Harbhajan Singh Bhalla vs State Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3705 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       Crl. Revision Petition 651/2002

%                                       Decided on: 10th August, 2010

HARBHAJAN SINGH BHALLA                                    ..... Petitioner

                             Through:   Mr. Aseem Mehrotra and
                                        Mr. Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Advs.
                        Versus

STATE OF DELHI & ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers             No
        may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                No

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported           Yes
        in the Digest?


A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)

Respondent nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of the

charges under Sections 498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) by the learned trial court. Petitioner (complainant), who

is father of the deceased, has filed this revision petition under

Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

challenging the acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and praying

that they may be convicted under the aforesaid provisions.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition

are that the daughter of the petitioner namely Mamta

committed suicide on 22nd May, 1994 at her matrimonial home

by hanging herself from a ventilator with the help of a chunni

within two and half years of her marriage. Respondent no. 3 is

husband, respondent no. 2 is father-in-law, respondent no. 4

is jeth and respondent no. 5 is jethani of the deceased.

3. Petitioner made a statement before the Sub Divisional

Magistrate (S.D.M.), Punjabi Bagh that he had spent lot of

money in the marriage of his daughter and gave dowry beyond

his financial capacity. However, respondents were not

satisfied with the same. After about 10/12 days of her

marriage respondent nos. 2 to 5 started harassing the

deceased on trivial matters. They used to ask the deceased to

bring jewellery and cash. About ten days prior to the incident,

petitioner gave Rs.10,000/- in cash and one cooler to the

respondent. About twenty days prior to the incident

respondent no. 3 suffered epilepsy attack and was hospitalised

in Janhit Hospital. On this occasion petitioner visited the

hospital when in his presence, respondents gave beatings to

the deceased. Even doctor reprimanded them. Brother of the

deceased was to get married on 8th May, 1994. Deceased was

permitted to attend the marriage at the last moment. On the

very next day of her brother's marriage deceased was taken

back to her matrimonial home.

4. In nutshell, prosecution case was that deceased had died

an unnatural death within the seven years of her marriage and

before her death she was subjected to demands of dowry,

harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home. Thus,

respondent nos. 2 to 5 were guilty of having committed "dowry

death" besides treating the deceased with cruelty prior to her

death and were liable to be punished under Sections 498-

A/304-B IPC.

5. Trial court framed charges under Sections 498-A/34 IPC

and under Sections 304-B/34 IPC against the respondent nos.

2 to 5 on 5th January, 1994 to which they pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial. Prosecution examined seventeen witnesses

in all to support its version. After prosecution concluded its

evidence, statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the

respondent nos. 2 to 5 were recorded wherein entire

incriminating material, which had come on record, was put to

them. The case of the respondents was that of denial. It was

stated that the marriage between the deceased and respondent

no. 3 was simple one. Deceased was not having good relations

with her father even prior to her marriage inasmuch as, a

court case was pending between them. Petitioner took some

jewellery during his son's marriage from the deceased who had

gone to attend marriage of her brother and when she

demanded the same back petitioner refused. On this count,

deceased was perturbed and sad and it appears that she had

committed suicide for this reason.

6. Respondents examined twelve witnesses in their defence.

Certain documents were also proved on record to show that

the deceased along with her brothers and sisters had filed a

suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction praying

therein that he be restrained from selling, transferring or

alienating the property no. WZ-622A, Rishi Nagar,

Shakurbasti, Delhi - 34 to any third party. It was alleged that

this property belonged to their late mother which petitioner

was intending to dispose.

7. Trial court appreciated the evidence adduced by the

parties and did not find the same to be sufficient enough to

conclude that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the

respondent nos. 2 to 5 on the point of dowry or otherwise

before her death so as to hold the respondents guilty of having

committed offences under Section 498-A/304-B IPC. It was

held that prosecution had failed to prove that PW1 Harbhajan

Singh Bhalla (petitioner) had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to

respondent no. 3 pursuant to the dowry demand raised by the

respondent nos. 2 to 5 inasmuch as, PW4 Jagdish Singh

Bhalla had not supported this version. That apart,

improvements were made by PW1 Harbhajan Singh Bhalla and

PW7 Rajesh Singh Bhalla (brother of the deceased) with regard

to demand of dowry and harassment of deceased on account of

dowry, which otherwise, was not supported by any

independent witness. PW2 Surinder Kaur and PW9 Omwati,

who were residing in the same locality where the deceased had

been living with her husband, did not support the allegations

of demand of dowry and harassment of deceased by the

respondents. PW13 Devender Chopra, cousin of the deceased,

had also not supported the harassment of the deceased on the

point of dowry. That apart, DW1 Om Prakash, DW3 Fakir

Chand, DW4 Lila Dhar, DW5 S.S. Bains, who were

independent witnesses, had deposed categorically that

deceased was not harassed by the respondents for bringing

more dowry. Besides this, sufficient documentary evidence

was produced on record to show that deceased was not

maintaining good relations with the petitioner even prior to her

marriage. Even prior to her marriage she along with her

brothers and sister including PW7, had filed a suit for

permanent injunction against the petitioner apprehending that

he may sell the immovable property owned by her late mother.

