HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 373 of 1997 Decided on: 25.3.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Surinder Kumar and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Yudhvir Singh, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant/ State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 7.10.1996, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1.6.1994, at 1.30 p.m., a report was lodged with the police by PW-1 Saroj Kumari in which she alleged that she was married with respondent No.1 on 5.3.1992. The parties lived together and one daughter was also born from this wedlock. It was alleged that after 5-6 months of the marriage, respondent No.1 started maltreating the complainant at the instance of his elder brother’s wife, respondent No.3, Veena ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Devi since they had illicit relations. It was also alleged that this maltreatment continued for some time. The complainant alleged that on 24.5.1994, respondents No.1 to 3 gave beatings to her and she told this incident to one Saran Dass on 25.5.1994, who refused to listen to the complainant. It was further alleged that on 27.5.1994 she went to her parents house and told these facts to her mother, father and brothers, who all went to the house of her in-laws on the same day. Her husband was not present in the house and her Jethani gave abuses to them and when her husband came back, he tried to snatch the girl. It was further alleged that her husband and Jethani attempted to give beatings to her also. On this report, an FIR was registered by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents. The learned trial Court framed charge against the respondents, as detailed above, and tried them leading to their acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the statement of the complainant Saroj Kumari, who has been examined as PW-1, it is clear that she made some allegations, in regard to the occurrence took place on 24.5.1994, as against the respondents, but when she appeared in the witness box as PW- 1, she has not stated that anything happened on 24.5.1994. She only stated that on 24.5.1994, she left her in-laws house and came to her parents house. She stated in general that the accused persons wanted to kill her and also stated about the illicit relations in between respondent No.1 and his - 3 - brother’s wife respondent No.3. She further stated that her parents and others took her to the house of her in-laws where her Jethani used bad words against them and did not allow her to stay there. Thereafter, she came back and lodged the report on 27.5.1994, though the report is dated 1.6.1994. She admitted that FIR Ext.PW-1/A was registered on the basis of her statement. It is clear from a perusal of her statement itself that she has not mentioned anything that happened on 24.5.1994 nor about the maltreatment given to her by the respondents on any account including dowry etc. In view of the facts of the case that the complainant herself has not stated in regard to the maltreatment meted out to her, the statements of PW-2 Meeta Devi, PW-3 Ahilya Devi and PW-5 Surinder Kumar, who corroborate the statement of the complainant to some extent, are not material since they also have not mentioned the dates of beatings, if any, given to the complainant. On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove their case and the statement of the complainant herself was sufficient to show that she has not supported the assertions made by her in the complaint lodged with the police, which are also not substantiated by other witnesses examined by the prosecution. The net result of the above discussion is that there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the respondents and thus, the final findings recorded by - 4 - the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. March 25, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge