RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) BEING aggrieved against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur acquitting respondent Dalbir Singh of the charges under Sections 364 and 323 IPC, complainant-Smt. Gurdial Kaur has filed this revision petition. Though it may sound strange, but Dalbir Singh was an accused of kidnapping his own daughter Ravneet Kaur alias Rinni and complainant Gurdial Kaur is mother-in-law of the accused.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Harnit Kaur daughter of complainant Gurdial Kaur married Dalbir Singh respondent in the year 1991. He was, at that time, staying in California (USA). Ravneet Kaur alias Rinni was born out of this wedlock in September, 1992. Because of strained relations between the couple, wife Harnit Kaur came back to India in 1998. Thereafter, Harnit Kaur and Ravneet Kaur started living with Gurdial Kaur complainant. The case of custody of Ravneet Kaur alias Rinni was in progress. It is alleged that on 18.5.2002 while complainant Gurdial Kaur was going to leave Ravneet Kaur at bus stop for school bus, respondent Dalbir Singh allegedly came there along with three unidentified persons and forcibly took Ravneet Kaur in his car. As per allegation, he had also pushed Gurdial Kaur due to which she suffered injuries. It is on this basis that the case was got registered against respondent Dalbir Singh and he was, accordingly, prosecuted for an offence under Section 364 and 323 IPC etc. Trial Court noticed that the allegations of abduction against respondent Dalbir Singh are supported by the testimony of Gurdial Kaur (PW-3) alone and that no independent witness was examined to support the version of the complainant. The Court also found the testimony of this sole witness unreliable because of the bitter inimical relations between respondent Dalbir Singh and the complainant. The version of PW-3 Gurdial Kaur received a further dent when Anokh Singh PW-4 stated to have accompanied Gurdial Kaur PW-3 at the time of lodging report was found to be her other son-in-law. Trial Court also rightly pointed out that the place, from where a child was allegedly abducted, was a busy place and as such number of independent witnesses could have been available but were not examined. Finally, it was observed that evidence of child Ravneet Kaur was withheld and not produced in Court and was admittedly sent to USA during the pendency of the case in October 2002. Trial Court rightly drew adverse inference on this count against the prosecution and was justified in observing that the child if examined would not have supported the theory of abduction as advanced by the prosecution. The proceedings to seek custody of the child was initiated on behalf of respondent Dalbir Singh through his father and these were being hotly contested. Even an application was moved by respondent Dalbir Singh for restraining Gurdial Kaur PW-3 and her husband from taking his daughter Ravneet Kaur to some unknown place. It is in this background, the conduct of Gurdial Kaur PW-3 and his family in sending Ravneet Kaur to USA during the pendency of the case was critized by the Court. This was done by Gurdial Kaur PW-3 by obtaining new passport for which even an FIR was lodged against her. Finding her unreliable and that Gurdial Kaur PW-3 did not come out with truthful account, she was disbelieved by the Court. She was also found to have concealed the material fact that the child of Anokh Singh PW-4 had also accompanied them whereas in her evidence, she stated that no one had accompanied the child at the time of said abduction.
(3.) IT is also noticeable that respondent Dalbir Singh had moved an application seeking custody of his daughter, so that she could attend social and religious functions to be held at his residence. It was but natural for a father to be emotionally attached to his child and he must have carried strong desire to be with his child. It is in this context that an application was moved for restraining Gurdial Kaur PW-3 to take the child to an unknown place. Gurdial Kaur PW-3 ultimately succeeded in sending the child out of country and thus was able to deprive the father to have custody of his child. Relying on photographs Exs. D-1 to D-6, the Court had noticed that child was very happy in the company of her father and in this background, the allegations made by the prosecution that respondent Dalbir Singh had abducted the child with intention to kill her were rather far fetched. Disbelieving Gurdial Kaur PW-3, the Court also found that the injuries could have been self-suffered as these were superficial in nature, two being abrasions and the remaining two only a complaint of pain. Accordingly, trial Court acquitted respondent Dalbir Singh of the charges framed against him. The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any perversity in the reasoning or in the appreciation of evidence, which may call for interference in the order of acquittal made in favour of respondent Dalbir Singh.;