Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision of knife against the acquittal judgment of husband and others from IPC 498A due to many reasons as listed out by the learned Sessions Judge.
Reasons for acquittal of Husband:
Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam And Others on 14 November, 2013#1 admission made by petitioner Reema in her cross-examination that earlier she was married to Vipin Kumar, and their marriage had not been dissolved by the court of competent jurisdiction. It was, therefore, held that since marriage was not dissolved legally, therefore, her marriage with accused Anupam was void ab initio.
#2 in a case of second marriage, no demand for dowry is usually put forward. It was further observed that petitioner Reema in her statement had not given any particulars or the details of the demands made nor she deposed that any amount was ever given by her to any of the accused.
#3 Raj Mani, the father of the petitioner, made a statement that there was a demand of Rs. 2 lacs from her daughter Reema by the respondents and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was given by him to his daughter on two occasions. However, the learned trial Court observed that these allegations were levelled for the first time when the said witness deposed before the Court and was duly confronted with earlier statement where no such allegations were made by the father, who stated so for the first time while stepping into the witness box. The said fact assumes significance because the statement of father of the petitioner was also recorded after seven months of the occurrence for which there is no explanation as to why statement was recorded at a belated stage.
#4 it is in the statement of Dr. Rajesh Kumar that Reema was taken to Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar by her husband and in-laws. It was observed that it is also a circumstance which should weigh in favour of the accused as normally, a criminal will not take the patient to hospital to keep victim alive if he had any intention to kill the victim.
#5 it has come in the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Kumar that petitioner herself had told the doctor that she has consumed the acid orally. Thus, the first statement, which was made to the doctor, the petitioner had admitted categorically that she had taken acid orally, which falsifies the entire prosecution story
#6 in the testimony of Dr. Vijay Mahan that if acid is administered forcibly, it is likely to cause some effect on other parts of the body. The Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that when a small child do not drink milk and if it is poured into his mouth from glass forcibly, in such circumstances, milk would always spill over other parts of body. However, there was no injury on the tongue or any part of mouth except swelling over the lips, which negates the story of forcible administration of poison
#7 the acid alleged to have been recovered was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for test nor was it produced before the Court. The stomach were not preserved and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Thus, taking into account the above facts, delay in the registration of case, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses that the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused
Earlier Supreme Court decision is here.
