HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 441 of 2004 Decided on: 15.11.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Sahab Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal & Mr.Vinod Thakur, Advocates. 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 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra, H.P., dated 4.6.2004, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 498-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on a written complaint Ext.PW-1/A addressed to the Superintendent of Police by complainant Smt.Sumangla Devi that she was a married woman and the respondent was her husband, who used to harass her and also demanded ` 25,000/- from her, a case was registered under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court under Section 498-A IPC only, leading to his acquittal. ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 3. I have heard the 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 the prosecution had examined 5 witnesses in all to substantiate their case. The statements of the complainant Sumangla Devi as well as that of her parents can be said to be most material and it has to be appreciated, in light of the said statements, as to whether the guilt of the respondent is proved or not. 5. PW-1 Smt.Sumangla Devi is the complainant, who has stated that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 9.5.1997. After marriage, her parents-in-law left for their place at Chamba and she alongwith her husband used to live in the house. She further stated that her husband i.e. the respondent used to take some capsules and quarrel with her. One day, the respondent brought a blue movie and tried to show it to her but she refused to witness it. He had also brought 3-4 persons with him. They all took liquor and when she refused to see the movie, those persons misbehaved with her. On this, the respondent quarreled with her and the respondent also gave beatings to her. This occurrence took place within 15/20 days of the marriage. She further stated that her husband had demanded ` 25,000/-, which she should bring from her parents and that she should also attend her friends. She further stated that she has a threat to her life also. 6. PW-2 Sh.Jigri Ram is the father of the complainant, who stated that the respondent used to give - 3 - beatings to the complainant and used to demand a Khaddi, which was given by him, but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent. PW-3 Smt.Panjo Devi is the mother of the complainant who has stated that her daughter told her that the respondent used to give her beatings and demand money and she advised the respondent. The behaviour of the respondent was not good. She also stated that her daughter was given a threat for her life. This is, in all, the evidence led by the prosecution. 7. The learned trial Court has referred to some contradictions in regard to the fact as to whether the complainant was working in the house of the Additional Superintendent of Police or not and there was contradiction in that regard. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses clearly shows that earlier no report was ever lodged with the police or Panchayat in this regard, though the mother of the complainant, namely, PW-3 Panjo Devi has stated that the Panchayat was called again and again, which was not so the case of her daughter or her husband. There is no medical evidence on record. There is nothing to substantiate the plea of the complainant that a sum of ` 25,000/- was demanded from her as dowry since her father Sh.Jigri Ram as PW-2 has stated that the demand was made for a Khaddi, which was met by him but this was not the case of the complainant at any time. It is clear that the complainant’s grievance appears to be for some different reasons as the respondent used to, allegedly, bring his friends and they used to misbehave with her and compel her to see blue movie. That may be the cause of dispute in between the parties, but the ingredients of the - 4 - offence under Section 498-A IPC were not at all substantiated from the statement of the complainant or other witnesses and as such the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which stands dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. Nov.15, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge