IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2004 Date of Decision: 12th July, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P.. ….Appellant. Versus Vinod Kumar ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: None. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The State has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra, acquitting the respondent for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that a complaint Ext.PW1/A was lodged by the complainant, Smt. Veena Devi, with the police, alleging that she was married to Vinod Kumar on 21st June, 1999. For about a month after the marriage, both of them stayed happily and thereafter he started ill-treating and beating her, without any cause and started saying that she had not brought any 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 dowry and used abusive language against her. Thereafter, she left for her maternal home and stayed there for about three months. Her husband did not come to pick her up. Thereafter, mother of complainant left her at her matrimonial home at village Bhalunder, where the respondent had come on vacation. She says that respondent threatened her by saying that she should go back to her parental house or would meet dire consequences. She further says that because of the condition of poverty in which her parents were living, she tolerated the maltreatment meted out to her. When respondent’s behavior/treatment became intolerable, she went and complained to her mother who took her away. She was forced to undertake this course of action because in case she had not done so, her husband would have burnt her alive. She stayed with her parents for 8/9 months and thereafter, the respondent came to her and took her away, accepting the fact in front of her parents as also the relatives present there that he had maltreated the complainant and in future he would not adopt this course of conduct. On this assurance, she was allowed by her parents to join the company of her husband. She then says that the respondent took her to Delhi, where he was employed. For 4/5 days, the respondent did not maltreat her but thereafter he started drinking everyday and started maltreating her and subjecting her to physical violence. She again tolerated this maltreatment but when it became intolerable, she wrote about his conduct to her father. She also lodged a report against the respondent with the Patel Nagar Police Station in New Delhi for taking appropriate action. 3. On the asking of the police personnel, the parents of the complainant brought her back to Jaisinghpur. On 8.5.2001 the respondent came to her native village and she and her mother were beaten up by the respondent. They shouted for help whereupon neighbours intervened and rescued them. She further says that in case the neighbours had not intervened, the petitioner and her mother would have been killed. She says that she had lodged a report with police station 3 at Lambagaon. On 14.5.2001 the Sub Divisional Magistrate asked the respondent to take her with him whereupon he refused to do so. She then states that: “Yeh ki mere pati Vinod Kumar ne mujhe dahej ke lalach main mera jeena haram kar diya hai. Jiske bare mein Panchayat Bhulandar va gram Panchayat Jaisinghpur mein bhi report darj hai.” 4. This is the gist of the allegations against the respondent. 5. In evidence, the complainant has appeared as her own witness reiterating the allegations which have been made by her in the complaint. She is purportedly supported by the evidence of PW2 her mother and PW3 ASI Naratu Ram, who received complaint Ext.PW1/A and recorded the FIR Ext.PW1/B. There is no other documentary evidence on record. 6. The learned trial Court has dealt with the evidence of both PW 1 and 2, in detail. The learned Court has referred to the complaint which has been made, and the oral evidence. The learned Court has pointed out a number of discrepancies. To start with, the Court deals with the general allegations of dowry and says that there is no specific demand which has been placed on record of the case. These, according to the Court, are general allegations of maltreatment and beating. The Court then deals with complaint Ext.PW1/A made with Police Station Delhi, which has not been produced on record. The evidence shows that complaints have been made to two Panchayats, but there is no evidence on record to show whether these were actually recorded or any action was taken by the Panchayats. There is also no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations of beatings. Similarly, there is another incident of 18.5.2001. There is again no evidence as to whether this incident actually took place. The allegation is that in case the neighbours had not intervened, both of them would have sustained serious injuries. Such an allegation without evidence cannot be accepted. On the incident of 4.5.2001, the Sub Divisional Magistrate asking the respondent to take 4 her back, the complainant has placed nothing on record of the case. Infact, reading of the evidence of complainant shows that there is nothing on record to establish that any demand of dowry was made by the respondent or that she was maltreated. The incident at Delhi is also not established on the record. Of course, the Court also refers to the medical evidence to show as one of the circumstance in the link to show that in case the complainant had been subjected to such violence she would have definitely sustained injuries for which there should have been some kind of medical record. But that apart, I concur with the findings arrived at by the learned Court and hold that this is a case of no evidence. 7. The submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General that sole statement of one of the witnesses i.e. mother of complainant should form the ground of conviction cannot be accepted for the reason that the allegations as leveled by the complainant have not been established on record. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds executed by the respondent are discharged. July 12, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge