PURAN CHAND Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court had observed that the leave petition under Sec. 378 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable and at that stage, counsel for the petitioner had urged that the same be treated as Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. The matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to, prima facie, show to this Court that whether there was any justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment in the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. In the light of the above, let this petition be converted into and be registered and numbered as a Criminal Revision Petition by the registry. I have heard learned counsels. At the outset, I may take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkatesan Vs. Rani & Anr., 2013 4 JCC 2550 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, while examining an order of acquittal, is extremely narrow and has to be exercised only in cases where the trial court has committed a manifest error of law or procedure, or has over-looked and ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court must refrain from, while examining the order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under the Code.

(2.) In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, this Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner to make his submissions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, sought to make detailed submissions, as if this Court is hearing an appeal. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence of material witnesses, namely, PW 3-Puran Chand, father; PW 4 Premwati, the mother and PW 5 Savitri, the sister of the deceased Nirmala @ Meenu, who was married to the accused Pawan Kumar, and was the sister-in-law (Devraani) of accused No. 2-Sunita, has been rejected as "hearsay" evidence, insofar as PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 claimed that they had been informed by the deceased of the demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 1 lakh and a scooter/motor cycle by the accused, and of the torture/beatings and harassment by the accused. Learned counsel submits that the said evidence could not be dismissed as "hearsay" in the light of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submits that PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 had deposed before the court that they had been informed, from time to time, of the demands made by the accused, firstly, after about 10 days of marriage, and thereafter on few occasions. He submits that the deceased was driven to the point of committing suicide by the said acts/omissions of the accused and the said conduct was the cause of the death of the accused. Thus, a disclosure of the acts of harassment/torture made in pursuance of a demand for dowry, or otherwise, by the deceased would be admissible evidence.