Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 156
2007(1) RCR(Cri) 975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RANJIT SINGH, J
Gurdial Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
Dalbir Singh & Another - Respondents
Decided on: 25.1.2007
For the Petitioner:Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate.
The emotional attachment of a father to his child and the absence of intention to harm the child are crucial factors in determining the offence of kidnapping/abduction under section 364 IPC.
Headnote:
kidnapping - Family Law - IPC 364, IPC 323 - [IPC 364, IPC 323] - The court acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 364 and 323 IPC based on the unreliable testimony of the complainant and the lack of independent witnesses. The court also considered the father's emotional attachment to his child and the absence of any intention to harm the child, leading to the conclusion that no offence of kidnapping/abduction under section 364 IPC would be made out against the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged kidnapping of a minor child by her father, the respondent, as reported by the complainant, who was the child's maternal grandmother. The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and noted the emotional attachment of the father to his child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the complainant unreliable and observed that the father's actions were driven by love and affection for his child, rather than any intention to harm her. The court also highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of kidnapping.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the complainant's testimony, the emotional attachment of the father to his child, and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of kidnapping.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliable testimony of the complainant, the emotional attachment of the father to his child, and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of kidnapping.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, concluding that no offence of kidnapping/abduction under section 364 IPC would be made out against the respondent, who was the natural guardian being the father of the child.
RANJIT SINGH, J
1. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur acquitting respondent Dalbir Singh of the charges under Sections 364 and 323 IPC, complainant-Smt.Gurdial Kaur has filed this revision petition Though it may sound strange, but Dalbir Singh was an accused of kidnapping his own daughter Ravneet Kaur alias Rinni and complainant Gurdial Kaur is mother -in -law of the accused.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Harnit Kaur daughter of complainant Gurdial Kaur married Dalbir Singh respondent in the year 1991. He was, at that time, staying in California (USA). Ravneet Kaur alias Rinni was born out of this wedlock in September 1992. Because of strained relations between the couple, wife Harnit Kaur came back to India in 1998. Thereafter, Harnit Kaur and Ravneet Kaur started living with Gurdial Kaur complainant. The case of custody of Ravneet Kaur alias Rinni was in progress. It is alleged that on 18.5.2002 while complainant Gurdial Kaur was going to leave Ravneet Kaur at bus stop for school bus, respondent Dalbir Singh allegedly came there along with three unidentified persons and forcibly took Ravneet Kaur in his car. As per allegation, he had also pushed Gurdial Kaur due to which she suffered injuries. It is on this basis that the case was got registered against respondent Dalbir Singh and he was, accordingly, prosecuted for an offence under Sections 364 and 323 IPC etc.
3. Trial Court noticed that the allegations of abduction against respondent Dalbir Singh are supported by the testimony of Gurdial Kaur (PW3) alone and that no independent witness was examined to support the version of the complainant. The Court also found the testimony of this sole witness unreliable because of the bitter inimical relations between respondent Dalbir Singh and the complainant. The version of PW3 Gurdial Kaur received a further dent when Anokh Singh PW4 stated to have accompanied Gurdial Kaur PW3 at the time of lodging report was found to be her other son-in-law. Trial Court also rightly pointed out that the place, from where a child was allegedly abducted, was a busy place and as such number of independent witnesses could have been available but were not examined. Finally, it was observed that evidence of child Ravneet Kaur was withheld and not produced in Court and was admittedly sent to USA during the pendency of the case in October 2002. Trial Court rightly drew adverse inference on this count against the prosecution and was justified in observing that the child if examined would not have supported the theory of abduction as advanced by the prosecution. The proceedings to seek custody of the child was initiated on behalf of respondent Dalbir Singh through his father and these were being hotly contested. Even an application was moved by respondent Dalbir Singh for restraining Gurdial Kaur PW3 and her husband from taking his daughter Ravneet Kaur to some unknown place. It is in this background, the conduct of Gurdial Kaur PW3 and his family in sending Ravneet Kaur to USA during the pendency of the case was criticized by the Court. This was done by Gurdial Kaur PW3 by obtaining new passport for which even an FIR was lodged against her. Finding her unreliable and that Gurdial Kaur PW3 did not come out with truthful account, she was disbelieved by the Court. She was also found to have concealed the material fact that the child of Anokh Singh PW4 had also accompanied them whereas in her evidence, she stated that no one had accompanied the child at the time of said abduction.
4. It is also noticeable that respondent Dalbir Singh had moved an application seeking custody of his daughter, so that she could attend social and religious functions to be held at his residence. It was but natural for a father to be emotionally attached to his child and he must have carried strong desire to be with his child. It is in this context that an application was moved for restraining Gurdial Kaur PW3 to take the child to an
