Judgment:
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.07.94, rendered by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dasuya, vide which, it acquitted the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In nutshell, Gurdip Kaur, complainant, filed a complaint, allegeding therein, that she was married to Satpal Singh, accused, on 4.3.84, at Village Munak Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya. A week before the marriage, Shagun ceremony took place, at the house of the accused, where her father, brothers and maternal uncle gave Rs. 151/-, to him (Satpal Singh) and Rs. 51/- each to Harbans Kaur, Davinder Singh, and Ajit Singh, accused. Valuable clothes worth Rs. 2,000/-, fruits and sweets worth Rs. 1,500/-, were also given to the accused. A week after the Shagun ceremony, when the accused namely Davinder Singh, and Ajit Singh alongwith other persons, came for performing the marriage of Satpal Singh, accused, they raised a demand of cooler, sofa set, and sewing machine. It was further alleged by the complainant, in her complaint, that on 4.3.84, at the time of her marriage, various gifts, were given to her, as istri dhan. It was further stated that at the relevant time, after preparing a list of all the aforesaid dowry articles, in duplicate, the brother of the complainant entrusted the same (dowry articles) to the accused. Thereafter the complainant settled in her in-laws house. It was further stated that the accused were greedy persons. They were not satisfied with the dowry articles, and their demands increased day by day. They also started maltreating her, both physically and mentally for fulfilling their demands. It was further stated that she was also compelled by Satpal Singh, Harbans Kaur, and Davinder Singh, accused, to prevail upon her father to arrange the aforesaid dowry articles, and on her refusal she was beaten mercilessly. It was further stated that thereafter, her brother came at her in-laws house, to take her along, but when she was about to depart, Harbans Kaur, accused, told that there was unhealthy atmosphere, in the State and the locality and it was not safe and advisable for a new bridge, to wear gold ornaments, during journey, whereupon the complainant entrusted all her gold ornaments to her (Harbans Kaur). It was further stated that on 13.01.87, she demanded the set of gold ornaments from Harbans Kaur, accused, but she refused. It was further stated that Harbans Kaur, accused, tried to administer her poison in milk. On another occasion, all the aforesaid accused, tried to burn her alive, by sprinkling kerosene oil, but could not succeed. She further stated that the aforesaid circumstances, compelled her to leave the matrimonial home, in three wearing clothes alongwith her infant child on 31.01.87. Thereafter, on the same day, she reported the matter to her parents and police. The Police, did not take any action, against the accused. It was further stated that on 2.3.87, she filed a petition against Satpal Singh, accused, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Satpal Singh, admitted the contents thereof by making statement on oath on 3.9.87. It was further stated that on 3.9.87, she alongwith her father, brother and other relatives namely Pritam Kaur, mediator, visited her in-laws house, to bring back all the dowry articles, which were entrusted to them, at the time of her marriage, but they replied that they had mis-appropriated the same and had dishonestly converted the same to their own use. They, thus, refused to return the same.
3. In her preliminary evidence, Gurdip Kaur, complainant, herself stepped into the witness box as (PW1). She also examined Pritam Kaur (PW2), Avtar Kaur (PW3), Gian Kaur (PW4), Darbara Singh (PW5), and Sucha Singh (PW6). The trial Court found sufficient grounds to summon, Harbans Kaur and Satpal Singh, accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. In support of her pre-charge evidence, Gurdip Kaur, complainant examined Gian Kaur (PW1), Avtar Kaur (PW), Saroop Singh (PW4), and she her self appeared as (PW3). Thereafter, she closed her pre-charge evidence.
5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that prima-facie case, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out, against the accused. Charge was accordingly framed.
6. After framing the charge, the accused suffered a statement that they did not want to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined before charge.
7. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They pleaded false implication.
8. In their defence, the accused examined Anup Singh, Sarpanch of village Khun Khun Kalan (DW1), Karam Chand, Chowkidar (DW2), and Gaja Nand, Nambardar (DW3). Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence.
9. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused, as stated above.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.
11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
12. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the accused did not mis-appropriate the dowry articles. She further submitted that the complainant demanded the dowry articles, given to the accused, but they refused to hand over the same to her. She further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could be said that the articles of dowry were dishonestly misappropriated by the accused. She further submitted that the trial Court, was thus wrong in recording acquittal.
13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that in a petition for judicial separation, which was filed by the complainant, before the filing of the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, it was not stated by her, that she raised a demand of the dowry articles, from the accused, but they refused to hand over the same to her. He further submitted that no worthwhile evidence was led by the complainant that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the dowry articles. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the trial Court, was right in holding that the dowry articles were not misappropriated by the accused. He further submitted that the trial Court, was thus right in acquitting the accused.
14. It is settled principle of law, that the Appellate Court in appeal against acquittal, should not interfere with the judgment of the Court below, if it comes to the conclusion, that twp views were possible, from the evidence, on record, and the view taken by the trial Court, could be said to be the reasonably possible view. Keeping this principle in view, the matter is required to be examined. The case of the complainant was that the articles of dowry were given to the accused, but when the same were demanded back, they refused to hand over the same and, as such, they dishonestly misappropriated the same. Gurdip Kaur, complainant, when appeared as, PW3, stated that after July, 1985, she never went to village Khun Khun Kalan, to the house of her in-laws. She further stated that she filed a petition for judicial separation. She further stated that, in the petitions, for judicial separation and under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she did not state that she demanded back the dowry articles, but the accused refused. She also stated that in fhe written statement, filed in the divorce petition, she also did not state that she demanded back the dowry articles, but the accused refused. Saroop Singh, PW4, during the course of his cross-examination, stated that after the divorce in the year 1987, Satpal, accused, told them that they should take back the dowry articles. He further stated that on the next day of divorce, he Kartar Kaur, Gian Singh, Sarpanch, and Pritam Kaur, mediator, went to the house of the in-laws of Gurdip Kaur, and the accused started speaking. The trial Court also held that the dowry articles were lying in the house of the accused, and they never refused to hand over the same, to the complainant. Since the accused never refused to hand over the dowry articles, to the complainant, it could not be said that they dishonestly misappropriated the same. The finding of the trial Court, that the accused, did not commit any offence, punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, could neither be said to be perverse, nor illegal. The view taken by the trial Court, could be said to be a reasonably possible view, on the basis of the evidence, produced in the case. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents, in this regard, being correct, is accepted.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
16. In view of the above discussion, it is held that 'the judgment of acquittal, rendered by the trial Court, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same warrants no interference and is liable to be upheld.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal, is upheld.