Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.449 of 2004. Judgment reserved on: 21.7.2011. Date of Decision: July 25, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Jatinder Singh and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. : Learned trial Court acquitted the respondents, on 23.10.2003 in Case No.119-1 of 2002/61-II of 2002, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, as such State felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal. 2. Complainant Seema Patial was married to respondent No.1 Jatinder Singh. Respondent No.2 Salochna Devi is her mother-in-law and respondent No.3 Harinder Singh her brother-in-law. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 6.12.2001. At that time, - 2 - her husband respondent No.1 was serving as Constable in Delhi Police. She made complaint Ext.PW1/A in writing to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 30.5.2002, on the grounds that after 3-4 days of her marriage, respondents started abusing and taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded `1,50,000/- for the treatment of the parents of respondent No.1. When she refused, all of them gave her beatings, but she kept on bearing all these atrocities to save the honour of her parents and never made any complaint to anyone. She alleged that when she became pregnant in the month of January, 2002, she started vomiting because of pregnancy. They imputed the allegations of bad character. On 20.1.2002, her father visited her matrimonial house. He was also abused and told him that she was a patient of epilepsy and not of a good character. It is also alleged that her husband informed her telephonically on 14.5.2002, he had married one Mamta. The above allegations were transformed into FIR Ext.PW1/A, which was investigated by the police. 3. Finding a prima-facie case on the evidence recorded during investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. They were - 3 - accordingly, charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences aforesaid. 4. Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State vehemently argued that there is positive evidence to prove the offences aforesaid. To substantiate his plea, he took me through the evidence on record and ventilated that the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as such it caused miscarriage of justice. 5. Contra, Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and on reappraisal of the evidence, I find that the acquittal of the respondents cannot be faulted with. 7. Complainant Seema Patial when examined as PW1 in the Court stated that the respondents imputed allegation of bringing less dowry and they started abusing her. According to her father PW2 Sher Singh, he provided everything as per list supplied by the respondents at the time of marriage. According to him, he could produce - 4 - the list, which was not produced. He also stated that w.e.f. 6.12.2001 to 20.1.2002, his daughter (PW1) visited his place four times, three times, her husband was with her, but on fourth time, his son had gone to invite her on the eve of ‘Lohri festival’ and he had stayed with his sister PW1 w.e.f. 14th to 20th January, 2002. PW2 stated that only on 13th January, 2002, when she visited him, he was informed by his daughter that the respondents were torturing her for not providing money, but he did not make any complaint to the Panchayat and also to Police. Further it is also surprising that to substantiate the version of PW1 as to why son of PW2, who had been with the complainant for about six days, was not examined. Though PW2 Sher Singh stated that he had informed PW3 Sansar Chand, about the alleged complaint and PW3 is alleged to have gone to the house of Seema Devi complainant, found her weeping and the respondents expressed their inability to provide food to her. He stated that the brother of the complainant was also with him and he had stayed for about 15 days. In that event also the examination of the brother of the complainant was must to depose as to what had happened and transpired to him when he was in the house of the respondents. - 5 - 8. Statement of PW2 father of the complainant stated that his daughter Seema was with him during Lohri festival, but PW3 Sansar Chand stated that he was also present during the ‘Lohri festival’ in the house of PW2 Sher Singh, but the complainant was not there, is a material contradiction. Further PW3 stated that the respondents did not raise any demand with respect to dowry in his presence, but he stated that when he visited Jatinder Singh at Delhi, his co-villagers told him that Jatinder Singh had married another woman. 9. PW4 Uma Watti also stated the same facts as deposed by PW1 and stated that the complainant was given beatings by the respondents. She was hospitalized, where she met her, which fact was not disclosed by the complainant. Even no medical certificate or admission record was produced to show, what was the reason for her hospitalization and even this witness was confronted regarding this fact with her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to this fact, which did not find mentioned therein. 10. PW5 Meena Kumari stated that though the respondents are their relatives, but she was not in visiting terms in their house but stated that she had seen Mamta - 6 - with respondent Jatinder Singh and on being asked, she disclosed that she was his wife and earlier to the said incident, she was not acquainted to Mamta. 11. PW6 Parshottam Singh did not support the prosecution case, as such he was declared hostile. However, he admitted that the mother of Jatinder Singh i.e. Smt. Salochna Devi was a heart patient and her husband had died and also stated that respondent Jatinder Singh had not solemnized another marriage. 12. PW7 Surinder Kumar is the Panchayat Secretary, he stated that there was no entry of the second marriage of Jatinder Singh in the Panchayat record. 13. PW8 Madan Kant Sharma, the then SHO, investigated the case. He did not visit the spot but verbally examined the complainant. He did not think it proper to record her statement in view of her written complaint and he also did not make any inquiry from the parents of Mamta with respect to the marriage with respondent Jatinder Singh. Thus, his investigation remained lopsided. 14. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, although it appears that there has been some - 7 - misunderstanding between the complainant and her husband Jatinder Singh, who was an employee of Police Department at Delhi, but no efforts were made to reconcile by anyone and took ugly turn. Complainant made certain allegations which did not even find mentioned in the complaint and even for that, no statement was recorded by the police during the investigation, thus there was exaggeration. She alleged beating and torture four times. For the first three times, she did not disclose it to anyone, but on fourth occasion, she made written complaint to the police also with respect to the second marriage. The appraisal of her testimony shows that the allegations are general in nature. There is also no reference in the complaint that on 20.1.2002, she was shunted out of the matrimonial house by the respondents alongwith her father and PW3 and then she was brought back. There is also considerable delay in making the complaint to the police which stands not explained. Learned trial Court rightly took note of the exaggeration and embellishment which appeared in the statements of the complainant. Further the Investigating Officer also did not try to visit the matrimonial village of the complainant nor enquired about the conduct of the - 8 - respondents in the vicinity, rather he chose to record the statements of the witnesses whoever were brought in the Police Station by the complainant and were interested witnesses. The allegations about the alleged torturing and cruelty could not be proved of the nature as is required under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the evidence with respect to second marriage is also quite shaky, unnatural and not confidence inspiring. Further, there is no proof of solemnizing second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the parties, which is sine-quo-non to prove bigamy, as held in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh [AIR 1971 SC 1153]. Otherwise also, there is no cogent evidence that even Mamta had lived with respondent Jatinder Singh as his wife. Thus, the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code stands not proved. 15. In view of the aforesaid situation, the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned trial Court is borne out from the record, therefore cannot be interfered with. The appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. 16. The respondents are discharged of their bails bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 17. Send down the records. July 25, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.