IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.529 of 2004. Judgment reserved on 23rd September, 2011. Date of Decision: 28th September, 2011. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Neeraj Maheshwari and others ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. The respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the State felt aggrieved hence filed the present appeal. 2. PW4 Anita was married to accused Neeraj Maheshwari on 30.5.1995. Her husband (accused- respondent No.1) was P.T.I. and she was a J.B.T. Teacher. Two children were born from this wedlock. Accused- respondent No.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - whereas respondent No.3 is her sister-in-law, who stands married in 1998 and is settled in her matrimonial home. (ii) It is alleged that in the months of April and October, 1997, the respondents asked the complainant to bring `10,000/- on both these occasions from her parents for starting the construction in the village Majra. When she expressed her inability to do so, she was tortured and maltreated. The second allegation is that at the time of settlement of marriage of respondent Anjana, they demanded ` 30,000/-. When she refused, she was assaulted. Thirdly, it is alleged that in the month of November, 2000, the respondents had dragged her from the house and thrown her in front of a moving truck on the road. According to the complainant, she tolerated all this torture believing that the respondents will mend their ways. (iii) In January, 2001, she was made to live separately in a rented house and on 17.10.2001, around 9.00 p.m., the respondents came to her house and told her to manage ` 2,00,000/-, as her husband intended to go to abroad. She was also given - 3 - merciless beatings and ultimately took shelter in the parental house. (iv) On 19.10.2001, a written complaint was given to the Additional S.P., which was sent to the Police Station concerned for its enquiry/investigation on the basis thereof FIR was lodged under the aforesaid Section and on completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 3. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court, hence the present appeal. 4. Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not evaluate the evidence on record in the right perspective and further that the factum of cruelty stands proved. Whereas, Shri Rajesh Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 5. I have reappraised the evidence on record. 6. To prove an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is obliged to prove that: - 4 - (i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment, (ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of the husband, (iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to drive her (a) to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; or (iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (2) on account of failure by such woman or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand. 7. The initial burden to prove that the accused had subjected the woman to cruelty is on the prosecution. 8. Precisely, one of the ingredients that the respondents had coerced the complainant to meet the unlawful demand and such cruelty is with a view to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical. 9. In the instant case, even if the allegations made are admitted on its face, the amount of `10,000/- was demanded for the construction of the house, `30,000/- - 5 - for meeting the expenses on account of marriage of respondent Anjana it was to seek the help, therefore, it would not fall within the ambit of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code nor it can be said to be unlawful. But the complainant also alleged beatings on account of refusal to meet the demand, which on the scrutiny of the evidence, is not proved to be correct or it could not be proved in accordance with law. 10. In so far as the third demand of `2,00,000/- to send her husband to foreign country is concerned, the same stands contradicted in the statement of the complainant herself, as according to her, this demand was raised in January, 2001 to meet the expenses of sending the husband of respondent No.3 aboard and that for not meeting this demand she was given beatings, it was then she took shelter in the house of her parents. This is a material contradiction which goes to the root of the case and raising a doubt in its truthfulness. 11. Further, in cross-examination the complainant stated that she did not disclose to police that she was dragged from her house and thrown on the road in front of a moving truck. She also stated having given beatings to her, but even this statement remains unsubstantiated in - 6 - absence of corroborative evidence from independent and reliable source. She also admitted that the marriage of respondent Anjana was solemnized on 17.6.1998, whereas the complaint with respect to raising the demand of `30,000/- as aforesaid was allegedly made in 2001 for which contradiction no explanation has been offered. 12. The brother of the complainant PW5 Brijesh Goel, stated that in the year 1997 he came to know that his sister was assaulted by the respondents and they demanded dowry, i.e., `10,000/- for the construction of house, `30,000/- for purchasing the dowry articles of respondent No.3 and `2,00,000/- for sending the husband of the complainant to foreign country, but, however, from the statements of the complainant as well as PW5, it also transpires that the complainant was suffering from tuberculosis and was being medically treated from a doctor at Vikasnagar. The complainant was suffering from a contiguous disease. Therefore, she was kept aloof from the family which appears to be caused annoyance to her. Further, even Brijesh Goel, her brother, stated that the complainant never told him regarding the injuries - 7 - having been received by her and no such demand for money was made in his presence. 13. PW6 Sanjeev Kumar is a neighbourer of the complainant, residing at a distance of 300 meters away. According to him, respondents had maltreated the complainant, but he did not inform police at any point of time. The aforesaid complaint is stated to have been moved by the complainant on 19.10.2001 and it is the case of the respondents that it was got drafted by the brother of the complainant in order to harass them, whereas she is proved to be present in her School on that day, as per the statement of DW2 Kamla Sharma, Head- Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Kiarada, where the complainant was posted. She categorically stated that on 19.10.2001 the complainant was present in the School and she had marked her presence. 14. PW1 Joginder Singh is a chance witness, PW2 Chander Parkash is also a neighbourer. He stated that the respondents had given beatings to the complainant on the alleged day, but he never made the complaint to the police. PW3 Ram Singh stated that on 17.10.2001 around 9.30 p.m. there was an exchange of hot words between the accused and the complainant and she was - 8 - also given beatings by her husband. He also stated that Police reached the spot, but his statement was not recorded. He further stated that respondent Anjana did not reside there. Even otherwise from the record, it is evident that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1998. The allegations made above are wild in nature. Neither these are related to dowry demand nor alleged beatings are stated to be for bringing less dowry or satisfy illegal demand. Thus, on its over-all examination, I do not find that it meets the ingredients of the offence aforesaid, which fall within the definition of “cruelty” as per explanation added to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, no interference is called for in the acquittal of the respondents. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 15. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 16. Send down the record. September 28, 2011. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)