HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 717 of 2001 Reserved on: 17.10.2008 Decided on: 23.10.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Hari Singh and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, dated 1.11.1999, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A, 325, 342 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6.11.1994, at about 5.00 p.m., a report was lodged with the police by Smt.Santosh Kumari that she was married with one Ramesh Singh one year ago according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her husband was serving in a private company at Chandigarh. She further alleged that on 5.11.1994, she waited for her husband but when he did not visit her, she alongwith her niece Anju Bala went to the house of her in-laws at about 3.00 p.m. She further alleged that her mother-in-law Parsino Devi, _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - respondent, gave abuses to her, asked her to get out of the house and her sister-in-law Radha Devi and brother-in-law Jaswant Singh also came and started beating her on the pretext that she had brought insufficient dowry. It was further alleged that all three of them gave beatings to her and confined her in a room, which was locked from outside and her father-in-law Hari Singh was also present there, who also gave her abuses. She further alleged that at 9.00 p.m. one Reshmo Devi came there and took her out of the room and on the next day, she came to her parents’ house alongwith Anju Bala and lodged the report with the police. After her medical examination, a case was registered and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State were that there was the statement of the complainant coupled with the testimony of her niece Anju Bala and these statements have been further corroborated by the parents of the complainant to whom the occurrence was told by the complainant and as such there was sufficient evidence to prove the prosecution case and the findings to the contrary of the learned trial Court can be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the evidence of the complainant has not been corroborated by the testimony of Ms.Anju Bala and there are material contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses and accordingly, the learned trial Court had rightly disbelieved the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It was also submitted that the said Smt.Reshmo Devi, who allegedly rescued the complainant and opened the door - 3 - of her room where she was locked, has not been examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution case was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not liable to be reversed. It was further submitted that even if two views are possible from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is no ground to reverse the findings of acquittal until and unless it is proved that the findings were perverse and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which deserves to be dismissed accordingly. To substantiate his plea as to how the evidence has to be appreciated by the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, the learned counsel for the respondents had placed reliance upon three decisions of the Apex Court. The decision in Babu and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1983 Cri.L.J. 334, shows that the following observations were made by their Lordships in para 18 of the judgment, which are relevant and are being reproduced below: “In appeal against acquittal if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the conclusions are not possible. If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible of the evidence on the record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it.” The decision in Surat Lal and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1982 Cri.L.J. 1577, shows that the following observations were made in para - 4 - 14, which are relevant and are being reproduced below: “When two views of the evidence on indicating conviction and the other supporting acquittal are equally possible, the High Court should not disturb the finding of the trial Court. In the instant case the question was whether the accused could be held vicariously liable for the fatal blow given by one of the accused viz. B to the deceased. The trial Court, after appraising the evidence there answered this question in the negative. In its opinion, the common object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the five accused persons was to give a good thrashing to the deceased, and no more, and the fatal blow by B to the deceased was not given in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly. This finding could not be said to be clearly erroneous.” The decision in Tota Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 1987 Cri.L.J. 974 shows that the following observations were made in para 6 of the judgment by the Apex Court which are relevant and are being reproduced below: “The mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.” Coming to the evidence led in the light of the above judgments, it is clear that there is statement of the complainant Santosh Kumari recorded as PW- 2 that on 5.11.1993 when she reached the house of her in-laws alongwith Anju Bala her niece, Parsino Devi gave her abuses and asked her if she had brought 15 Ghumaon land or not. She further stated that Jaswant Singh started giving - 5 - beatings to her and her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law also started giving beatings to her. PW-2 Santosh Kumari stated that in these beatings her jaw was broken and her mother-in-law locked her in the room and the room was locked from the outside. She further stated that Reshmo Devi, who was the mediator in the marriage, came at about 9.00 p.m. and got the lock opened. She was accompanied by her son Pappu. She further stated that she was not in her senses at that time and water was thrown upon her and she became conscious and then she accompanied Reshmo Devi and her son Pappu to their house. She further stated that Anju Bala accompanying her was also given beatings, who ran away from the place and stayed in the house of Reshmo Devi. She came back to her parents’ house on the next day and reported the matter to her parents and then lodged the FIR. She admitted that her marriage with Ramesh Singh has resulted in divorce. She was required to be confronted with her statement made to the police but the learned trial Court had referred to the improvements made by the complainant in her statement and disbelieved the statement of the complainant. In her first report to the police Ext.PW-6/A, she had stated that all three persons, namely, Parsino Devi, Radha Devi and Jaswant Singh started giving beatings to her and after the beatings, she was confined in the room. She had not specified as to which of the accused gave blows on her jaw leading to the injury. However, in her statement she has stated that firstly Jaswant Singh started giving beatings to her and then the remaining three accused and her jaws were broken, though in the report lodged by her she had mentioned that her father-in-law only sat outside and gave abuses to her but had not stated that he also gave beatings to her which was stated by her in her statement made in the court. - 6 - The said Anju Bala who had accompanied the complainant to the house of her in-laws has been examined as PW-3, who stated that when her aunt was changing the clothes, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law started giving beatings to her and also gave abuses. She stated that she ran away to the house of Reshmo Devi and she told the facts to her and she came to the house of the in-laws of the complainant with her. She did not state as to whether injuries were inflicted upon the jaw of the complainant in her presence and had not stated any injuries having being inflicted by the respondent Hari Singh as stated by the complainant in her statement. She stated that blood was oozing out and her aunt had suffered injuries. She did not stated that Reshmo Devi came to the house of the in-laws of the complainant accompanied by her son Pappu or that they rescued her rather she has stated that she came alongwith Reshmo and the door was opened and the complainant was rescued. Apart from the above, the prosecution had also examined PW-1 Shakuntla Devi, mother of the complainant, who has stated that when the complainant came back after visiting her in-laws, her jaw was broken and she had sustained injuries on her head, chest and she told her that all the four respondents had given beatings to her. PW-4 Jagat Ram, father of the complainant Santosh Kumari, has stated that his daughter told him that all the respondents gave her beatings and had confined her to a room and that she was rescued by Reshmo Devi. The statement of the Medical Officer Dr.Suman Saxena shows that there were abrasions and swelling on the body of the complainant and injuries No.1 to 6 were simple and were caused by a blunt weapon. According to the Dental Surgeon, injury No.7 was grievous which was a swelling over the lower half of the face. - 7 - It is clear from the appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution that the statement of the complainant has not been fully corroborated by Anju Bala accompanying her on all material particulars in regard to the part played by each of the accused in inflicting injuries or the demand made at that time. The person who rescued the complainant, namely, Reshmo Devi and her son Pappu, who were the material witnesses, have not been examined by the prosecution. The relations in between the parties were strained as per the evidence and as a result of which divorce had taken place between the complainant and her husband, who is not an accused in this case. However, his family members are accused persons. The learned trial Court had clearly referred to the evidence and the law that every injury inflicted and cruelty meted out cannot be said to be attracting the provisions of Section 498-A IPC until and unless these are with a view to cause harassment to the woman that she may be compelled to commit suicide or connected with a demand of dowry, which fact does not stand proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The mere fact that the evidence of the complainant could have been believed by the court below is not sufficient ground to hold that the view taken by the learned trial Court is incorrect since the discussion made by the learned trial Court does not lead to the inference that the said view was perverse calling for an interference by this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited in an appeal against acquittal and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. October 23, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.