1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 16 & 286 of 2000 Reserved on: 28.03.2008. Decided on: April Ist,2008. ____________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.Appeal No.16 of 2000 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Om Parkash …Respondent. 2. Cr.Appeal No.286 of 2000. State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Parveen Kumar and others. ..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. Respondents were tried and acquitted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that due to the in-complete particulars of respondents in the title of the appeal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the State was mis-led in filing appeal No.16 of 2000 only against respondent Om Parkash and not others, thus realizing that there were two other Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 accused, appeal No.286 of 2000 was filed against all the respondents assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal. The prosecution case is that the marriage of Smt. Harish (PW1) was arranged by Deepak Bhandari, a radio announcer, with respondent Parveen Kumar which was solemnized on 16-12-1988, as per the Hindu rites. The complainant is an employee of P&T Department and Parveen Kumar respondent is employed in Government of India Press. During this wed-lock, she gave a birth to a son. It is alleged that for about six months after their marriage, both of them remained very well but there-after, their relations got strained and she is alleged to have been given beatings. She was turned out of her house. She made the complaint to the Police but it was compromised. Thereafter, she started living with her husband. It is also alleged that on the pretext of taking her to `Mata Vaishno Devi Temple’ on 29-5-1992, she was taken to Hoshiarpur where she was given beatings. On 13-7-1992, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house along with her child by her mother-in-law Shanti Devi and sister-in-law Shoba Devi respondents. It was further alleged that she was maltreated by the respondents and thereafter she was compelled to file the FIR Exhibit PW4/B. The police got her medically examined and her MLC is Exhibit PW5/A. She also relied upon the affidavit of her husband Exhibit PW9/A filed in the proceedings under Section 107 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby he had given undertaking to keep her well. The Police investigation revealed it an offence under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents, accordingly presented the challan for their prosecution before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court finding a prima facie case against the respondents, charge-sheeted each of them for the offences, aforesaid, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 To prove their case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense of the respondents was that her father had divorced her mother who later married one constable named Sucha Singh, who was convicted in a case of murder by the trial Court and his appeal was dismissed by the High Court. In order to file the appeal in the Supreme Court, the complainant as well as her mother Rukmani demanded money from the respondents. When the respondents did not make the payment to them, then complainant and her family members, to extract money, filed the present case against them on false grounds. At the end of the trial, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court on the grounds that the complaint was filed with due deliberations with her brother and father to implicate the respondents. There was no eye witness of the alleged beatings and the prosecution could not prove the alleged incident in accordance with law. Nand Kishore (DW2) who is alleged to have got the case compromised inter-se the complainant and her husband, did not corroborate her version. Long ago, the complainant had taken away the dowry articles. It was not alleged even in the complaint that there was any demand of dowry. The previous report placed on the file during the trial had shown that their relations remained strained for some time and thereafter a compromise was arrived at. In nut shell, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the offence of cruelty and beatings as alleged could not be proved in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully re-appraised the evidence on record. The marriage inter-se complainant and Parveen Kumar respondent was solemnized on 16-12-1988. She gave birth to a son on 4-1-1990. According to her, (PW1), the first dispute arose between her and her 4 husband on 24-5-1990 regarding which she made a complaint in Police Station, Boileauganj which was later-on compromised at the behest of Nand Kishore Mehta (DW2) who was the Councilor and Niranjan Dass (not examined). Thereafter on 16-7-1990, she was again given beatings and was turned out of the matrimonial house. Her dowry articles were kept by the respondents in their house. Again she lodged FIR in Police Station but the Police did not take any action and she filed a petition in the High Court on 20-8-1990. She got the custody of the child and she was sent with her husband to her matrimonial house. Again, her husband started threatening her as a result of which, she filed a complaint before the Court of S.D.M. but again, the proceedings ended in compromise. Thereafter, she started living in a separate room in the house of her husband. The respondents started threatening her. Then again, she lodged the complaint which also ended in compromise. Thereafter, her husband lived with her for about six months but he used to come late during the night. He did not take care of the child and then