Loading...

*** vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 28 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
*** vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 28 November, 2008
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                         Crl. Misc. No. 235-MA of 2008
                         Date of Decision: 28.11.2008
                                     ***

Seeta Rani
.. Appellant
Vs.

The State of Punjab and another
.. Respondents.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR

Present:-    Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate
             for the appellant
                      ...

ARVIND KUMAR, J:

The complainant, Seeta Rani, has sought permission to file an
appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.2008 passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad(West), District Ferozepur, by dint
of which the respondent-accused No.1 Gurdev Singh has been acquitted in a
complaint case under Sections 406/498-A IPC. Complaint qua the other
accused, namely, accused Nos. 2 to 8, was ordered to be dismissed after
recording of preliminary evidence.

The facts relevant are that complainant Seeta Rani was married
with accused-respondent Gurdev Singh on 15.1.1997 and all articles of
dowry were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. It is alleged
that some time after the marriage, accused Gurdev Singh started taunting the
complainant on one pretext or the other in regard to demand of dowry. A
daughter was born out of the wedlock. Later, a demand for motor-cycle is
alleged to have been made. A Panchayat was also convened in which the
respondents-accused allegedly repeated the said demand of motor-cycle.
They on demand refused to give the dowry articles to the complainant and
have misappropriated the same. This led to filing of the present complaint
by complainant Seeta Rani. After recording of preliminary evidence of the
complainant, the trial Court only summoned accused No.1-respondent
Gurdev Singh while dismissing the complainant against accused Nos. 2 to 8.
After framing of charges against the respondent-accused,the witnesses were
cross-examined by his counsel. Thereafter, on closure of prosecution
evidence, the incriminating material was put to the accused when his
Crl. Misc. No. 235-MA of 2008 -2-
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all of them
and pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined DW-1 Raj Kumar,
Clerk, Judicial Record Room, Ferozepur.

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
defence counsel, the trial court came to the conclusion that the material
produced on the record by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and
connecting the accused with the alleged commission of crime and
accordingly acquitted the respondent. Now, the complainant has filed the
present application, seeking leave to file an appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and
have also gone through the paper-book carefully.

The learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent-accused
of the charges, observed that there is no independent corroboration to the
version of the complaint. The complaint was filed by her against 8 persons
out of which, only one, i.e. respondent-accused, had been summoned and
complaint qua remaining seven was dismissed and the complainant was not
aggrieved against the said order since she did not prefer any revision. The
trial Court held that no specific instances have been given as to when
alleged payment of Rs.35,000/- was made or when alleged beatings were
given or when the complainant was thrown out of the house. The trial Court
has held the allegations to be vague and not specific. The High Court ought
not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is
perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Jalalabad(West), District Ferozepur, is neither perverse nor unreasonable
and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or
inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
grant leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed.

(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
November 28, 2008
JS

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information