HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 1997 DECIDED ON: 07.04.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant Versus Mohar Singh and others ………Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.R. K. Gauram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, Judge (Oral). This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. dated 10.10.1996, vide which the respondents were acquitted from the charges framed against them under Sections 498-A/506/504 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Sh. Bhagwan Dass had moved an application at the police Station Barsar, against the accused persons 1alleging that about three years back, he had got married his daughter Neelam-Kumari according to Hindu rites and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - custom. It was alleged that after one year of the marriage the respondents started beating her daughter for having not brought in dowry articles such as colour-television and fridge and also turned-her out from their house. On these allegations a complaint was registered at police Station under Sections 498-A/506/504 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the respondents and after conclusion of the investigation the challan was filed before the trial Court who tried the respondents leading to acquittal, resulting in filing of the present appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On the perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is clear that the complaint was lodged by the father of Neelam-Kumari who had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case but he himself had learnt the facts from his daughter Smt. Neelam Kumari. Therefore, Smt. Neelam Kumari who had been examined as PW-2 her statement is relevant. On a perusal of the same, it shows that she had made only general allegations in regard to demand of dowry articles, beatings etc. and has not given any date, time and year as to when the accused persons had demanded dowry articles and by which of the accused persons. The statement of Smt. Neelam Kumari, PW-2, is general in nature and no specific time, date and year has been given in the statement made by Smt. Neelam Kumari - 3 - and, therefore, no inference can be drawn as to when the demand was made and when cruelty was meted out. Learned trial Court has made reference to case law that these allegations should have been specific giving the date, month and year of occurrence so that the Court can conclude if such an act was committed by the respondents or not. 5. In view of the above, there is nothing on record to hold that the findings of the learned trial Court are perverse. The prosecution had failed to prove its case and the findings of the trial Court cannot be termed as perverse, calling for interference by this Court. 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), Judge April 7, 2010 *BRB*