HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.R. No.: 150 of 2001 Decided on: 20.10.2008 Jaswant Kaur ………petitioner. Versus Satpal Singh and others. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 4: Ms.Sunita Sharma, vice Mr.Anil Chauhan, Advocate. For respondent No.5: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, dated 26.4.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner, who was the complainant in the challan filed as against the respondents, has filed the present petition aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the learned trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that there was sufficient evidence on record which proves that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondents and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court can be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein. Coming to the evidence led by the prosecution to substantiate its case, PW-1 Jaswant Kaur, the petitioner and complainant in the case, has stated that after her marriage, the respondents started maltreating her and giving her beatings that she had brought insufficient dowry. She also stated that the respondents asked her to bring Rs.70,000/- from her parents. She talked to her parents who told that they are poor and cannot arrange the money. She further stated that on 16.8.2000, the respondents gave her beatings and turned her out of the house and she came to her parents’ house. Her parents sent her back and again on 17.8.2000, she was given beatings but she did not specify as to which of the respondents gave her beatings. She came again to her parents’ house and told the facts to her father and the FIR was lodged. In regard to the demand about the amount, she stated that for the first time on 16.8.2000, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was demanded by the respondents and she was given beatings on that day. She lodged the report with the police on 28.8.2000. PW-2 Didar Singh, father of the complainant, has stated that they had given dowry as per their capacity. However, the respondents were maltreating the complainant for bringing insufficient dowry. He further stated that the accused persons called him to their house on 5.8.2000 and proclaimed that their - 3 - son Satpal Singh was unemployed and they needed Rs.70,000/- for buying a car. He further stated that after some days, the respondents sent his daughter to his house with a demand of Rs.70,000/- and he sent back his daughter to the house of the respondents. Again on 16.8.2000, the respondents asked his daughter to bring Rs.70,000/- and he sent her back and again she came back on 17.8.2000 to his house with a demand of Rs.70,000/-. According to him, the demand was made on 5.8.2000, when the respondents called him to their house, which was never stated by the complainant when she appeared in the witness box as PW-1. However, she specified that first time the demand was made on 16.8.2000 while her father PW-2 has given the date as 5.8.2000. PW-3 Beer Singh, a neighbour of the respondents, has stated that the respondents started maltreating the petitioner. He also stated that they gave beatings to the complainant on 17.8.2000 and sent her back to bring Rs.70000/-. He stated that he was present at that time when this demand was made and the complainant was sent back. This was nowhere stated by the complainant as PW-1 that she was given beatings and the demand was made in the presence of PW-3 Beer Singh. He admitted in cross examination that he made no attempts to save the complainant from the beatings being given to her, which was never the version of the complainant herself when she appeared in the witness box. He further stated that the beatings were being in the open, which does not appear to be a correct version. PW-4 is ASI Bhagat Ram, who investigated the case. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the statement of the complainant does not stand corroborated in regard to material - 4 - particulars by the testimony of her father. A perusal of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded of the accused persons clearly shows that complete facts were not put up to the accused persons in regard to the date of the occurrence or the demand of Rs.70,000/- and only general questions were put up that they had subjected the complainant to cruelty. At this stage, after a lapse of so many years, I am not inclined to send back the case to the learned trial Court for re-recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., keeping in view the evidence produced by the prosecution. From the above discussion, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Thus, there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. October 20, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.