IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 82 of 2000 Date of decision: 03.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Jagdev Singh & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Hamirpur, dated 27.10.1998, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 25.10.1994, at about 5.30 PM, a report was lodged with the police by one PW-1 Man Singh that his daughter Raksha Devi was married with Jagdev Singh, respondent No. 1 in the year 1989. The husband and wife lived together nicely for one year and thereafter, her husband, namely, Jagdev Singh, respondent No. 1, father of respondent No. 1 namely Dila 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Ram, respondent No. 2 and mother of respondent No. 1 namely Kalan Devi, respondent No. 3, started maltreating her on the ground that she was unable to bear a child. It was alleged that the respondents also gave threat to perform second marriage of respondent No.1. The complainant brought back his daughter in the year 1990 and after a compromise was effected before the Court. On 12.5.1994 the girl was sent back to her in-laws’ house. She lived there and two letters were received from the girl and the complainant sent his brother for reconciliation and thereafter, since the girl was not kept nicely, a report was lodged with the police for registration of a case against the respondents. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents as detailed above leading to their acquittal. I have heard Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for the appellant and Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, counsel for the respondents. The submissions made by the learned Law Officer for the State were that the statement of the complainant coupled with the statement of the girl PW-6 Raksha Devi and other relatives were sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly. Coming to the evidence, PW-6 Raksha Devi is the girl who was married in 1989. According to her statement, she was kept nicely for one year and since she was unable to bear a child, the respondents started maltreating her. It appears from her evidence that she came back 3 to her parents house and stayed there and after some compromise was effected she was sent back on 12.5.1994. In between this date and lodging of report on 25.10.1994, she had sent two letters to her parents which shall be referred below. On receipt of the first letter dated 21.6.1994, her father sent his younger brother, namely, PW-2 Dhian Singh for reconciliation and thereafter, on receipt of second letter dated 19.10.1994, he sent his other brother PW-3 Yogender Singh for reconciliation and thereafter, this report was lodged with the police on 25.10.1994. A perusal of the statement of PW-6 Raksha Devi shows that she has stated in general that her in-laws were maltreating her but has not specifically stated about any beatings given to her or injuries sustained by her or maltreatment on account of being unable to bear a child. Her statement shows that she has stated in general only and made reference to two letters Exts. PW6/A and PW6/B but nothing substantive have been stated by her in regard to the maltreatment or any particular date. She has not stated any incident when she was given beatings and by which of the accused persons. She admitted in her cross-examination that she never lodged any report with the police or any other authority. Her cross- examination rather shows that the respondents had come to their house for reconciliation 4-5 times. She clearly admitted that she was not living in her in-laws’ house for the last 6-7 years since 1990. From a perusal of her statement, it is clear that she was married in 1989, lived for one year in the house of in-laws’ and then from 1990 to 1994 she stayed in her parents house till she was sent back on 4 12.5.1994. Thereafter she wrote two letters and F.I.R. was registered on 25.10.1994 which suggests that she lived in the house of her in-laws’ only for a period of 5 months. Coming to the other evidence, PW-1 Man Singh, father of the girl, has simply stated about the marriage and has stated in general that the girl used to complain that she was being given beatings by the respondents. He has stated that he received the first letter dated 21.6.1994 and sent his brother PW-2 Dhian Singh but the respondents had refused to send back the girl and then another letter was received that she was being given beatings and the respondents were demanding divorce and there was threat to her life. Nothing substantive has been stated by him that the girl complained to him at any time about the beatings given by the respondents, on which date or about the injuries suffered by her at that time. He admitted that mostly Raksha Devi stayed in his house. He stated that he does not know that the respondents were insisting upon the divorce since he was not told by the girl in this regard. He clearly stated that in his presence beatings were not given and no villagers ever complained to him about the beatings. PW-2 Dhian Singh has come up with another plea that the respondents stated that she does not know how to work and was unable to bear a child. Therefore, this witness has come up with additional ground of harassment which has not been stated by the girl or her father or any other witness. He also stated that after the compromise Raksha Devi was sent to her in-laws’ house and they lived happily for one month and thereafter they again started maltreating her. He went to the house of respondents and they only told 5 that she does not now how to work and was unable to bear a child but has no where stated that Raksha Devi complained to him about the beatings or maltreatment. He stated in his cross-examination that he had not enquired from any villagers about the beatings or maltreatment to Raksha Devi by the respondents. PW-3 Yogender Singh, other brother of PW-1 Man Singh, had stated that on receipt of the second letter he had gone to the house of respondents but had not talked with Raksha Devi. In case he had not talked with the girl how could he come to know about the acts of the respondents. Raksha Devi did not complain to him about the nature of harassment being caused by the respondents. I have gone through the other evidence on record. A perusal of Ext. PW6/A shows that general allegations were made in regard to beatings and inadequate maintenance and that there was a threat to burn her with oil. However, PW-6 Raksha Devi in her statement in Court on oath did not state about the any such threat having been given by the respondents. Similarly, the letter Ext. PW6/B makes a vague reference that she was unable to bear a child and the allegations made were general in nature not referring to a particular act. It is clear that none from the village has been examined by the prosecution to show that they learnt about the harassment being caused to Raksha Devi by her in-laws. The accused persons in their defence have examined DW-1 Mukhtyar Singh, Pradhan of the Panchayat has stated that he lived nearby but no complaint was ever made by the girl about the maltreatment. I have gone through the statement of girl Raksha Devi and her relatives and 6 these statements are of general nature which do not attract the provisions or prove the ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. The allegations made were vague in nature which do not substantiate the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution case has not been proved cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) April 03, 2008 Judge (BSS) 7