Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meena Kumari vs Kuldeep Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Revision No.1465 of 2012(O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1465 of 2012(O & M)
Date of Decision:27.09.2012
Meena Kumari
....petitioner
Versus
Kuldeep Kumar & ors.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.M.S.Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner
*****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
Criminal Misc.No.57065 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
Criminal Misc.No.57064 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P- 1 is taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.
Criminal Revision No.1465 of 2012(O & M) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgement dated 03.02.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner and the judgment dated 07.10.2011 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, vide which the accused- respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.
Heard.
It is the case of the petitioner that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 25.04.1999 and sufficient dowry was Criminal Revision No.1465 of 2012(O & M) 2 given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the respondents started torturing the petitioner for bringing less dowry. A son was born on 09.07.2000 out of this wedlock. The relations between the petitioner and the respondents never became cordial. The respondents were maltreating the petitioner on the one pretext or the other. The petitioner moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar and the FIR was got registered against all the accused.
Challan was presented in the Court and finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Meena Kumari PW1, SI Onkar Singh PW2, Amarjit Lal PW3, Surjit Kaur PW4, Bal Mukand PW5 and Saroop Singh PW6 and thereafter the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court. Statement of the accused- respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C.were recorded in which all the incriminating material was put to the accused which they denied and pleaded innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt and dismissed the case of the petitioner.
Dissatisfied from the aforesaid judgement of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was also got dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2012.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgements of the courts below the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Criminal Revision No.1465 of 2012(O & M) 3 record. Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as under:
No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided-
No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Prior to the amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no right of appeal to a private party. This right has been given in the year 2009 vide Amendment Act No.5 of 2009. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has wrongly dismissed the appeal in limine. He should have called for the records of the trial Court and reappraise the evidence, after hearing both the parties. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal in limine is illegal and perverse. Hence this criminal revision is accepted. Order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for fresh decision on merits after hearing both the parties and reappraising the entire record. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 01.12.2012.
27.09.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) neenu JUDGE