1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 625 of 2001. Date of Decision: 7-11-2008.. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Subhash Chand. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : None. ______________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral) The present appeal has been filed by the State assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 114-II/2000/98 decided on 28-2-2001 under Section 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer. No body appeared on behalf of the respondent to assist this Court. To appreciate the arguments of learned Law Officer, I have gone through the evidence on record as also the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that PW4 complainant Reshma Devi was married to the respondent in the year 1996. Ever-since her marriage it is alleged that the respondent was maltreating her. Consequently, a compromise Exhibit P7 was affected on 11.10.1997 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 condoning the cruelty and both the spouses under-took to live peacefully and amicably. Thereafter some dispute arose and the complainant alleged maltreatment and again cruelty was condoned by arriving at an agreement in writing executed on 11.10.1997 whereby every hatchet was buried by them and both under-took not to quarrel with each other. It is alleged that on 26-1-1998, the respondent was given her beatings with a Belan and she lodged the F.I.R. and was also medically examined. The Doctor found slight swelling and redness on the left leg on her ankle joint which according to the Doctor, could be due to fall or sprain. Police presented the challan against the respondent. He was charge-sheeted and pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor and he did not lead any defense. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that there was only self- serving and vague statement of the complainant with respect to the incident which allegedly took place on 26.1.1998 and there was nothing to corroborate her version. The perusal of the statement of PW2 Sandhi Devi shows that there was no demand of any dowry either from the complainant or from her by the respondent. However, she stated that there has been a compromise twice between both the spouses and writings were executed. She admitted in her cross-examination that the complainant was residing with her and they have no dispute with the respondent. The meticulous examination of the statement of the complainant does not reveal that on 26-1-1998 it was the respondent who had caused the injuries to her as alleged. It is a fact proved on record that about fifteen days back, i.e. on 11.10.1997, there has been a settlement between them and as per the Doctor, the injury in question could be caused due to fall of sprain. 3 Thus, on culling the evidence on record, the evidence of the prosecution is lacking to prove that the respondent treated the complainant with cruelty in such a manner so as to cause grave injury to her life and further that the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 26-1-1998 has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent, while acquitting him which is born out from the record. Thus, I do not find anything worth interference therein. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 7, 2008. (bm)