This suit was dismissed for non-prosecution only after the

marriage of deceased.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

contended that trial court has completely overlooked the

testimony of PW4 Jagdish Bhalla who had categorically

deposed that deceased was not kept properly by the

respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the matrimonial home after her

marriage. Not only this, dowry was also demanded at the time

of marriage. He has contended that even though testimony of

PW4 may not be sufficient to conclude that respondent nos. 2

to 5 had caused "dowry death" of the deceased but still it was

sufficient to conclude that respondent nos. 2 to 5 had

harassed the deceased with a view to coerce her to meet their

unlawful demands of cash, cooler, VCR and other valuable

articles and on account of her failure to meet such demands

the deceased was harassed and as such respondents were

guilty of committing offence under Section 498-A IPC. He has

further contended that even if ingredients of offence under

Section 304-B were not attracted in the case, the ingredients of

offence under Section 498-A were certainly complied with from

the testimony of PW4 coupled with testimony of PW1 and PW7.

He further contended that trial court had committed an error

in accepting the statements of the neighbours as against the

father and brother of the deceased. PW4 Jagdish Bhalla was

not even related to the deceased and was an independent

witness. Reliance has been placed on Devender Prashad vs.

Shanti Devi & Ors. 2007 (3) JCC 2260 and K.

Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1963 (3)

412 Supreme Court Reports to buttress the arguments that

in case any material evidence has been overlooked by the trial

court while acquitting the accused the High Court can interfere

in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

9. I have considered the above contentions of the counsel

for the petitioner and perused the Trial Court Record. It is well

settled that a court of revision would not normally reassess the

evidence and interfere merely because the view taken by the

trial court based on the available evidence could not be a

possible view. In other words, revision would not lie on the

mere ground of mis-appreciation of evidence unless a glaring

feature is brought to the notice of the revisional court which

would otherwise tantamount to flagrant miscarriage of justice.

In its revisional jurisdiction High Court can call for and

examine the record of any proceeding for the purpose of

satisfying itself as to the correctness of the order. In other

words, the jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction

exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of

justice. The revisional power cannot be equated with the

power of an Appellate Court. Ordinarily, it would not be

appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate evidence and

come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has

already been appreciated by the trial court unless any glaring

feature is brought to the notice of the High Court.

10. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy's case (supra) it was held that

revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court in

exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the

procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and

consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

In D. Stephens vs. Nosibolla (1951) 1 SCR 284 it was held that

the revision jurisdiction conferred on the High Court is not to

be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant

against an order of acquittal, against which Government has a

right to appeal. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases

where the interests of public justice require interference for the

correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross

miscarriage of justice. Similar view has been expressed in

Johar and Ors. Vs. Mangal Prasad and Anr. AIR 2008 SC

1165.

11. In the backdrop of above settled legal position, I have

gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded by the

Trial Court and I do not find any force in the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner that material evidence with

regard to demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased

has been overlooked by the Trial Court. Overall evidence

adduced by the parties has been taken into consideration by

the Trial Court for arriving at a conclusion that prosecution

had failed to prove harassment of deceased on the point of

demand of dowry so as to force her to commit suicide. In the

FIR petitioner has made general allegations regarding demand

of dowry and harassment of the deceased except that a special

instance has been mentioned regarding payment of

Rs.10,000/- in cash and cooler about ten days before the

incident. With regard to the payment of Rs.10,000/- PW4 has

not supported PW1. Other statement of PW4 is not in

consonance with the prosecution story. He has deposed that

at the time of engagement ceremony respondent no. 2

demanded a gold bangle from the father of the deceased

through him. Since it was not their custom to give gold bangle

at the time of engagement, therefore, a gold ring was given.

After the marriage respondent no. 2 told him that the said ring

was not heavy. Therefore, on his intervention ring was

changed. The suit pieces given in the marriage were also not

liked by the respondent no. 2 as he uttered that the same were

not even worth for his servants. After the marriage deceased

informed him that the respondents were maltreating her and

were demanding VCR. However, his this statement in the

Court is not in consonance with the prosecution story.

Besides this, independent witnesses produced by the

prosecution, who were not related with the respondents, have

categorically deposed that the deceased was not harassed by

the respondents on account of dowry. Even, cousin of

deceased did not support PW1 regarding demand of dowry.

That apart it has also come on record that the deceased was

not having smooth relations with the Petitioner, inasmuch as,

in his cross-examination PW1 first stated that he never visited

matrimonial house of Mamta but later said that he visited her

house only once. This by itself indicates that he was not

maintaining good relations with her.

12. I do not find the view taken by the Trial Court to be

perverse or suffering from any manifest error. Trial Court has

taken a view after appreciating the evidence adduced by the

parties which cannot be said to be not a possible view.

13. For the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed being

devoid of merits.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

August 10, 2010 ga