Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) Date of decision:
17. 09.2013 Krishna Rani ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Rekha Mittal, J.
The present appeal along with an application for appeal has been directed against judgment dated 15.10.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the accused (respondents No.2 to 7 herein) have been acquitted of the charge framed against them. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that Krishna Rani, mother of Sunanda, married to Yashpal on 17.02.1995 at Richi Rich Restaurant, Delhi, filed a criminal case FIR No.109 dated 29.05.1997 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar Ludhiana, levelling allegations against the accused of misappropriation of articles of istridhan of Sunanda and subjecting her (Sunanda) to cruelty in connection with demand of Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 2 dowry raised by her husband and his family members. The learned trial Court, after conclusion of trial, held all the accused namely, Yashpal (husband), Madan Mohan (father-in-law), Shakuntala (mother-in-law), Upma (sister-in-law), Ajay Bidani (husband of Upma) and Sushma (another sister-in-law) guilty of offence under sections 406, 498-A IPC and as a consequence, they were sentenced for the said offence with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The judgment passed by the trial Court was assailed by filing three separate appeals, by accused persons. All the three appeals were disposed of together, vide impugned judgment dated 15.10.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the judgment passed by the trial Court was reversed and all the accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Feeling aggrieved against the verdict of the first appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred by complainant Krishan Rani. Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Court in appeal seriously erred in recording finding that istridhan articles were not entrusted to the accused at Ludhiana, therefore, the Court at Ludhiana lacked jurisdiction, to decide the matter. It is further submitted that the observations made by the appellate Court that the accused were not expected to travel to Ludhiana on 18.02.1995, the next day of the marriage, are based on conjecture and surmises and needs to be set aside. It is further submitted that the complainant led tangible, cogent, convincing and voluminous evidence to establish the charge against the accused, but the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court has been wrongly set aside by the Court in appeal. Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 3 It is further argued that the judgment passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aide and the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced for their wrongful acts constituting offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC while affirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the case file. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is pertinent to make a brief reference to certain admitted/undisputed facts. Sunanda, daughter of complainant Krishna Rani, tied nuptial knot with Yashpal on 17.02.1995 at Delhi. The persons indicted in the crime with the allegations of misappropriation of articles of istridhan of Sunanda and meting out cruelty to the victim on account of demand of dowry, are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of Sunanda. As per the allegations, all the accused came to Ludhiana on 18.02.1995, had lunch with the complainant and her family at Ludhiana and thereafter the articles of istridhan of Sunanda were entrusted to them with an understanding that the same are meant for exclusive use and possession of Sunanda. The complaint contains a detailed account what articles were entrusted to which of the accused. A relevant extract in regard to allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to the accused reads as under:- Yashpal Rs.21,000/-, one gold chain with locket, one gold ring, wrist watch, BPL Music system, TV colour, Car No.DL- 4CD-0391, AC Maruti, Bracelet gold 100 grams Shakuntla Two big attachi case, 21 suits and 31 sarees, Almirah Madan Mohan Sofa set, double bed along with dunlop pillow, centre table, dining table, cutlery crockery, utensils, air conditioner Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 4 Sushma 12 gold bangles 1 ½ tola each, two gold sets, Kundan set. Ajay Bidani Two gold rings, wrist watch, washing machine Upma Big iron petti, bedding and other cosmetic goods etc. diamond ring. Sunanda was working and staying in Delhi prior to her marriage in February, 1995. She has been staying in Delhi after marital differences between the couple. All events or happenings in regard to mal- treatment and harassment constituting cruelty, were committed in Delhi. The complainant, mother of Sunanda, bestowed territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Ludhiana primarily on the ground that the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused at Ludhiana, which have been misappropriated by the accused. The Appellate Court refused to accept that Court at Ludhiana has jurisdiction in the matter. A relevant extract of observations in this regard reads as follows:- “After going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the documents placed on record by the accused, I find that the prosecution evidence regarding entrustment of dowry articles at Ludhiana is not believable. Complainant Krishna Rani has deposed that one week prior to the marriage, the arrangements of marriage were made at Delhi on the request of the accused. Admittedly, the marriage ceremonies were performed on 17.02.1995. Ex.DC is a certificate issued by the said restaurant (Richi Rich Restaurant and Banquets) to the effect that Banquet hall was used on 17.02.1995 for the marriage of Sunanda for the whole night and the hall and other rooms attached to the Banquet hall were vacated at 10.30 a.m./11.00 a.m. On Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 5 18.02.1995. Sushil Kumar (PW), brother of Sunanda, in his cross examination, has stated that the 'Doli' of Sunanda had left for the house of her in- laws at 4.00 a.m. and that the house of Yashpal is situated at a distance of 10-15 kilometers from hotel. Complainant Krishna Rani, in her cross examination, admitted that the hotel was booked on 08.01.1995 at Delhi. The documentary evidence led by the accused read with the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses proves that the statement of the complainant that the venue for marriage ceremonies was shifted to Delhi one week prior to the marriage cannot be believed as hotel Richi Rich Restaurant was booked on 08.01.1995 and the marriage ceremonies were performed on 17.02.1995. It also falsifies the prosecution case that the dowry articles were purchased from Ludhiana and were entrusted to the accused at Ludhiana. It is proved that from the very beginning, it was agreed between both the families that the marriage was to be performed at Delhi. Sunanda had been working and living at Delhi before and after her marriage. It is quite doubtful that all the accused would travel a distance of about 350 kilometers from Delhi to Ludhiana to collect the dowry articles and then to return to Delhi on the same day. It has come in the evidence that the accused were served with lunch on 18.02.1995 and thereafter they were entrusted with dowry articles loaded in a truck and taken to Delhi. It is highly improbable that a person would stay awake and attend the marriage ceremonies on the previous night and then travel such a long distance on the next day. The entire prosecution version and the Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 6 evidence led to prove the same is not believable.”
