IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2002. Judgment reserved on :23.4.2009. Date of decision: 28.4.2009. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Hans Raj ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The respondent was prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 324 IPC but was acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar in case No. 67-II/1998 on 26.11.2001. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Krishna Devi complainant on 5.12.1997 got registered FIR Ex.PA at Police Station, Jogindernagar. She reported that on 4.12.1997 at about 6.00 p.m. at Village Lower Chauntra, the respondent sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothes and put her on fire due to which she sustained superficial burn injuries which were simple in nature when examined by PW-6 _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 Dr. M.K. Rana vide MLC Ex.PW-6/A and thus treated the complainant with cruelty. The investigating officer made recoveries of shirt, shawl as well as empty container of kerosene oil, site plan Ex.PW-9/A was prepared. On completion of investigation, challan under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC was presented against the respondent. He was charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hence this appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has mis-construed, mis-interpreted the evidence and has erred in acquitting the respondent. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment is a reasoned judgment. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment and he has supported the same. 4. PW-1 Krishna Devi was examined on 18.8.1999 and she has stated that she was married to respondent 14 years ago and have two children from his loins. About two years ago, she had come to her house and the respondent had altercation with her and threw kerosene oil and put her on fire, her neck was burnt. No one else was present in the house. On the next day, she narrated the incident to Bimla and Padma and thereafter, she lodged the FIR Ex.PA. She was medically examined. She produced the clothes to the police. In cross-examination, 3 she has stated that her clothes were not burn in the fire, the fire was put out with water. There are many houses in the village. There was a marriage in the village on the date of the incident and many people had come on that date in the marriage. She denied that she had earlier left the house several times. PW-2 Garib Dass has stated that container Ex.P-1, clothes Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 were handed over by the complainant to police vide memo Ex.PB. PW-3 Nittu aged 12 years has stated that about two years ago his father Hans Raj had sprinkled kerosene oil on his mother and thereafter, put her on fire with burning stick. In cross-examination, he has stated that he lives with her mother, his mother once left the house and had gone to Pathankot, at that time he was looked after by respondent. He was told by his mother about the statement to be given. He has stated that on many occasions, his mother leaves the house. 5. PW-4 Padma has stated that on 5.12.1997 in the morning Krishna came to her and asked medicine from her. She did not notice any injury on her person, she advised her to go to hospital. She did not support the prosecution and was cross-examined. In cross- examination conducted by the prosecution she has reiterated that she had not seen any burn marks on the neck of Krishna, who did not tell anything to her. The police did not enquire from her, portion A to A of mark ‘X’ is wrong. The prosecution had given up Bimla Devi. 6. PW-6 Dr. M.K. Rana has stated that he examined Krishna Devi on 5.12.1997 at about 1.15 p.m. and issued MLC Ex.PW- 6/A and found superficial burn injuries on the person of Krishna. PW-7 Mehtabi Devi is the mother of complainant. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that respondent used to ill-treat Krishna but has stated that she does not know at present where Krishna was residing. 4 In cross-examination, she has stated that she had never seen accused giving beatings to Krishna. She has stated that on her own Krishna moves freely here and there. PW-8 Shakuntla Devi has stated that Krishna is her younger sister. She did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile and was cross-examined. She denied having made portion A to A of Ex.PW-8/A. Krishna had not met her for the last two years. In cross-examination, she has stated that after the marriage, Krishna lived happily with respondent and she never had any complaint against respondent. PW-9 Jaisi Ram is the Investigating Officer. 7. PW-1 Krishna Devi complainant has stated that when respondent had thrown kerosene oil on her clothes and burn her at that time no other person was present in the house. Therefore, PW-3 Nittu son of the parties cannot be believed that respondent had thrown kerosene oil on the clothes of complainant on the relevant date and thereafter burnt her. Moreover, PW-3 has stated that his mother had already made him to understand about the statement to be made in the court, it means PW-3 is a tutored witness in addition to a child witness. It is not safe to rely upon his statement. The complainant has admitted that on the date of incident, there was a marriage in the village and many people had come to attend the marriage. But surprisingly, no such person was examined by the prosecution who attended the marriage on that date. The case of the complainant is that kerosene oil was sprinkled on her and thereafter, she was burnt by respondent. But nothing has been pointed that in fact clothes of the complainant were actually burnt. The complainant has stated that she narrated the incident to Bimla and Padma. PW-4 Padma has not supported the prosecution and even in cross-examination nothing was extracted by the prosecution which can be relied by the prosecution. Bimla was given up by the prosecution. 5 PW-6 Dr. M.K.Rana in MLC Ex.PW-6/A has noticed smell of kerosene oil on her scalp and nape of the neck. He has also noticed burning of hair band at places. But he has not noticed any burnt clothes on the person of the complainant. PW-6 in his statement in the Court has also not stated that clothes of complainant were burnt. The prosecution has not explained why the clothes of the complainant were not burnt when it is the case of the complainant that kerosene oil was sprinkled on the clothes and thereafter respondent burnt her with burning stick. This creates suspicion in the prosecution story. PW-7 Mehtabi Devi mother of the complainant and PW-8 Shakuntla sister of the complainant have not supported the prosecution. PW-8 has stated that complainant never complaint to her regarding the ill-treatment of respondent. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment, the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate does not emerge from the evidence on record. No case for interference is made out. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. April 28, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.