IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.78 of 1993 Date of decision: 04. 3.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant. Versus Megh Singh and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh,J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Per V.K.Ahuja, J. This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the Judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi dated 11.5.1992 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A and 307 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of an information that a lady with the history of poison has been admitted in the hospital, the Police Officer went to the hospital. He recorded the statement of the lady and the case was registered thereafter leading to the filing of the challan against the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court resulting in their acquittal. Heard. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? The submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General were that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge under Section 307 IPC but the learned trial Court did not rely on the said evidence which findings are liable to be reversed. It was submitted that the evidence under Section 498-A IPC was contradictory in regard to the reason for the torture of the lady and the said evidence may be appreciated to consider as to whether those findings are liable to be reversed or not. It is clear from a perusal of the record of the case that the case was registered on the basis of the statement of the lady Smt. Savitri Devi who was admitted in the hospital having consumed poisonous substance. Coming to the evidence in regard to the cruelty under Section 498-A. Savitri Devi in her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ex.PA, stated that she was subjected to cruelty since she had not brought dowry as per expectations of the accused. In her statement in Court, she stated the only reason for her being ill treated by her husband that he was entangled with his brother’s widow. She stated that there was no other cause. PW-3 Harju Devi her mother, has also given the reason of illicit relations in between the accused and the widow of his brother namely Sohanu. She was also very certain that there is no other reason for giving maltreatment and beatings to her daughter. PW-6 Amar Singh brother of the lady has also stated the same reason as illicit relations. The statements of these witnesses do not show that any report was ever lodged with the police or the Panchayat or the complainant was examined for any of the injuries inflicted upon her at any time. The statement of the complainant as PW-1 shows that she filed a case under Section 125 Cr. PC which resulted in the compromise since the accused had assured her to keep her well and to provide her food, shelter and clothes. In regard to the beatings given to her on the day of occurrence, she clearly state that she was given beatings inside the room and the door had been closed before she was given beatings. In her statement she has stated that the beatings were given to her by her husband only and she did not attribute any beatings having been given to her by the other two accused, namely her father-in-law and the mother-in-law. She stated that injuries were caused on her neck but no such injuries have been proved by the prosecution. She clearly stated that her father-in- law and mother-in-law were present in the house but in the Court Yard and not in the room where she was given beatings. In regard to the beatings, the prosecution had examined PW-7 Barfi Devi closely related to her being her aunt (Massi). She stated that she noticed accused Megh Singh his father and mother giving beatings to the complainant in the Court Yard which is quite contradictory to the version given by the complainant that the beatings were given by her husband only inside the room. Her presence is also not natural since her house is at a distance of about one mile from the house of the accused. The other witness examined was PW 12 Durga Singh was allegedly coming with PW-7 Barfi Devi. He also saw all the three accused persons were giving beatings to the complainant which is quite contradictory to the statement of the complainant referred to above. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion of the evidence, it cannot be said that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge under Section 498-A. With regard to the charge under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution story is that the complainant was forcibly given something to drink which was found to be organophosphorous as per the report of the Chemical Examiner. In this regard PW-1 complainant has stated that she does not know what the husband or the other two accused did to her when she was unconscious meaning thereby that she does not say that she was given something to drink by any of the accused persons. She simply stated that she was unconscious so she cannot say if any poison or anything else was administered to her by any of the accused. In regard to the liquid substance PW-7 Barfi Devi, who allegedly saw the occurrence stated that in her presence the accused did not administer anything by force to Savitri Devi. PW-12 Durga Singh who was also with PW-7 at that time came with a different version that Megh Singh was holding a glass in which there was some liquid and he forced Savitri Devi to drink that liquid from the glass. This version of Durga Singh PW-12 is contradictory to the version of PW-7 Barfi Devi and their presence at the spot does not appear to be natural and they appear to be procured witnesses. It also looks surprising that PW-7 Barfi Devi was closely related to the complainant but even after seeing that she was being given beatings she took no steps to save the complainant Savitri Devi or inform her parents or lodge a report with the police and, therefore, her presence and that of the other witness at the spot also looks to be doubtful at the spot. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and the record had concluded that the possibility that he lady took the poisonous substance herself cannot be ruled out which findings based on the evidence, cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal, which deserves dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds of respondents are discharged. (V.K.Ahuja),J. 4th March, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (SDS)