IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 CRM-A-1946-MA-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 17.03.2025 SHAMINDER KAUR ...APPLICANT V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Prabha, Advocate for Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. R.S.Thind, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, Tarn Taran, whereby respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted in a complaint case under section 406, 498A and 506 of IPC.

2. Brief factual matrix is that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 01.04.2012, according to Sikh rites at village Fatehabad, District Tarn Taran. At the time of marriage, the parents of the applicant gave sufficient dowry, including gold jewelry, a motorcycle, electronic appliances, and household items to her in-laws, i.e. the private respondents herein. However, after marriage, the respondents No.2 to 4 allegedly started taunting and harassing the applicant for bringing insufficient dowry and pressured her for more. On

2025.04.02 10:1075.05.2012, private respondents beat her and threw her out of the matrimonial home. In June 2012, a panchayat was convened to settle the matter but to no avail. An application was moved before SSP Tarn Taran, whereafter, a compromise was reached on 06.10.2012, and the applicant was rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. However, in 2013, upon the arrival of respondents No.3 and 4 from Greece, the applicant was once again subjected to harassment and torture for dowry, and in July 2013, she was sent back to her parental home by respondents No.2 to 4, who even refused to return the dowry articles.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Appellate Court has erred in not considering the evidence that was led by the prosecution witnesses as also those placed on record and thus, the impugned acquittal order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned State counsel and counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 have vehemently contended that the acquittal order was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, Tarn Taran, after thorough examination and due consideration of the legal issue involved as also the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Heard.

6. The allegations levelled against the private respondents herein are of cruelty on account of demand for dowry, as also misappropriation of the dowry articles/istridhan of the applicant. However, the applicant has failed to prove the charges of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. A perusal of the case file reveals that respondent No.2 was granted divorce from the applicant on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which, when challenged in appeal was upheld. The testimonies of complainant witness also lack specification of the allegations so levelled and as such, do not inspire much confidence. Though, undisputedly the

2025.04.02 10:a07pplicant is the best witness of her case, but the absence of any substantive corroboration to her testimony, is a relevant fact required to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the bills of jewelry on which reliance is sought to be placed, do not bear the name of signature of the applicant or any of her family members. There is also nothing on record to corroborate the allegation of misappropriation of the dowry articles. In addition, no specific injury is attributed as having being inflicted by the private respondents upon the complainant, nor any medical record, though, not sine qua non, to corroborate the veracity of the allegations has been provided. It is also an admitted fact that the list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of filing of the complaint and not at the time of marriage. Thus, the applic