. The crucial question for consideration is, whether the findings of the appellate Court that the Court at Ludhiana lacks jurisdiction to decide the case are erroneous much less illegal as would call for interference. Before proceeding to advert to the evidence on record and findings recorded by the Court in appeal, it is appropriate to recall the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in 'Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another', 2010(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 45. It appears from the observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that the Court was at pains in recording certain observations with regard to misuse and abuse of the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. In the judgment, a detailed reference has been made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1991(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 383 and the principles culled out in the said judgment are contained in sub paras 1 to 7 of para 22 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra). In paras 30, 31, 33, and 35, it has been held as quoted below:-
“30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not Bimbra Mohan Lal ruined or demolished. They must ensure that 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 7 exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 8 with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”
. In the instant case, Sunanda was working at Delhi before her marriage. She stayed with her husband for over two years in Delhi. The Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 9 marriage was admittedly performed at Delhi on the intervening night of 17/18.02.1995. The version of the complainant that venue of marriage was shifted to Delhi a week before the scheduled date of marriage is falsified and belied from her admission that the hotel was booked on 08.01.1995 at Delhi, where the marriage was actually performed on 17.02.1995. The complainant failed to adduce any evidence that a particular place was booked for performance of marriage in Ludhiana which was later cancelled. There cannot be any dispute that man may tell lie but not the circumstances. A person telling a blatant lie, in all probability, is likely to be caught at one or other stage. The learned Appellate Court has rightly held that it does not appeal to reason and is contrary to normal human conduct that after celebration of marriage throughout the intervening night of 17/18.02.1995 and departure of 'Dolli' of Sunanda at about 4.00 a.m. on 18.02.1995, the parental family members reached Ludhiana and arranged lunch for the in- laws family members of Sunanda, a newly wedded girl or all the accused could travel a long distance of 350 kilometers to Ludhiana just for the sake of taking away the dowry articles. The allegations of the complainant that the accused came to Ludhiana for receipt of dowry articles on 18.02.1995, are absurd and do not inspire confidence. As has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), majority of such complaints are filed either on the advice of members of Bar or with their concurrence with exaggerated version. The present case appears to be a glaring example of such complaint wherein the complainant has levelled allegations against the accused with regard to entrustment of dowry articles in a manner that all the close relatives of husband of Sunanda are put to trial and that too at Ludhiana Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. A No.986 MA of 2012(O&M) 10 which is at a distance of 350 kilometers from Delhi. The appellate Court has rightly refused to accept the story of the complainant in regard to entrustment of dowry articles at Ludhiana, which has been set up by the complainant to bestow territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Ludhiana in an effort to cause maximum harassment and inconvenience to the accused, including two sisters-in-law and husband of married sister-in-law and was eventually successful in her object. Another aspect of the matter which requires notice is that as per evidence on record, a notice was issued on 24.01.1997 to Sunanda calling upon her to take away her dowry articles. Once the accused had served a notice upon Sunanda to take away her dowry articles, the story of the complainant that the accused are guilty of misappropriating her istridhan is otherwise falsified and belied. In this view of the matter, I find myself unable to be persuaded with the arguments of counsel for the appellant that the judgment passed by the appellate Court is erroneous or based upon mis-reading and mis- appreciation of evidence, warranting interference. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rekha Mittal) Judge 17.09.2013 mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.09.24 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh