STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUKHWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment delivered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, whereby he acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Prerna wife of Madanjit Singh lodged a complaint with the police alleging that accused had misappropriated the dowry items and treated her with cruelty. She stated that she was married to Madanjit Singh Narang on 20th February, 1994 according to Sikh rites at Hotel Kamal Palace, Jalandhar. According to her, proposal was made by accused Kuljit Kaur and her father Dalip Singh because Dalip Singh was Guru Bhai of mother of the complainant. Believing her Guru Bhai, mother of the complainant agreed to the proposal of marriage and did not verify anything about the boy. Certain ceremonies took place on 19.2.1994. Number of articles were given as gifts to the bridegroom's side. As desired by the accused, marriage was celebrated at Jalandhar and Rs. 70,000/- was spent thereon. The complainant gave a list of articles, which were entrusted to the accused. The complainant further alleged that her husband, namely, Madanjit Singh stayed with complainant for two months and thereafter left for Germany promising her that he would call her there after completion of necessary formalities. The complainant lived with family of her husband (accused Nos. 2 to 5) till September, 1995 when she came to know that a fraud had been played on her. During this period, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid by the complainant as she was told by the accused that the same were to be given to travel agent who had made arrangements to send her to Germany. In second week of March, 1995, the complainant came to know that Madanjit Singh was already married in Germany. In September, 1995 accused Nos. 2 to 4 demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant to send her abroad but she showed her inability. Due to this, the accused got angry and beat her with sticks and Chappals. She was thereafter thrown out of the matrimonial home. The family of the complainant thereafter requested the accused for rehabilitating the complainant, but again a demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made. Complainant alleged that on 15th July, 1996, her husband refused to call her to join his company in Germany. He also refused to leave the German lady, with whom he was living.

(3.) On the basis of the above complaint, investigation ensued and challan was presented by the investigating agency. Thereafter, charges under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty. They also alleged false implication. They examined four witnesses in their defence.