Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Raghvir Singh And Others on 19 March, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(I) Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000
Date of Decision 19.03.2010
State of Punjab
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Raghvir Singh and others
...... Respondent(s)
(II) Criminal Revision No.1439- of 1999
Sukhdev Singh Buttar
...... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Raghvir Singh and others
...... Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Brar, Advocate, for the respondents.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
This judgment of mine shall dispose of aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000, preferred by State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No.1439 of 1999, preferred by Sukhdev Singh Buttar complainant- petitioner (herein referred as 'the complainant') against the judgment dated 13.07.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, acquitting the accused-respondents (herein referred as 'the accused') of the charges framed against them under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B, 420 IPC.
Respondents Raghbir Singh and Malkiat Singh, both brothers are the sons of Harchand Singh. Respondents Ravinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur are the son and wife of Raghvir Singh respectively. All the aforesaid respondents were the accused before the trial Court.
Factual matrix of the case is that Kiranpreet Kaur (PW7) Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000 2 resident of USA, has been suffering from paralysis on her left side. Accused Gurnam Singh (since declared as proclaimed offender) was married to Kiranpreet Kaur on 21.07.1991 and thereafter he was shifted to USA. He was also issued green card there. FIR was lodged on the complaint filed by Sukhdev Singh, father of Kiranpreet Kaur that the accused were entrusted with one pair of gold rings and golden bracelet to accused Jasvir Kaur, one golden ring each to the accused namely Raghvir Singh, Malkiat Singh and Ravinder Singh and clothes worth Rs.50,000/- were also given to all the accused as "Istridhan" of Kiranpreet Kaur but they were not satisfied with the articles of dowry. On demand, being raised, they were paid Rs.21,000/- in the month of February, 1992 for purchase of scooter. He also gave a refrigerator in the month of November, 1995 and a sum of Rs.70,000/- were also paid to Raghvir Singh for construction of the house. In the month of December, 1997, the complainant came to India and requested the accused to rehabilitate his daughter but they did not allow her to rehabilitate in their house. They also did not return the dowry articles, as such the complainant Sukhdev Singh had filed the complaint. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned for the aforesaid offences. The case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Randhir Singh (PW1), Rachhpal Singh (PW2), Ramesh Kumar (PW3), Sukhdev Singh (PW4), ASI Baldev Singh (PW5), ASI Balkar Singh (PW6) and Kiranpreet Kaur (PW7).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case.
In defence they examined Harbhajan Singh (DW1), Baljinder Singh (DW2) and Raghvir Singh (DW3).
On appreciation of evidence, the case resulted into acquittal. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab has preferred an appeal against the acquittal whereas the complainant has also filed the revision petition. The allegations against the accused are two fold viz. with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry.
Kiranpreet Kaur never stayed with the accused and she was in Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000 3 USA whereas accused Gurnam Singh was in India. On settlement of the marriage, accused Gurnam Singh also shifted to USA in the year 1991.
Be that it may, the marriage went to rough weather when the couple was residing in USA and they by way of settlement got a decree of divorce wherein all the terms were settled between the parties including the property and other articles. Had there been any dispute with regard to the dowry articles at that time then Kiranpreet Kaur would have resisted and not settled to seek divorce. Now complainant, who may have any grudge in his mind, while staying in India for getting divorce by his daughter against Gurnam Singh have filed the complaint. The articles of dowry belonged to Kirnapreet Kaur and she, having already settled and sought divorce in the month of December, 1997, could not blow hot and cold in the same breath, while lodging this criminal case against the accused. Similarly, Kiranpreet Kaur while appearing in the witness box has not specifically stated as to what particular articles were entrusted and to which of the accused. Thus, these vague allegations are not sufficient to constitute an offence of breach of trust and misappropriation. Accused Gurnam Singh and Kiranpreet Kaur are staying in USA even after the divorce whereas complainant is dragging the accused in India for his own motives.
Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the same is well founded and well reasoned. No illegality, perversity or arbitrariness has been shown so as to render the judgment as illegal. It is now well settled that while dealing with an appeal or revision against acquittal, the powers of the High Court are very limited in nature. Only the element of perversity could be the sine-qua to set aside the judgment of acquittal. Mere fact that two views were possible is not sufficient to hold that the impugned judgment of acquittal was not correct:
out of the two possible views, if the trial Court was to accept the view in favour of the accused, the Supreme Court has set out some guidelines in case Arulvelu and another versus State represented by the Public Prosecutor and another 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 638 wherein it was observed that the appellate Court while dealing with the judgment of acquittal should interfere only when the judgment of trial Court is so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse and the findings rendered by the trial Court are Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000 4 against the weight of evidence. It was further observed in the aforesaid judgment that in an appeal against acquittal, unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal.
It was further observed in case Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnatka 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 1992 that if the findings of guilt are based on no evidence and misreading of evidence then such finding being perverse would be amenable to the judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court, while approving the aforesaid observations, issued some guidelines for interference in appeal against acquittal in case Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (10) SCC 450 which are reproduced as under:-
1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.
3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached- one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction- the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
40.This Court in a recently delivered judgment State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh, 2009 (11) SCALE 699 again examined judgments of this Court and laid down that "An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000 5 pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases."
41.Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.
42.In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne Alias Baijnath and Others, 2009 (4) SCC 271, a two-Judge Bench of this court of which one of us (Bhandari, J.) was a member had an occasion to deal with this controversy in detail, has laid down some of the circumstances in which this court would be justified in interfering with the judgment of the High Court. The circumstances discussed in the judgment are illustrative not exhaustive.
(i)The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;
(ii)The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record;
(iii)The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice;
(iv)The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case;
(v)This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court;
(vi)This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court Criminal Appeal No.983-SBA of 2000 6 have recorded an order of acquittal.
43. The appellate courts must keep in view these aforementioned observations in dealing with the appeals where the trial court has acquitted the accused."
In the instant case, no such illegality much less irregularity has been found which may have rendered the judgment as perverse and rendering a view beyond the evidence as led by the prosecution on the record, therefore, I hasten to interfere with the same.
For the aforesaid discussions, finding no merit in the appeal as well as in the revision petition, the same stand dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 19.03.2010 mamta-II