Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Kaur vs Pavitar Singh And Others on 24 January, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Kuldip Singh
Crl. Misc. No.A-943-MA of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.A-943-MA of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.1.2014
Jagjit Kaur
.....Applicant
Versus
Pavitar Singh and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Mr. A.K.Kalsey, Advocate for the applicant.
Kuldip Singh, J.
Jagjit Kaur complainant has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.4.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla.
An application has also been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 73 days in filing of the present application. However, we have heard learned counsel for the applicant on merits and have also examined the impugned judgment and documents placed on file.
In this case applicant claims that she was married with Kumari Meenu 2014.02.06 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-943-MA of 2013 -2- respondent No.1 Pavittar Singh on 6.2.1991. She filed criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla that she was taunted for bringing less dowry and that she was compelled by respondent No.1 for divorce so that second marriage of respondent No.1 could be performed. Then she claimed that respondent No.1 Pavitar Singh (her husband) and his mother Amar Kaur brought her to Court complex Malerkotla on 16.5.2002 on the pretext that they have to execute a Will regarding the land. There, stamp papers were purchased in her name and she was made to sign stamp papers, some other blank papers and register. She further claims that respondent No.1 performed second marriage with respondent No.2 on 5.6.2002 through Anand Karaj Ceremony in Gurudwara at village Sangala, Tehsil Malerkotla. She further claimed that when she opposed the marriage, respondent No.1 kept her confined in the house for 1 ½ year. She was not allowed to telephone anybody. She was threatened and beaten up. Now respondents No.1 and 2 are living as husband and wife and a child was born from the marriage. The present complaint was filed much later on 20.1.2005 i.e. 2 ½ years after the said second marriage.
The plea of the complainant that she was kept confined for 1 ½ years and not allowed to telephone anybody is not acceptable. She claimed that she had signed stamp papers, some blank papers and register, which are stated to be in token of her consent. Prabhjot Kaur is the only witness examined to prove that Kumari Meenu 2014.02.06 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-943-MA of 2013 -3- she had seen the second marriage. No Granthi was examined to prove lawful alleged second marriage.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that according to Prabhjot Kaur, respondent No.1 had taken 7 rounds (7 lavans). We are of the view that trial court has rightly disbelieved Prabhjot Kaur. Even by way of Anand Karaj, four lavans are performed and not seven. No Granthi was examined. No other documentary evidence in the shape of photographs of the marriage was produced nor any other credible witness of the marriage was produced. According to the complainant herself, the marriage was performed after obtaining her consent fraudulently which means that marriage was not performed in a concealed manner and was attended by several people. For the offence under Section 494 IPC, valid ceremonies of the second marriage have to be proved strictly, which were not proved in this case.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in the civil case, marriage was admitted in the written statement and at the instance of the complainant, the marriage was got declared null and void.
We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. We are of the view that standard of proof in the civil and criminal cases is quite different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities whereas in the criminal cases the criminal liability of the accused has to be proved beyond all Kumari Meenu 2014.02.06 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.A-943-MA of 2013 -4- reasonable doubts. In this way, onus of proof in the criminal case is quite heavy on the complainant/prosecution. The mere admission of marriage by the accused in the civil case does not mean that for the purpose of offence under Section 494 IPC all the valid ceremonies of the alleged second marriage are proved. The heavy burden was on the complainant to prove the valid ceremonies of the alleged second marriage of the accused Pavittar Singh.
As discussed above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. Hence, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against the said judgment. Dismissed.
( Satish Kumar Mittal ) ( Kuldip Singh )
Judge Judge
24.1.2014
Meenu
Kumari Meenu
2014.02.06 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh