IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.442 of 2002 Date of decision : June 3, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Shubhkaran and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This appeal, under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the State, for enhancement of sentence, awarded by the trial Court to the respondents, for offences, under Sections 323, 498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondents were tried for the aforesaid offences, on the allegations that they subjected Pammi Devi, wife of respondent Shubhkaran, to cruelty and caused her hurts and also criminally intimidated her. Respondent Feeta Devi is the mother-in-law of said Pammi Devi. 3. Report was lodged with the police by Pammi Devi, on 13th June, 1997, alleging that her marriage with respondent Shubhkaran had taken place in the year 1992 and that from the very beginning both the respondents and her father-in-law and sister-in-law started ill-treating her and also subjected her to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… beatings. It was also reported by her that about three years prior to the lodging of the report, she gave birth to a daughter and upon that she was threatened by her husband, mother-in- law and sister-in-law that in case she gave birth to another female child, she would be thrown out of the matrimonial home. Six months prior to the occurrence, she gave birth to another female child. 4. On 9th June, 1997, her mother PW-2 Asho Devi visited her. That day also, she was beaten up by the two respondents and then confined in a room. She went to the Pradhan of the Panchayat, Shri Paroja Ram (PW-4), and complained to him. A female member of the Panchayat, PW-5 Bimla Devi, examined the person of Pammi Devi, on the instructions of the Pradhan of the Panchayat. She noticed injury marks on her person. Panchayat called the respondents and tried to make them understand that the complainant be not beaten up, but they paid no heed. Pammi Devi then left the matrimonial home and on 13th June, 1997. She lodged the report with the police. Police got her medically examined, but no visible injuries, except swelling of an arm, were noticed. Respondents were challaned and tried for the aforesaid offences. On the conclusion of trial, the trial Magistrate convicted them of the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.100/- each for offence, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.400/- each, for offence, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. State has …3… appealed against the judgment because, according to it, the sentence awarded is inadequate. 5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the record. 6. From a perusal of the record, I feel that though Pammi Devi (PW-1) used to be occasionally beaten up, yet the story that she was subjected to beatings, because of her having given birth to two female issues, may not be correct. PW-1 Pammi Devi, in her cross-examination, admitted that it was acceptable to the respondents, whether she gave birth to a son or a daughter, meaning thereby that the story that she was subjected to cruelty, on account of her having given birth to female issues, is not correct. The story of her having been severely beaten up on 9th June, 1997, is also not corroborated by medical evidence on record, because only slight swelling on one of her arms was noticed on 13th June, 1997, when she was medically examined by PW-9 Dr. Anupama Sharma. It appears that quarrels between the couple of trivial nature used to take place and the same led to occasional mild beatings of Pammi Devi. In view of the abovestated position, it cannot be said that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is inadequate. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. June 3, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J