IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 306/2001. Reserved on : 29.2.2008 Decided on: 7.3.2008. State of H.P. … … Appellant. Versus Om Parkash and another … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondents were prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 15-II/96 under sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, H.P. and were acquitted on 14.2.2001. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.2.2001. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial court that the complainant PW-1 Prem Latta was married to accused Om Prakash on 3.12.1992, as per Hindu Custom and Rites. The other accused Jai Devi is the mother-in-law of the complainant. The accused persons Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - being husband and mother-in-law of complainant Prem Latta started giving beatings and demanded dowry items i.e. T.V., Fridge and VCR. The complainant was given beatings by the accused persons on 20.11.1993 and 24.11.1993. Thereafter the complainant came to the house of her mother and she filed a complaint in the court, which was sent to the police for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan under sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused persons. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons were acquitted by the trial court on 14.2.2001. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had supported the judgment dated 14.2.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the case against the accused persons for committing offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant Prem Latta has not deposed that the accused persons threatened her to do away with her life. Now, the Court has to see whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Smt. Prem Latta (PW-1) has stated in the complaint Ex.PW-1/A that she was given beatings by the accused on 20.11.1993 and 24.11.1993, however, in her statement she has not mentioned about the beatings given to her on 20.11.1993. She was not - 3 - examined medically. She has also admitted that no blood oozed out of her body due to the beatings given by the accused. PW-2 Gupti Devi had stated that due to the beatings given by the accused, her daughter had received injuries and the blood had started oozing out from those injuries. PW-6 Ashok Kumar has stated that Prem Latta had agreed to live separately with accused Om Parkash. If Prem Latta was ready to live with her husband separately that means her relations with accused Om Prakash were cordial. It has come on record that an agreement Ex.P-1 was recorded between the parties. The statements of complainant Prem Latta and all the accused persons were recorded in the Court wherein they had admitted about entering into written agreement and had also put their signatures/thumb impression. The complainant had agreed to withdraw the case though no separate application for withdrawal of the case was filed by the A.P.P. As per the contents of agreement Ex.P-1 the complainant had decided to take back dowry articles and the accused had to make the payment of Rs. 12,500/- to the complainant. The complainant had admitted that as per the agreement she had taken away her dowry articles back to her maternal home. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. It has also come in the record that the matter was also referred to the Panchayat and allegations of demand of dowry were not mentioned before the Panchayat. If there had been any demand from the accused persons, the same would have been referred to by the complainant to the Panchayat. From the above discussion it is clear that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has rightly acquitted the respondent. - 4 - Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondent stand discharged. March 7, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) *Awasthi*. Judge.