HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. 407 of 2001 Decided on: 5.9.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Chunni Lal ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Dharamshala, dated 14.3.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 498-A, 325, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.1.1999, at 3.40 p.m., a report was lodged with the police by Smt.Bindu alias Laxmi that she was married to the respondent since 1996 and one daughter was born from this wedlock. It was alleged that after sometime of marriage, the respondent started giving beatings to her under the influence of liquor. She also alleged that on 5.1.1999, _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - she had gone to her maternal uncle Chaman Lal’s house and her husband came there and gave her beatings in the presence of her maternal uncle. On 6.1.1999, she again went to her maternal uncle’s house to stay there for 4-5 days. On the next day, her husband came there and took away the daughter of the complainant with him. On 16.1.1999, her husband came to the house of her maternal uncle and gave her beatings in the presence of her mami Saroj Devi. In the evening, the respondent brought her to his house at 9.30 p.m. and again gave her beatings with legs and fists and she was rescued by her neighbour Sant Ram, who brought her to his house. On the next day, she reported the matter to the police. She alleged that she suffered injuries on all parts of her body. On this report, a case was registered by the police and the challan was filed against the respondent before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the charge shows that the charge has been framed against the respondent for the occurrence of 16.1.1999 only, when, in the evening at about 9.30 p.m., he is alleged to have given beatings to the complainant. There is no charge as against the respondent in regard to the beatings to the complainant either on 5.1.1999 or on 6.1.1999 and, therefore, the respondent was not required to explain the occurrence in regard to these dates. In my opinion, the charge should have been framed as to whether the respondent gave beatings to his wife and treated her with cruelty for the period from 5.1.199 to 16.1.1999. But now the case cannot be remanded back to the learned trial Court at this stage after the lapse of so many years. Thus, the respondent is required - 3 - to explain the charge in regard to the occurrence dated 16.1.1999 and other evidence led by the prosecution beyond the occurrence of this date cannot be said to be relevant. Coming to the statement of PW-3, complainant, she has not stated any date when she was given beatings. Her statement is only in general that two years ago her husband gave her beatings and she went to her maternal uncle’s house where she had been given beatings, which is not relevant. She further stated that her husband brought her to Village Sakoh and gave beatings to her and she was rescued by one Sant Ram. However, the said Sant Ram while appearing in the witness box as PW- 8, has come up with a different story that he received a telephonic call from the parents of the complainant on the next day at 6/7 a.m. that the accused had given beatings to the complainant. Then he went to the house of the complainant, brought her to his house and she was taken by her parents. He only stated that the complainant only appeared to be perplexed and claimed that she had been given beatings by her husband, but he did not see any injury on the person of the complainant. He was declared hostile and was cross examined. Thus, he rules out the possibility of beatings given to the complainant by the respondent in his presence and that he rescued her. The other relevant witness is PW-1 Dr.Indu Kaushal, who has stated about the injuries on the person of the complainant, as observed by her on 17.1.1999 at 4.40 p.m. According to her, the complainant suffered injuries on her person and in her opinion, injuries No.2 and 3 were grievous in nature. Injury No.2 was on the wrist and she was advised X-ray for left forearm, while injury No.3 was a broken tooth and the complainant was referred to a Dental - 4 - Surgeon for opinion and after obtaining the opinion, these injuries were found to be grievous. A perusal of the statement of the complainant shows that she nowhere stated that she suffered any fracture or her tooth was broken at the time when beatings were given to her or she suffered other injuries. She stated only in general in regard to the beatings given to her. Moreover, in cross examination she has stated that these injuries were received by her in his parental house and she has not stated that when she received these injuries, thereafter she went to her parental house. On the contrary, she has specifically stated that she received injuries at her parental house. She denied the suggestion that she sustained injuries by falling from a tree. The Medical Officer PW-1 Dr.Indu Kaushal had admitted the suggestion that these injuries are possible by fall from a tree. Keeping in view the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other infirmities, the learned trial Court had concluded that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja), September 5, 2008 Judge. (TILAK)