Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 October, 2014
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2272 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.10.2014
Monika
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes
Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. The revisionist is assailing the judgments of the lower Court who acquitted the accused in FIR no.291 dated 25.05.2006, registered at Police Station City Kaithal, under Sections 406, 498- A IPC.
2. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The facts unfolded by the complainant were that she was married to Rakesh in February, 2002. The remaining two accused were the father-in- law and the mother in law. Allegations were made that sufficient dowry was given by her parents besides huge amounts were given on Karwa Chauth, Diwali and Lohri. The complainant had also referred to the amount spent on the Shagun ceremony. The allegations levelled by the complainant were that accused were SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -2- greedy and used to throw taunts and harassed her for bringing inadequate dowry. To buy peace, the parents of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.06.2002 and later on a sum of Rs.35,000/-. The complainant was beaten up and tortured everyday and she was turned out of the house and was asked to get a Zen car and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The parents of the girl convened a Panchayat but things did not change and left with no option, a complaint was lodged with the police but no action was taken. The complainant then approached the Court and filed a complaint which was sent to the police for registration of the FIR.
3. After the criminal law was set into motion, the accused were arrested and the matter was investigated and the challan was presented in the Court against the husband and his parents.
4. Charge was framed under Section 406, 498-A IPC.
5. The plea of the defence was of denial and false implication.
6. The prosecution had examined the complainant and her father; Sunil Kumar, a maternal cousin of the complainant besides the official witnesses. Sudesh Rani, mother of the complainant and one Des Raj Kalra were given up. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order. The trial Court found material discrepancies in the depositions made by the complainant and her father and noted that the allegations were ambiguous and acquitted the accused.
7. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal came to be challenged before the Sessions Judge, Kaithal who dismissed the appeal and found the allegations to be false.
SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -3-
8. The judgments of the lower Court have now been challenged on the ground that the view of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court was totally perverse and minor discrepancies and contradictions have been magnified and the real evidence has been ignored. It was also urged that the view expressed by the trial Court was totally unreasonable. It was also urged that the complainant had stood by her statement.
9. To appreciate the submissions raised at the bar and to evaluate the correctness of the impugned judgment, it would be appropriate to refer to certain authorities in the field which deal with the parameters of reversing a judgment of acquittal to that of conviction at the revisonal stage.
10. Before proceeding any further, I would also like to point out that though there is no legal impediment on the powers of the High Court to interfere in revision with order of acquittal, the scope of this power is circumscribed. In the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. the Supreme Court, while laying down the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of the orders of acquittal, held as follows:
(7) It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in. the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -4- of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the direct method, of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal, in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature ca properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature where the High Court can Justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the 'High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of Section 439(4).
11. In Ayodhya Dube and Ors. v. Ram Sumer Singh AIR 1981 SC 14154, the Supreme Court has clarified that the instances mentioned by the Court in Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra), where the High Court would be justified in interfering with orders of acquittal, are illustrative and riot-exhaustive. The Supreme Court, in Ayodhya Dube (supra), also approved the High Court's SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -5- view that when the trial Court misquotes evidence, when the judgment consist of faulty reasoning or lack of judicial approach throwing to the wind the accepted canons of appreciation of evidence, when the conclusions are reached against the weight of the overwhelming evidence on the record, interference in revision with orders of such acquittal is permissible and justified.
12. In Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and Anr. , the Supreme Court held thus:-
"9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert, a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would, not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt the High. Court in exercise of its revisional powers can set aside an SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -6- order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated : above, but it cannot, convert an order of acquittal, into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial. In fact, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code forbids the High Court in converting the order of acquittal into one of conviction.
13. The revisional Court can set aside an order of acquittal and remit the case for re-trial where the trial Court overlooks material evidence and passes an order.
14. Law is, thus, well settled that in a revision against an order of acquittal by a private party, the High Court shall not, ordinarily, in the absence of any legal infirmity, either in the procedure or in the conduct of trial, scrutinize the evidence or re- appreciate the evidence. This apart, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the revisional Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and cannot constitute itself into an appellate court, which has the jurisdiction to enter into the question of fact as well as law and can convert an order of acquittal into one of the conviction. This, however, does not mean, as reflected from the decision in Ayodhya Dube (supra), that where the trial court has failed to take into an account relevant pieces of evidence on record or when a conclusion has been reached by the trial court without any supporting evidence or on misreading of the evidence or wholly against the weight of the evidence on record or when the trial court's judgment suffers from misquoting of the evidence or the trial court's finding is perverse in the sense that the finding SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -7- has been reached by ignoring the evidence on record or by wrong reading of the pieces of evidence on record, the High Court will not be powerless. The High Court will be well within its jurisdiction, if it, in such circumstances, interferes with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Such interference would also be possible if the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or had illegally shut out evidence, which, otherwise, ought to have been considered or where the material evidence, which clinches the issues, has been overlooked.
15. Bearing in mind the contours of the revisonal jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with the orders of acquittal and when turning to the evidence on record in the present case, I find that no interference with the order of acquittal is called for, nor there are any compelling and substantial reasons. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. There is no evidence that any demand of dowry had been made. The complainant's family had given the customary gifts on festivals and those would not be said to be a dowry demand. There is a mis-match in the list provided by the complainant and the recovery that was effected by the police. The allegations levelled by the complainant are ambiguous. The complainant has referred to taunts but failed to give the details. The complainant had alleged that she was beaten up but there was no evidence to support it. No medical evidence was produced. There is no medical evidence to show physical cruelty. The complainant could not produce evidence to show that she remained in maternal home till 14.05.2003. It appears that the SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.2272 of 2013 (O&M) -8- relations became sour and the couple could not pull on together and since the mother was burdened with the duty of taking care of the child as well and in order to pressurize the husband and his family the complaint was made in 2006.
16. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court had examined the evidence at length and had found material contradictions and discrepancies. I find no legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial and it is not a case which calls for reappreciation of the evidence since the revisonal Court exercises only limited jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE 28.10.2014 'Sunil Sehgal' SUNIL SEHGAL 2014.10.31 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh