IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 551 of 2000 Date of decision: 27.09.2010 _________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Balwant Singh & ors. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J (Oral). The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 14-N of 1998, acquitting the alleged accused-respondents under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in reference to FIR No. 156 of 1996 dated 25.05.1996. 2. Prosecution case is that the victim, Parveen Kumari (deceased), daughter of Ram Chander (PW-2), was married to Satbir 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... Singh (accused-respondent) and she was kept nicely for few months, however, after some time, the relation between the husband and wife become strained and members of the family of Satbir Singh, i.e., mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and Satbir Singh himself started taunting Parveen Kumari and started demanding dowry. On two occasions the matter was compromised. Even thereafter taunting and demand of dowry was not stopped. However, on 24.05.1996, at about 11:45 a.m., Parveen Kumari (deceased) expired due to 100% burn injuries. In this respect, FIR, Ex. PW-8/A was registered and case was investigated and the accused-respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Session Court. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses, whereas, accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. The prosecution in its endeavour to prove its case relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Ram Chander, father of the victim/deceased, and the letters written by Parveen Kumari (deceased), however, learned Sessions has found that these letters are formal letters and on none of the occasions any police report was lodged for any specific demand of dowry or for any specific beating. 5. None of the prosecution witnesses have ever seen the husband or any family member of Satbir Singh (husband of victim/deceased) giving beatings to Parveen Kumari (deceased). The independent witnesses have also not come forward to indicate specifically that how and when and in what manner the victim/deceased was maltreated or was given beating or was tortured ...3... and how the demand for dowry was made, consequent upon which the victim/deceased had died due to burn injuries. 6. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused- respondents. In these circumstances, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 27th September, 2010 (virender)