IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 365 of 2002 Date of decision: 22.02.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Bhupinder Singh and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 already dead. 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 Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 11.1.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the police came in motion on the basis of written complaint filed by complainant Karamjit Kaur against all these respondents including respondent No. 1 who is alleged to be the husband of the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint dated 20.12.1999 by the complainant 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 that her marriage took place with respondent No. 1 on 16.9.1999. She alleged that after some months of the marriage, the respondents started giving her beatings and maltreated her. Respondent No.1 also got a divorce deed executed under a threat. On these allegations, FIR was registered by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents, who were tried by the learned trial Court as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the report lodged by the complainant Ext. PB on the basis of which FIR Ext. PA was registered, will clearly show that there were no allegations that the complainant was ever called by name as ‘Chamari’ and that the provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act were attracted to the present facts. There were no allegations in this regard and on the basis of the investigation conducted by the police, the challan was also filed under Section 3 of the Act. In her statement made in Court, the complainant has stated in general as PW-1 and had not specifically stated the date and month when she was called as ‘Chamari’ by the accused persons as stated by her. The allegations made are general in nature and had not been substantiated by time or date or the place as to when these were stated by the respondents. He cross-examination also shows that she has been making complaint to any of the villagers and her cross-examination also shows that she does not want to pursue the case and had also filed an application for withdrawal before the District Magistrate. In the 3 totality which can be made out from the complainant’s version, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are not attracted. The parents of the complainant were examined as PW-2 Ranjit Kaur, mother of the complainant and PW-3 Harpinder Singh, father of the complainant, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus on the basis of the statements made by these principal witnesses, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt, which findings 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. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), February 22, 2010 Judge (BSS) 4