IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 542 of 2003 Date of decision: 08.09.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Ram Asra … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Una, dated 31.7.2003, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 I.P.C. was accepted and the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.12.1997, a complaint was lodged with the police by complainant Smt. Raj Rani that she is married to respondent for the last about 7 years. She alleged that on the previous night, her husband gave her beatings with ‘Bhupna’ and also made allegations in regard to maltreatment by her husband and other members of the family. On this 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent and other members of his family. The learned trial Court framed charge against all the 5 accused persons under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and the learned trial Court held the respondent guilty for the offences mentioned above and convicted and sentenced him. However, on appeal, conviction was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. Hence, the present appeal filed by the State. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses to substantiate its case. The most material witnesses can be said to be the complainant and her other relatives examined by the prosecution. A perusal of the statement of complainant as PW-1 shows that she had made general allegations in regard to the cruelty and did not attribute any particular reason to the respondent for the cruelty. She did not state any words which may have been used by the respondent in causing her cruelty, except stating about one occurrence pertaining to 15.12.1997 or 16.12.1997, on which date she was given beatings by the respondent. Her other relatives, namely, father PW-2 Dalip Singh, maternal uncle PW-3 Atma Ram and PW-4 Ravinder Kumar, from the village and brother-in-law of the complainant, have not stated anything material in regard to the maltreatment at any time or cruelty meted out to her by the respondent and on what ground. 5. Apart from the above, the complainant is specific that she was given one blow with ‘Bhupan’ over her head. She stated that she 3 was given one blow with ‘Bhupan’ and her husband at that time was having dagger in his hand and gave a threat to her. In the report lodged with the police, she had alleged that one blow was given over the head with ‘Bhupan’ and gave beating with a darat in the hand of the respondent. However, in Court she did not state about the darat being in the hand of the respondent or any blow having been given with the darat and rather she stated that he was having a dagger in his hand and threat was given. Thus, she attributes only one injury with ‘Bhupan’ over her head, but the medical evidence consisting of testimony of PW-7 Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj shows that there were three injuries on the person of the complainant/injured, namely, (i) one injury over the scalp, (ii) bruise mark over right buttock and (iii) complaints of pain over right forearm. The complainant/injured had never stated that apart from a blow with ‘Bhupan’ over her head, she was also given blows with legs, fist and there would not be any bruise mark over the buttock or complaints of pain over right forearm as noticed by the Medical Officer. Therefore, the oral evidence does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence and as such, it cannot be relied upon. 6. Apart from the above, the learned trial Court had also referred to the testimony of PW-7 Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj, who had fixed the time of injuries within a period 6 to 12 hours and, therefore, it does not tally with the complaint lodged by the complainant that she received the beatings in the alleged time on 16.12.1997, as stated by her in Court on 15.12.1997 and her medical examination was conducted on 17.12.1997 at 4.00 P.M. and this period does not tally with the period or the date given by her when she is alleged to have 4 sustained these injuries. These injuries were not sustained at the time stated by her, since it does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned trial Court had also discussed the evidence in regard to the contradictions in date, since in the report lodged with the police, she had stated that she was given beatings on 16.12.1997 and the report was lodged on 17.12.1997, but in Court she was specific that she got the injury on 15.12.1997 and the report was lodged on 16.12.1997. These contradictions had weighed heavily in the mind of learned trial Court in disbelieving the version given by the complainant. 7. Apart from the above, it has come up in the testimony of PW-4 Ravinder Kumar that while crossing the house of the complainant, he noticed that the respondent was giving beating with ‘Bhupan’ . However, his statement does not inspire confidence, since in case he has noticed the injury being inflicted on the person of the complainant, he would have taken steps to rescue her or lodge report with the police or Panchayat, which was not done by him, therefore, his statement does not inspire confidence. In regard to the complaint lodged with the Panchayat 4-5 days prior to the occurrence as per the statement of PW-6 Smt. Tripta Devi, it was only in regard to the claim for maintenance and not in regard to maltreatment. In case, she was maltreated by the respondent, she must have made such allegations in the report Ext. PW1/A lodged with the Panchayat. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution was neither cogent nor reliable and it suffered from various contradictions and infirmities and as such, was 5 not rightly believed by the learned Appellate Court in acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him. The final findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from any perversity to call for an interference by this Court. 9. 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 ), September 08, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6