Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veer Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032611
2024:PHHC:032611
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-746-MA-2014
Date of decision: 05.03.2024
SMT. VEER KAUR
...APPLICANT
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Sapna Khurana, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
The present application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. is
preferred against the judgment dated 13.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar in Complaint bearing case No.
COMI/1101694/2008 dated 28.11.2008 filed under Sections 494, 109 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') has been set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant and respondent no. 2 have
been married since 10.06.1983 and have a daughter together. However, on
15.08.1998, due to ongoing marital discord, respondent nos. 2 and 4, along
with Dasondha Singh, misappropriated the dowry articles of the applicant and
turned her out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the applicant filed a
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the competent Court. However,
during the pendency of the same, respondent no. 2 solemnised marriage with
respondent no. 3. Three children were born out of the second marriage of
respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 3. In connivance with each other, the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032611
CRM-A-746-MA-2014 2 2024:PHHC:032611
accused forged and fabricated the birth certificates of these children to reflect
respondent no. 4, as the father instead of respondent no. 2.
3. The complainant examined 03 witnesses in the pre-charge
evidence. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused under Sections
494, 506, 109 IPC, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. All the
incriminating evidence was put to the respondents-accused, in their statements
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded false implication
and examined 01 witness, in their defence. On the basis of material available
on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused vide
judgment dated 13.03.2014. The divorce petition filed by the applicant was
dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, however, it was
observed that the three children were in fact born out to respondent no. 2 and 3.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent no. 2 approached this Court by way of
FAO-80-M-2001, however the same was dismissed vide judgment dated
19.08.2008. (Annexure A-1)
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that no eye
witnesses were examined to prove the second marriage of respondent no. 2
with respondent no. 3. In fact, the petitioner-complainant has not claimed to
have witnessed the solemnisation of their marriage anywhere. To attract the
offence under Section 494 of the IPC, it is of the utmost importance that the
second marriage in accordance with essential ceremonies is proved.
Consequently, offence under 494 and 109 of the IPC are not made out against
the respondents-accused. As far as the charge under Section 506 of the IPC is
concerned, neither has the complainant mentioned anything regarding being
threatened nor any witnesses have been examined to make out a case. As such,
the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts in accordance with
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032611
CRM-A-746-MA-2014 3 2024:PHHC:032611
law to acquit the respondents-accused.
5. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal
on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that
where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the
innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail
over the other pointing towards his guilt. (See H.D. Sundara and others Vs.
State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 decided on
26.09.2023; Kali Ram v. State of H.P., 1973 (2) SCC 808 and Chandrappa
and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415). A Division bench of
this Court in the judgment passed in State of Haryana Vs. Ankit and others
passed CRM-A No.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 has held that presumption
of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial
Court.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any perversity or
illegality in findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court which
warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present
petition and leave to appeal is denied.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 05, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032611
3 of 3
