IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 289 of 2001 Reserved on: 26.02.2010 Date of decision: 09.03.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Parkash Chand … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rakesh Dogra vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. : This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, dated 29.12.2000, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 498-A and 323 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.2.1996 Investigating Officer S.H.O. Police Station, Talai, recorded the statement of one Smt. Manorma Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, she alleged that she was married to respondent three years ago and after one year, he started maltreating 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 her and quarrelling with her. She alleged that her husband was working as Amritsar in a hotel. In February, 1995, her husband took her to Amritsar and there also started giving her beatings and maltreating her. She wrote a letter to her parents and her brother Joginder came to Amritsar and she came back to her parents’ house on 29.6.1995. She alleged that since her husband was working outside and her mother-in-law was working at another place, she could not live alone and came back to her parents. She alleged that today they all were sitting in the house of her father and there was a noise outside at 8.00 P.M. and she saw that two persons were standing outside. One of them demanded water and her sister took a water jug and she accompanied her. She further alleged that as soon as she opened the door, her sister was attacked with fists and the other persons also attacked her with legs and fists. At this moment, the respondent also came inside the room and started giving beatings to her and her sister. They raised an alarm and her parents and other members came there and rescued them and her husband and two companions ran away from the place. She could not identify those persons and on her statement, the case was registered by the police under Sections 452, 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3 It was submitted that the prosecution case stood proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution and as such, the findings to the contrary are liable to be reversed. Insofar as the charge under Section 498-A IP.C. is concerned, the learned trial Court had rightly observed that on the basis of the evidence of the complainant PW-3 Manorma Devi, PW-6 Asha Devi, PW-7 Chandu Ram and PW-8 Rajinder, it cannot be said that the charge in regard to harassment for the purpose of dowry stands substantiated from their evidence. Even in the statement made by the complainant to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. there were no specific allegations made in regard to harassment for the purpose of getting dowry or connected with it and the learned trial Court had also observed that the letters allegedly written by the complainant had also not been proved according to law. Therefore, the learned trial Court had come to a conclusion that the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. does not stand substantiated. No charge under Section 452 I.P.C. was framed. Coming to the charge under Section 323 I.P.C., it has been observed by the learned trial Court from the statement of PW-3 Manorma Devi that she was not having any injury and there was reference to pain only. While PW-1 Tara Devi, sister of the complainant, as per the MLC which has been proved in evidence as PW2/C, there was lacerated wound and second injury was abrasion on the left arm. In cross-examination, she came up with the plea that she was inflicted the blow with a knife, which was never the case of the prosecution and the Medical Officer has referred to the injury with a blunt weapon and knife cannot be termed as a blunt weapon. 4 PW-3 Manorma Devi had referred to the injuries on the person of Premi Devi having been caused in the act of rescuing her from respondent. While PW-5 Premi Devi, herself has stated that she received the injuries in the act of rescuing when her husband was caught hold of by the respondent. There were no medical MLC of other injured persons, if any, to prove in evidence and these do not stand substantiated from any evidence. From the above discussion, it is clear that there was no cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution before the learned trial Court to prove the charge as against the respondent under Section 323 I.P.C. and on the basis of the evidence produced and the strained relation in between the complainant and the respondent, the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, which findings cannot be termed as perverse on the basis of the evidence. 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 respondent shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 09, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5