IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 461 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 3, 2009 State of H.P. .. Appellant Versus Virender Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : None Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 27.12.2001 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Virender Chand, husband, Chhunki Devi, mother-in-law and Ramesh Chand, brother-in-law of PW-1 Santosh Kumari, who were tried for offence, under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. PW-1 Santosh Kumari lodged a written complaint with the police on 27.7.1996, alleging that her marriage with respondent Virender Chand had taken place about eight years back and that about a year after the marriage, her mother-in- law (respondent Chhunki Devi) and brother-in-law (Ramesh Chand) started harassing and giving beatings to her, in the absence of her husband, who was serving in Indian Army. She Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - further reported that after some time, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law, aforesaid, started instigating her husband also to give her beatings and that her husband then, after consuming liquor, would give beatings to her. It was further reported that her husband, before leaving for his place of posting after availing leave, would leave her at her parent’s place and whenever he come on leave, he would get her to matrimonial home. 3. It was further reported that on 7th March, 1996, father of respondent Virender Chand died, but she was not invited and 7-8 days after the death of his father, Virender Chand came to her parents’ place to get her back and three days thereafter she was sent to her parents’ place for borrowing money from her father. She reported that she returned with a sum of Rs.4000-5000 and that when, after leaving the money and her purse containing ornaments in her bed room, she went to another room, her husband Virender Chand locked the room from outside and her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and the husband caught hold of her in the other room and gave her beatings and ultimately pushed her out of the matrimonial home. She went to the Pardhan of Gram Panchayat to lodge report, but the latter directed her to report to the police. She then went to the police and made a report against the respondents and with the intervention of the Panchayat Members, matter was settled and compromise deed Ext.PW1/C was prepared. It was further reported that about a week prior to her lodging of the report, her husband had again come on - 3 - leave and took her to the matrimonial home, but again she was beaten up by all the three respondents. On the basis of this complaint, case was registered. Investigation was conducted and all the respondents were sent up for trial. 4. Trial Court charged the respondents with offence, under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and on their pleading not guilty, put them on trial. 5. Prosecution examined Santosh Kumari as PW-1, PW-2 Ram Singh, a neighbour of the respondents, PW-3 Urmila Devi, Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, PW-4 Narain Singh, father of Santosh Kumari, PW-5 Premi Devi, mother of Santosh Kumari, PW-6 Neelam Kumari, Ward Panch and two police officers, namely PW-7 Ashok Kumar and PW-8 Pritam Chand, who investigated the case, to bring the charge home to the respondents. 6. From a reading of the testimony of Santosh Kumari and other witnesses, examined by the prosecution, it appears that no incident after the incident of March, 1996, when Santosh Kumari had allegedly been deprived of her ornaments, had taken place. Even though in the complaint Ext.PW1/A, Santosh Kumari alleged that she had been beaten up 7-8 days prior to the lodging of the complaint (date of complaint is 27.7.1996), yet in the witness box, she made reference to the incident of March, 1996 only, when she had allegedly been deprived of her ornaments and was thrown out of the matrimonial home. PW-2 Ram Singh, a neighbour of the respondents, PW-3 Urmila Devi, Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, PW-4 Narain Singh, PW-5 Premi - 4 - Devi, father and mother, respectively, of Santosh Kumari, also testified about the incident of March, 1996 only and of no incident subsequent thereto. The incident of March 1996, according to Santosh Kumari’s own testimony, had been compromised, vide deed Ext.PW1/C, on the intervention of Panchayat Members. In view of the above stated position, particularly the fact that incident of March, 1996, about which alone Santosh Kumari and other witnesses have testified, having been compromised, vide compromise deed Ext.PW1/C, long before the lodging of complaint Ext.PW1/A, respondents cannot be held guilty of offence, under Section 498-A IPC, for the incident of March, 1996. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. June 3, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh), J