IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 221 of 2003 Date of decision: 29.06.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Piar Chand … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, dated 30.11.2002, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 498-A, 494, 323 and 324 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged with the police by one Smt. Maya Devi, complainant, that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 17.11.1994. The parties lived thereafter at Delhi and the behaviour of the respondent became cruel after few months and he started demanding television, scooter etc. from the complainant. She also alleged that her ornaments were also kept by the respondent. She also alleged that 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 her husband threw kerosene oil on her and lit the match and she suffered burn injuries. He also gave her threat that in case any report was lodged with the police, he will kill her. Thereafter, the complainant came to Jogindernagar and gave Rs.50,000/- to the respondent for construction of a house. She also alleged that she had learnt that her husband had performed second marriage and treats her with cruelty due to non meeting to the demands of dowry. Hence, the complaint lodged with the police. On this complaint lodged on 28.4.1999, at 7.10 P.M., a case was registered by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent under the above mentioned sections and he was tried by the learned trial Court, leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that insofar as the charge under Section 494 I.P.C. is concerned in regard to the second marriage, there is no evidence led by the complainant to substantiate the charge except the copy of the marriage certificate produced in evidence as Ext.PW9/A by PW-9 Jagtama Parshad, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The learned trial Court had rightly observed that there was no proof of the fact that the second marriage was performed and no witness had been produced, who may have witnessed the ceremonies of the second marriage in between the respondent and the alleged wife. A reference has been made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana and others Vs. P. Mallaih and others, 1996(2) C.L.R. 583, in this regard that proof of ceremony is 3 necessary. The marriage certificate in this regard is not sufficient to prove the second marriage. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence had rightly concluded that Section 494 I.P.C. has not been substantiated by the complainant. 5. In regard to the demand of dowry articles or the alleged burning incident at Delhi, she admitted that no report was lodged with the police in regard to the burning incident. The complainant as PW-1 Maya Devi has stated that at that time her cousin brother PW-2 Arjun was also present there, who was also inflicted blows with a knife by the respondent when he tried to rescue her. There is no mention in the FIR in regard to the injuries suffered by Arjun at any time and no report whatsoever in regard to burn injuries or stab injuries was ever lodged with the police at Delhi. There was no mention of the date of occurrence in the FIR lodged, but the complainant gave the date for the first time when she appeared in the witness box. Therefore, this occurrence has not been substantiated by her from her evidence. 6. Coming to the charge in regard to the demand of dowry articles, she has not mentioned any date when these demands were made or articles were demanded by the respondent. She only stated that he her husband demanded Rs.50,000/-, which she brought from her relatives and gave them to the respondent. However, her mother who appeared in the witness box as PW-3 Anguri Devi Devi, stated that she brought Rs.50,000/- from her relatives and gave it to her daughter. Neither her daughter nor she herself named the persons or the relatives, who gave them money on which date and when it was given to the respondent. Therefore, in view of the statements of the 4 complainant and her mother, which were not corroborative in regard to these demands or harassment, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent does not stand proved from the evidence led by the prosecution. The findings of the learned trial Court are not perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), June 29, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5