IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.100 of 2001 Judgment reserved on 29.12.2007 Date of decision 1.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Lekh Ram and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr.Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in criminal Case No.6/2 of 1996 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh District Solan in Criminal Case No.6/2 of 1996 under Sections 498-A, 377 read with section 34 of the IPC and were acquitted on 29.9.2000. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2000. The facts in nutshell are that PW-1 Smt.Veena was married to Som Nath on 5.4.1992. She gave birth to two daughters, namely Babli and Punam. Her husband was posted as Patwari and he along with his brothers Sadhu, Diwan Chand and his father Lekh Ram started harassing the complainant for not bringing the scooter in dowry. The complainant was beaten in intervening night 11/12-6.1995 and was turned out of the house. She was made by the accused to jump into the well and she jumped into the well. She was rescued by persons and was taken by her parents. The matter was consequently reported to the police by means of a complaint Ex.PA, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PB was registered. The 1 Whether reporters of local papers are allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 investigation was carried out. The accused were charged under Section 498-A of the IPC. The prosecution has produced as many as four witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents were acquitted on 29.9.2000 hence this appeal against their acquittal. The accused Som Nath died during the pendency of the appeal and his name was deleted on 25.5.2001 from the array of accused- respondents. Mr. .Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the charge against the respondents and the trial court has mis-interpreted the evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj learned counsel for the respondents had supported the judgment dated 29.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. PW-1 Veena had testified that she was married to Som Nath (now deceased) and two daughters were born to her. Accused Sadh Ram and Dewan Chand were asking her to maintain illicit relations and accused Lekh Ram was asking her to bring the scooter. She attempted to commit suicide on 12.6.1995 and thereafter she was brought to her parental home. The complaint was lodged on 7.9.1995 against the respondents though she had come to her parental house on 12.6.1995. This delay has not been explained in any satisfactorily manner by the prosecution. It is admitted by Karam Chand, the father of the complainant that a letter was written by the complainant but it was not preserved. Similarly, the complainant’s mother PW-4 Santosh had stated that Veena was writing letters from Una but no letter was produced during the course of trial. Smt.Veena had not explained in what manner she was being harassed (tang karta tha). This is a general statement and she should have specifically given the instances in what manner she was being harassed. She had also filed a petition for maintenance and the maintenance was 3 granted to her. The statement made by Veena to her mother at the belated stage has rightly been over looked by the trial court. The complaint, if any, was to be made immediately after the incident. The trial court after appreciating the evidence in right perspective and by adopting correct process of reasoning has acquitted the respondents. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondents are discharged. January 1,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ),J.