she filed the complaint before the Women’s Commission. On the pretext of taking her to Temple, her husband insisted her to take leave from the Department. On 29-5-1992, she was taken to Mata Vaishno Devi Temple and on return, she was left in the house of her sister-in-law where she was given beatings. On 12-7-1992, she was again given beatings and then she lodged the report in the Police Station. According to her,this incident was witnessed by neighbour Sucha Singh and her mother. In her cross-examination, she has denied the defense that she, in connivance with her mother, had tried to extract money from the respondents to file the appeal, against the conviction of Sucha Singh, the second husband of her mother, in the Supreme Court. However, she had admitted that all the dowry items were taken back by her in the presence of the Police. She was confronted with her complaint wherein the allegation regarding demand of dowry was not mentioned. She has stated that before 5 the marriage, she has been residing separate from her parents in the tenanted premises in Camley Bank. Her matrimonial house was located in the same vicinity where she and her mother were residing. According to her before 13-7-1992, she left her matrimonial house four times and in all four times, there was compromise. She re-joined the company of her husband on all occasion. She has further stated that when her husband had left residing with her father-in-law, that was the day, when both of them did not pull on well. She has denied that she had been abusing her husband Parveen Kumar when he used to come late and humiliated him. She has denied that on12-7-92 no beatings were given by the respondents and she lodged a report on 13-7-92 after consulting her father and brother. When she was given beatings, only Kalyan Chand (not examined) had come to the spot. She has denied that the respondents were un- necessarily harassed by her. PW2 is her brother Raj Kumar. According to him, his mother Rukmani (PW3) had sought the divorce from his father and thereafter she got married to Constable Sucha Singh. He did not know what was the apple of contention inter-se the complainant and her respondent husband but he had not witnessed any quarrel between them. Rukmani (PW3) is the mother of the complainant. She had stated in her cross-examination that she had not seen the complainant having been given beatings by the respondents. She has also admitted that her second husband Sucha Singh has been convicted by the High Court for the offence of murder and his appeal is pending in the Supreme Court but she denied that she or her daughter (PW1) had compelled the respondents to pay rupees 12,000/- to meet the expenses in appeal. According to Dr. Rajinder Kumar (PW5), there were some abrasions and tenderness on the knee joint and over the left pinna of the complainant which could be caused due to fall. 6 Rajinder Singh (PW8) is the Investigating Officer. According to him, the complainant did not hand over the blood stained clothes to him during the investigation. The respondents reside in a thickly populated area and he did not enquire about the alleged incident from the neighbours of the complainant. According to him, Parveen Kumar had also made the complaint that the complainant had torn off his clothes. However, he has stated that the alleged incident was witnessed by her mother Rukmani (PW3) and Sucha Singh. As already stated above Rukmani had denied having seen the alleged incident and Sucha Singh has not been examined. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that there is no allegation of dowry mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant and even according to her, the entire dowry articles were returned to her by the respondents long before. The incident which is alleged to have taken place on 12-7-92 was alleged to have been witnessed by Rukmani and Sucha Singh, which fact stand falsified or not substantiated. The mother of the complainant and the respondents are residing in the same vicinity which is thickly populated area. None of the neighbours were either enquired into by the police or produced to corroborate the version of the complainant. It appears that some sort of misunderstanding, followed by some bickering went on inter-se the complainant and her husband on some issue, which compelled Parveen Kumar to reside separately from his father in order to adjust the complainant, but even thereafter the behaviour of the complainant remained in-different towards him. She was allegedly humiliating Parveen Kumar at various occasions which became hurdle in bringing the normalcy in the matrimonial life. She also filed the complaint Exhibit DW1/A against her husband in his Department regarding the incident, alleged to have taken place on 12-7-92 in the house of her in-laws and not in the house of her sister-in-law at Hoshiarpur as alleged. This has made the very origin of 7 the complainant a suspect. Nand Kishore Councilor who is alleged to have got the matter compromised between the complainant and respondent has stated that there was no such dispute inter-se the parties nor he ever got the matter compromised. In these circumstances, the case against the respondents can not be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. On the re-appraisal of the evidence on record, for reasons aforesaid the offences charged are not proved as per law. Accordingly, the respondents are held entitled to the benefit of doubt. The conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are born out from the record and, therefore, calls for no interference. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon them at any time during the trial. (Surinder Singh) Judge. April Ist,2008. (bm)