No.2, her father-in-law, and, named her husband and mother-in-law as two other accused for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Since it was not possible to secure the presence of husband and mother-in-law, who were named as original accused Nos.1&2, the trial was separated and proceeded only against respondent, father-in-law. As regaRds the father-in-law, the allegation was that he was responsible to demand a sum of Rs.one lakh as dowry as condition precedence for marriage. The second demand was made in the sum of 5000 Australian dollars on 16th November, 1996 to pay the same to his son so that his son can be persuaded to take the petitioner to Australia where he was residing. The thiRd allegation is in respect of 'stridhan' entrusted by the petitioner to the respondent, father-in-law. No doubt, the trial Court recoRded finding of guilt against the respondent and sentenced him till rising of the Court for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the respondent challenged that decision by way of appeal which has been allowed by the District Court and the finding of guilt has been reversed on re-appreciation of evidence on recoRd. 3. AS regards the first demand of Rs.one lakh as pre-condition for marriage, the appellate Court has noted that the said incident had happened on 4th November, 1996 and there was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner or any of her family members had made grievance in that regard to anyone or had registered any formal complaint till that complaint is instituted as private complaint on 19.5.1999. In other words, this allegation was made only to falsely implicate the respondent and that version was unworthy of any credence. 4. SIMILAR logic has been stated in respect of demand of 5000 Australian Dollars made on 16th November, 1996. In other words, this allegation was made only to falsely implicate the respondent and that version was unworthy of any credence. 4. SIMILAR logic has been stated in respect of demand of 5000 Australian Dollars made on 16th November, 1996. The Appellate Court, while doubting the case, stated by the complainant's witnesses in this behalf, has also taken note of Ext.P-10 which is the communication sent by the petitioner to Department of Immigration and Multi Cultural Affairs, Australian High Commission in which she has noted that the amounts referred to in the complaint were paid to the husband as family gifts. In other words, the amount was not paid to the respondent herein as such; but to the husband against whom trial is yet to commence due to non-service of summons (as he presently resides in Australia). The second aspect, which flows from this communication is that the amount was paid as gift and not because it was demanded as dowry by respondent-accused. Regarding the demand made on 16th November, 1996 of 5000 Australian dollars has also been negated by the appellate Court on the finding that on the relevant date the presence of respondent at Nahan was doubtful. For that, reliance has been placed on official record which supports the stand of the respondent that he was not present at Nahan on 16th November, 1996. In other words, the allegation against the respondent of having demanded the amount is false and has not been substantiated by the complainant at all. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this opinion recorded by the appellate Court which is a possible view on the basis of the evidence available on record. As regards the third allegation of entrustment of 'stridhan' of petitioner to the respondent, even that has been analyzed by the appellate Court on the basis of evidence which has come on record and the contradiction noticed in the cross examination regarding the fact that it is her husband who committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the ornaments. In the cross examination the complainant PW-1 has stated that she filed divorce petition against her husband and has admitted that in that petition she has alleged that her ornaments had been taken away by her husband and mother- in-law to Australia. In the cross examination the complainant PW-1 has stated that she filed divorce petition against her husband and has admitted that in that petition she has alleged that her ornaments had been taken away by her husband and mother- in-law to Australia. This cross examination belies the claim of the complainant that she had entrusted the ornaments which was her 'stridhan', to the respondent as such. If the appellate Court has recorded finding in favour of the respondent accused on the basis of such evidence no fault can be found with that opinion. 5. THE view taken by the Appellate Court being a possible view no interference in the Revision Petition is warranted. Hence, dismissed.