IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2003 Date of decision: 21.12.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Naresh Kumar and another ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents Mr. Dinesh Thakur vice Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, in Cr. Case No.49/2 of 2002, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498, 323, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The undisputed facts are that the complainant Guddi Devi was married to accused Naresh Kumar. The second accused, Murat Devi, is the mother of Naresh Kumar. It is also not disputed that one child was born out of this wedlock. It is not disputed that the relations between the husband and wife were strained. According to the prosecutrix on 8.7.2002 when she was working in the kitchen the younger brother and sister of Naresh Kumar were sleeping. One Pyare Lal was present in the house and he was taking liquor alongwith Naresh Kumar. According to the complainant while she was working in the kitchen the two accused started giving her beatings and dragged her to the other 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 room. Thereafter the mother bolted the door from outside and her husband beat her inside the room. He in fact took up a Khukhri and threatened to kill her. He slapped her and she received an injury on the eye. When she cried out the mother opened the door. At this moment she managed to run away and hid herself in the garden. She thereafter left for the house of her parents and stayed with Pyala Devi at night. Pyala Devi was examined as PW-5. According to her, she was on the day in question standing in the Varanda of her house and saw the complainant Guddi Devi. She was informed by Guddi Devi that she had quarrelled with her husband. The prosecutrix stayed the night at the house of this witness and left her house in the morning. According to this witness the clothes of Guddi Devi were in good condition when she left the house. This belies the statement of Guddi Devi that her clothes were torn when she was beaten up by her husband. In fact, Pyala Devi does not state that the prosecutrix had told her that she was beaten up by the accused. The prosecutrix admits that Pyare Lal was present in the house when the incident took place. However, the prosecution chose not to examine Pyare Lal. Pyare Lal was examined as DW- 1 by the defendants. He states that a quarrel had taken place between husband and wife but according to him the accused had not beaten Guddi Devi in his presence. The statements of the independent witnesses totally shatters the statement of the prosecutrix. The learned trial Court 3 rightly acquitted the accused. I see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 21st October, 2009 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.