HARWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgement dtd. 30/9/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgement of acquittal dtd. 4/8/2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira, was dismissed and the acquittal qua respondents no. 2 to 9 (private respondents) was upheld in FIR No.52 dtd. 13/4/2010 registered under Ss. 498-A, 406, 494 and 120-B IPC at Police Station-Zira.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that petitioner Harwinder Kaur moved an application before the concerned police upon which the FIR (supra) was registered, wherein, it was alleged that after the death of her husband Balwinder Singh in November 2002, she was forcefully remarried to the brother of the deceased husband respondent no.2-Jaswant Singh for grabbing the dowry articles and share of her husband. It was further alleged that at the time of the marriage of the petitioner with her first husband, sufficient dowry including one television, refrigerator, motorcycle and gold ornaments were given by her parents. Two male children namely Jaskaran Singh and Mankaran Singh were born out of the first wedlock. It was further alleged that more dowry articles including a motorcycle and some gold ornaments were given by the parents of the petitioner at the time of her second marriage. Then in-laws of the petitioner started demanding a car from her parents and when they refused, the in-laws started maltreating her. It was also alleged that the in-laws of the petitioner retained the dowry articles given to them during the first marriage as well as during the second marriage. Thereafter, Jaswinder Singh, i.e., the husband of the petitioner solemnized second marriage with Surjit Kaur without giving divorce to the petitioner. The said marriage was performed with active participation of the private respondents despite them being aware of the first marriage with the petitioner. When the parents of the petitioner became aware of the said marriage, they went to the private respondents to talk but were insulted by the private respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial house by the private respondents in the year 2008. Upon this application, the FIR (supra) was registered. After due procedure, charge was framed against the private respondents-accused for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 406, 494 and 120-B of IPC but were ultimately acquitted of the said charges by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur against the said judgment of acquittal which was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the both the learned Courts below acquitted the private respondents mainly on account of the marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.2 remaining unproven on record which is why he wishes to place on record the CD containing video graphic evidence (Annexure P-1) and photographs (Annexure P-2) along with copy of the order dtd. 14/11/2011 (Annexure P-3) passed in application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, as additional evidence by way of the above-mentioned application under 391 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned Courts below have ignored the fact that the petitioner has badly suffered at the hands of the private respondents not once but twice as the dowry articles given during both her marriage ceremonies have been misappropriated by them. He further submits that it was specifically proven on record that the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial house being a legally wedded wife of respondent no.2. He further submits that the factum of marriage was admitted by respondent no.2 in his reply filed against the application moved by the petitioner under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed and an interim maintenance of Rs.3,000.00 per month was awarded to the petitioner consequently. The aforesaid fact along with the testimony of the petitioner regarding the illegal second marriage of respondent no.2 with Surjit Kaur while still being married to her, was wrongly ignored by the learned trial Court. The said factum of marriage is further established from the CD containing video evidence as well as the photographs placed on record.