IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. : 59 of 2004 Judgment reserved on: 23.6.2010 Date of Decision : August 10, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Sanjeev Kumar and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/State. For the respondents : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed in the year 2001, the accused persons were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 17.10.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 90-II of 2001, titled as State versus Sanjeev Kumar and another, the accused persons stands acquitted of the charged offence. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Smt. Anita Devi (PW-1) was married to Sanjeev Kumar (accused No. 1) on 14.4.2001. Immediately after the marriage accused No. 1 and his mother Smt. Soma Devi (accused No. 2) started maltreating the complainant and demanding dowry articles such as television, fridge etc. PW-1 could not suffer both the accused persons for long and as such returned to her parental house. On 23.9.2001 accused No. 1 demanded television, fridge and Rs. 1 lac from the complainant in the presence of her parents and Sh. Deep Raj (PW-5) and Sh. Sagar Chand. However on 28.9.2001 the matter was got compromised in Gram Panchayat, Sagoor and compromise (Ext. PA) was reduced into writing. But on 1.10.2001, the accused persons again gave beatings to the complainant and shunted her out of the matrimonial house. The complainant on the next day lodged report with the police on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 105/01 (Ext. PW 1/A) dated 2.10.2001 under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. Investigation was carried out by ASI Mool Raj (PW-4). With the completion of investigation the challan was presented in the Court for trial and the accused persons were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined six witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. The defence taken is that of denial and false implication. 3 The Court below acquitted the accused persons of the charged offence. Hence the present appeal. 4. That the parties had compromised the matter on 28.9.2001 is evident from the deed of compromise (Ext. PA). The compromise does not anywhere state about the allegations of cruelty or dowry demand meted out by the accused persons. Compromise had been effected with the intervention of the Pradhan Sh. Ghuman Ram (PW-3). Now this witness in Court does not state anything qua the beatings or dowry demand as alleged by the prosecution. The parties were married on 14.4.2001. The compromise took place on 28.9.2001. If the alleged dowry demand and the maltreatment were true, the complainant party would have definitely reported the matter to the concerned authorities, friends, acquaintances or neighbours. Lack of the same renders the prosecution version to be doubtful. 5. Further Sh. Deep Raj (PW-5) does not state anything against the accused. He has clarified that accused No. 1 never raised any demand in his presence. Now Sh. Ghuman Ram (PW-3) has not stated anything against the accused. 6. Smt. Anita Devi (PW-1) has narrated the prosecution version but in my considered view her sole testimony does not inspire confidence. The version of Smt. Giano Devi (PW-2) mother of PW-1 is also to the said effect. Her version also does not inspire confidence. According to them accused No. 1 had demanded fridge and the matter was reported to the Up-pradhan and Ward Member 4 in whose presence also demand was made. Now this witness admits that no demand for dowry prior to the marriage was ever raised by the accused persons. It is not as though parties were engaged and immediately married. The absence of any dowry demand or beatings in the deed of compromise only renders their statements to be unbelievable and doubtful. The version of these two witnesses in fact stands falsified by the version of PW-5 in relation to the dowry demand. 7. The prosecution has not associated any witness from the locality to prove the guilt of the accused. The possibility of the complainant overzealously filing the complaint, not based on true facts also cannot be ruled out. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt to prove that the husband or his relative has subjected the complainant to cruelty by any willful conduct of a nature which was likely to drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury or damage to her life or limb or has caused harassment with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The accused have rebutted the presumption of dowry demand. 8. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted 5 into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 10, 2010 (PK)