IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2002. Date of decision: 03.12.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Bhupinder Kumar & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, 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, Court No. 1, Shimla, dated 25.10.2000, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.7.1994, a report was lodged with the police by one Smt. Kamlesh Kaushal that her marriage was performed with Bhupinder Kumar, respondent on 16.4.1994. It was alleged that after 8-10 days of the marriage her father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and her husband, respondents started maltreating her and demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- from her father. Her father had given Rs.15,000/- to her in-laws’ and they again demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- and also gave a 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - threat that in case she will not bring the money, she will be turned out or done to death. The complainant alleged that she went to her parental house to arrange the money and on 4.6.1994, all the respondents except her father-in-law came there, asked her about the money and when she told them that she could not arrange the money, they took out the golden ornaments forcibly from the possession of the complainant and at that time her mother, her sister and her brother were present, while her father was away on duty. Thus, the complainant alleged that since she is being maltreated by her in-laws for demand of dowry and they are giving her beatings and also gave threat to take her life. On this report a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents, who were tried by the learned trial Court, leading to their acquittal. I have heard Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State and Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the record. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant FIR Ext. PA shows that she has made vague allegations in regard to Rs.40,000/- but has not specifically alleged that who made the demand, when it was made and it was alleged in general only that the respondents demanded this sum from her parents. She alleged only one occurrence of 4.6.1994 when all the respondents except her father-in-law came to her parental house, forcibly took out her golden ornaments which she was wearing. There are no allegations in regard to beatings having been given at that time by all the respondents. To substantiate her statement, the complainant has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and now for the first time she stated that she had come to the parental house on 15.5.1994, though - 3 - no date was alleged in the FIR. She also stated about the another occurrence of 23.5.1994, when the respondents came to her house and enquired about the money being demanded by them. In regard to the occurrence of 4.6.1994 as alleged by the complainant in the FIR, she stated that all the respondents except her father-in-law and two other persons, not named, also came to their house and when she refused to give any money, they took ornaments which she was wearing and thereafter, has referred to another occurrence, when the respondents allegedly came to her office and compromise was effected by some Employees Association President. In the FIR she has alleged that her sister and mother were present there when the respondents came to her house on 4.6.1994. Her sister has been examined as PW-2 Savita, who has stated that the complainant came to their house and told that Rs.40,000/- was being demanded by the respondents. She stated that on 4.6.1994 except the father-in-law of the complainant, other respondents came there, enquired about the money and started beating the complainant, which was never alleged by the complainant in her report or stated on oath in Court. She stated that forcibly they took out the golden ornaments being worn by her and after removing some from the trunk, which was never alleged by the complainant or stated by her and then again started maltreating her sister. The mother of the complainant has been examined as PW-5 Shanti, who has stated that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded by the respondents and they used to visit their house and demanded Rs.40,000/- for the vehicle. She has stated in general about the demand of Rs.40,000/- and beatings given to her daughter. She never stated that the respondents came to their house on 4.6.1994 excluding the father-in-law, forcibly took the - 4 - golden ornaments from the possession of the complainant or from the trunk lying in their house as stated by PW-2 Savita. Thus from the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant’s statement has not been corroborated by the two persons of the family of the complainant present there at that time, namely her sister and mother. Her mother is rather silent in regard to the occurrence of 4.6.1994 when the golden ornaments were removed, which looks surprising that the golden ornaments were taken from her possession by the respondents even from the trunk of the complainant, but no report was lodged with the Panchayat or police or any other authority in this regard. However, the FIR was lodged for the first time after one month and twenty days of the occurrence, on 25.7.1994, when the occurrence had taken place on 4.6.1994. It looks surprising that the respondent took forcibly the golden ornaments from the house of the complainant. No neighbour has come to support the version of the complainant. The defence version taken up by the respondents was that the complainant was having illicit relation with Amar Singh Kanwar and the presence of Amar Singh Kanwar also stands established from the report lodged with the police, which shows that when the complainant came, she was accompanied by this person. The said person is said to be employer of the complainant. It has also come up in evidence that the respondent is plying a taxi and is owning the same and, therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly observed that there was no occasion to demand a sum of Rs.40,000/- for buying a taxi, when no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage and Rs.15,000/- allegedly was paid to the complainant at the time of marriage or thereafter. - 5 - From the above discussion, it is clear that the allegations made by the complainant were vague in nature, have not been substantiated by her own statement or from the statements of other witnesses and the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the respondents, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 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. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), December 03, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 6 -