The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving scheduled caste membership and the specific elements required to establish cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Complainant Kanwaljit Kaur @ Kavaljeet Kaur had approached this Court and a direction was accordingly issued to Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar to decide the representation submitted by her within two months, as such a probe was conducted into the matter and formal FIR for an offence under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") read with Section 498-A IPC was registered.

2. As per the version of the complainant Kanwaljit Kaur @ Kavaljeet Kaur, she was married with Jagjit Singh son of Narinder Singh, resident of village Manwala Khurd, however, Jagjit Singh had played a fraud with her; that the marriage was consummated and the complainant had conceived; that the marriage was not accepted by the mother and sister of Jagjit Singh, who abused and passed casteist remarks against the complainant and refused to allow her to remain in the house.

3. After the registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and it transpired that Jagjit Singh accused had got married with the complainant on 2.6.2009; thereafter, they resided in a rented accommodation as husband and wife, which was for a month. On 16.7.2009, accused Jagjit Singh took the complainant to C.M. Palace Hotel, Chandigarh and left her there on 20.7.2009 without informing her; he failed to return to that place; the complainant could not contact him despite her best efforts. Jagjit Singh belongs to Jat Sikh family, whereas the complainant belongs to Bazigar community. The complainant had contacted mother of the accused Jagjit Singh to seek her rehabilitation but she refused to accept the complainant stating that she had disinherited Jagjit Singh.

4. After completion of investigation, challan against accused Jagjit Singh, his father Narinder Singh and mother Amarjit Kaur was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar On presentation of challan in the Court, copies of documents relied upon therein were supplied to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then finding that the offence under the Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar from where it was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

5. On receipt of case in the Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, observing that prima facie charge for offences under Sections 3(i)(x) of the Act read with Section 498-A IPC was disclosed against accused, they were charge-sheeted accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. During the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses.

7. Pw1 happened to be complainant Kanwaljit Kaur @ Kavaljeet Kaur, who repeated on oath her case as per the prosecution story. Her father Sh.Gian Chand appearing as PW2 toed the line of the prosecution. PW3 Manwinder Singh, DSP, who had carried out the investigation in this case deposed in that regard proving various documents. The prosecution had proved on record original birth certificate of son of complainant Ex.PA, statement made by the complainant before the police Ex.PB, FIR Ex.PW3/3, arrest memo of accused Narinder Singh Ex.PW3/5, arrest memo of accused Jagjit Singh Ex.PW3/7, arrest memo of accused Amarjit Kaur Ex.PW3/6, entrustment of enquiry Ex.PW3/1, enquiry report Ex.PW3/2, representation of complainant Ex.PW3/8 and orders of Hon'ble High Court Ex.PW3/9.

8. With that the prosecution evidence got concluded.

9. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against such accused were put to them but they denied the allegations contending that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in this case. Accused Jagjit Singh stated that he has no relation with the complainant and the complainant never visited his house and he never used any derogatory words a