Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Kamaljeet Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014
Decided On : 30-06-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. Pawan Mishra, the learned Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondents:Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Dy. Advocate General with Mr.Rakesh Kumar Joshi, the learned Brief Holder for the State, Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M.C. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the private respondent.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's decision can only be overturned if there are compelling reasons to do so.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 498A, 313 - The court discussed the alleged offences under these sections and the defense's plea of denial and false accusation. The judgment of acquittal was challenged in the appeal, but the court found no compelling reason to overturn it.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant alleged dowry torture, rape, and assault by her husband's family. The trial judge acquitted the private respondents due to lack of evidence and contradictions in the complainant's statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, considering the delay in lodging the complaint, contradictions in the statements, and lack of medical evidence.
Issues: Delay in lodging the complaint, contradictions in statements, lack of medical evidence, and the defense's plea of false accusation.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts was not palpably wrong, and there was no compelling reason to overturn the judgment of acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal, preferred by the informant-victim, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun, in Session Trial No. 40 of 2013, dated 18.10.2013 has been assailed. The private respondents faced the trial in the alleged commission of offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 498A, 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code for brevity) read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the D.P. Act for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 06.06.2008, the appellant sent a written representation to the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, on the allegation that her marriage with respondent Lakha Singh @ Lakhvinder Singh, son of Darshan Singh was solemnized on 25.01.2007. At the time of marriage, her father had given dowry as per his capacity but later on she was being subjected to dowry torture with additional demand of Rs. 14 lakhs for the purpose of purchase of piece of land and also demand was raised for a car. The FIR, however, mentioned that she was given various type of torture by the respondents and one day, in the year 2007 her brother-in-law committed rape upon her with the help of her sister-in-law Amandeep. Later on when she objected about the same, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband did not pay any heed to her complaint and said that the matter should not be disclosed before anybody else for the family prestige. The appellant allegedly kept quiet as she was a divorcee and had solemnized second marriage and wanted to save the second marriage. Thereafter a village panchayat was called wherein the private respondents gave written Mafinama and promised not to harass the appellant in the future. However, further allegation of the appellant is that even thereafter the father-in-law of the appellant has committed rape upon her with the help of his wife, and, thereafter she has been subjected to rape on various occasions both by her brother-in-law as well as father-in-law. Ultimately, on 07.02.2008, they started torturing the appellant and started assaulting her and also tried to take her life but she assured that she will not make complain about the assault, they let her live. On the next date, at about 9:00 a.m., she escaped from the house and went to her father’s house. The FIR further mentioned that she did not complain about torture meted to her by the members of her husband’s family and kept quiet, later on when her father insisted her to go back to her maternal home she revealed before him about the torture meted to her, ultimately filing of a report before the D.G. Police on 06.06.2008, i.e. four months after leaving her maternal home and proceeding to her parental home. It is borne out from the record that this matter was reported to the police only because her father received a telephone call from a women helpline, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. On receipt of such written complaint from the appellant-complainant, the D.G. Police directed the concerned S.H.O. to take up investigation. The S.H.O. registered the compliant as an FIR and took up the investigation of the case. In course of investigation, he examined the complainant, other witnesses, arrested accused persons and seized material object. The complainant was examined by the Doctor and upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the private respondents.
4. The defence took plea of denial and false accusation by the complainant and her father with a motive to extort money and to grab the landed property belonging to the respondents.
5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined six witnesses on its behalf, namely, PW1 (name withheld), PW2 (name withheld), PW3 Ravindra Pal, PW4 Dr. Shikha Jangpangi, PW5 S.I. Mithlesh Kumar and PW6 S.I. Jeeto Singh. The defence examined as many as six witnesses, namely, DW1 Mohan Lal, DW2 Km. S
