IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 639 of 2002. Date of Decision: 8th March, 2010. State of Himachal Pradesh .. Appellant. Versus Raj Kumar and others .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma-II, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) . The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents recorded under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court. In short the prosecution story can be stated thus. Maya Devi was married to Raj Kumar in the month of December, 1994. Respondents Nikka Ram and Smt. Kala Devi are her parents-in-law. It is alleged that the respondents have been demanding dowry in the shape of television, sofa- set, almirah from her parents. In the month of September, 1995 she visited the house of her parents alongwith her husband Raj Kumar, where she was given beatings by her husband, thereafter she was also given beatings in the moth of July, 1996 and also on 4th August, 1996 by her mother-in-law and was turned out from the matrimonial house. Resultantly, she had to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - take shelter in the house of her parents. This was also the case of the complainant that she was threatened that she would be set on the fire or thrown in the canal. This untoward behaviour of the respondents made her to feel to commit suicide. After registering the FIR against the respondents, the police machinery set into motion. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the complainant were correct, as such, presented the Challan against the respondents under the aforesaid Sections. The respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted. They denied the guilt and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined the witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances which were attendant upon them. No evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted on the ground that the statements of the complainant and her witnesses are inconsistent and contradictory not inspiring confidence. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. On going through the evidence, there appears to be a personality conflict inter-se the complainant and the mother-in-law Kala Devi. In the proceedings before the Panchayat, Kala Devi stated to PW-7 Sharda Devi on a complaint filed by her, that the complainant had been using filthy language against her and her daughter. Her father-in-law also substantiated this fact as stated to her by his wife, which appears to have ignited the fuel inter-se the parties. I also find the averments made in the complaint are vague in nature. To substantiate her complaint, she also - 3 - examined PW-4 Nega Devi, who was already locked in litigation with the respondents. Therefore, her statement is capricious. As per the averments made in the complaint, complainant stated she was kept nicely for about 4/5 months by the respondents after the marriage, but according to her father, she was kept nicely for one year by them. Thereafter dispute started. Both these statements are irreconcilable. PW-9 Kamal Singh, Up-Pradhan has contradicted his statement made before the police, but he categorically stated that the respondents never demanded any dowry from the complainant or her parents. The complainant has also made the allegations that twice she aborted pregnancy because of the beatings of the respondents, but it is not understood as to why she did not make any complaint to any one including her parents. In view of above conflicting evidence, I do not find that there was any demand of dowry by the respondents from the complainant or her parents. Thus on strength of evidence led, I do not find that there was any justifiable ground to the complainant to feel unsafe in her matrimonial home as the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not met beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged from the bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the record. March 8, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.