IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 416/2004 Date of decision: 1.8.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Munshi Ram & Ors. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court. Hence the present appeal by the State. 2. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. Prosecutrix was married to respondent Shri Jai Lal on 5.5.1999. It is alleged that for few months, she was kept nicely, but thereafter she was being maltreated by the respondents. From the said wed- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - lock, she gave birth to a male child. The allegation against the respondents is that they had been subjecting her to cruelty by giving her beatings for bringing less dowry. It is specifically alleged that on 16.4.2002 at about 8 p.m. she was given beatings by her father-in-law, namely Munshi Ram as such she informed about the incident to Up-Pradhan (PW2) Devi Ram and her father PW4 Bhuri Singh. 3. The matter was reported to the police in terms of her statement Ext. PW1/A recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which ultimately culminated into FIR Ext. PW5/A. She was got medically examined from PW3 Dr. Jyoti. On her medical examination, the doctor noticed simple injuries on her person in the shape of tenderness on the right side of the chest bruises over left side abdomen, bleeding through right nostril with tenderness and also the tenderness over front upper teeth coupled with abrasion over right ear. To this effect, the doctor issued the medico legal certificate Ext. PW3/A. 4. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ext. PW5/B and recoded the statements of the witnesses. - 3 - 5. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate for the trial of the respondents. 6. Finding a prima facie case against the respondents, for the offences aforesaid, they were accordingly charge sheeted. They abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Nagarju Devi, PW2 Devi Ram, PW3 Dr. Jyoti, PW4 Bhuri Singh and PW5 HC Santokh Singh, Investigating officer. 8. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon each of them. They maintained their innocence and according to them, it was a false case against them. 9. No evidence in defence was led. 10. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the ground that PW1 Nagarju Devi materially improved the initial version Ext. PW1/A and also that there have been other material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. - 4 - 11. Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court appreciated the evidence on record in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner and it also discarded the testimony of Smt. Nagarju Devi without any reasonable grounds and further that she deposed that due to the beatings by the respondents, her pregnancy got terminated. Thus, prosecution witnesses have made very cogent and reliable evidence with respect to the offences charged which were conveniently ignored by the learned trial Court. 12. Shri Atul Jhingan Advocate, for the respondents supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 13. On giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, in my opinion, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are borne out from the evidence on record. The initial story which has been propounded by PW1 Smt. Nagarju Devi is absolutely different from to which she deposed during the trial in the Court. In Ext. PW1/A initial version, there is no mention that the respondents gave beatings to her and her pregnancy got terminated. Even there is absolutely - 5 - nothing on record to substantiate this fact that she was carrying a pregnancy which got terminated by beatings being given by the respondents. She was got medically examined on 16.4.2002 from PW3 Dr. Jyoti. She also did not make any reference with respect to the aforesaid fact either in the MLC or during the trial of the case. Further, the complainant attributed the alleged beatings having been given by her father-in-law in the state of intoxication in the statement Ext. PW1/A without making any reference to other respondents, whereas in the statement before the Court she had materially deviated from this version. She also stated that with respect to the beatings given to her she had informed her uncle Mast Ram and her parents. Pertinently, Mast Ram has not been examined in order to lend strength to her version and also when confronted with her statement aforesaid coupled with the supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the fact of giving beatings to her on account of bringing less dowry is not found mentioned. Rather in the supplementary statement she stated that she had left her ornaments at the place of her parents and the respondents insisted upon her to bring it back - 6 - and that was the reason for giving beatings to her. There is only self serving statement of PW1 with respect to beatings alleged to have been given not by the respondents but only by her father-in-law for the reason which is different as deposed by her during the trial, causing a dent in prosecution case and also lacking probity. 14. On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid, in my opinion, the offences charged are not proved in accordance with law. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record which requires no interference. The appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed. 15. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them, at any time during the proceedings of this case. August 1, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.