IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2003 Judgment reserved on : 25.6.2010 Date of Decision : August 18 , 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Jagmal Singh and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed in the year 1997, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 5.12.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 108/2 of 2000, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Jagmal Singh and another, the accused persons stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.2.2000 HC-Som Dutt along with other police officials was present at Kollar in Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 connection with the investigation of a criminal case when the prosecutrix got a complaint recorded with him. In the said complaint, being her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. (Ext. PW1/A), it is alleged that she is a resident of village Kollar. She was married to Jagmal Singh. At the time of her marriage her parents had given sufficient dowry. From the wed-lock a son was born. For the last three years her husband i.e. accused Jagmal Singh and her brother-in-law accused Bhim Singh started physically beating her. They demanded dowry in the shape of golden bangles, fridge and scooter. Since her parents are poor they could not fulfill their demands and as such she was thrown out of her matrimonial house. She lodged a complaint with the Pradhan. However with the intervention of others compromise was arrived at and she was taken back to her matrimonial house. The accused persons did not improve their behaviour and continued to not only make demands of dowry but also beat her. For the last twenty days she had been residing with her parents. 3. On the basis of the said statement, F.I.R. dated 16.2.2000 (Ext. PW 6/A) under Section 498-A I.P.C. was registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib. The matter was investigated by HC-Som Dutt (PW-6). With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. The accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case prosecution 3 examined six witnesses and the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence for the reason that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution and the statement of the prosecutrix and her relatives being vague and unspecific did not inspire confidence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and Gulab Devi (PW-3), in my considered view do not inspire confidence so as to hold the accused guilty of the charged offence. Now according to PW-1, immediately after the marriage the accused started demanding dowry articles such as fridge, scooter, gold bangles etc. She was thrown out of her house and the matter was reported to Pradhan, Amar Kanta (PW-2). Then the matter was comprised and the accused who were reprimanded for their behaviour persuaded her parents to send her back to the matrimonial house. Now this version of hers is not supported by PW-2, who in fact categorically deposed that accused never gave any beatings to the prosecutrix. This witness has been declared hostile, but, however, in spite of her being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, there is nothing in her statement, which would link the accused with the alleged crime. The contradictory version renders the prosecution story to be doubtful. 4 7. That apart, the prosecutrix does not remember, the date and time when the accused persons allegedly gave her beatings. Even the allegations of subsequent demand of dowry are vague and unspecific with reference to time and place. 8. PW-3 admits that there are houses of other persons such as Gulab Singh, Faquir Chand and Kishan adjoining to the houses of the accused persons. Importantly, except for PW-3 none else from the neighbourhood or relations has been associated by the Investigating Agency during investigation or examined in the Court by the prosecution. It is unbelievable that the complainant would have suffered the alleged behaviour of the accused persons without making any complaint written or oral to her neighbourers or friends. 9. The only other independent witness i.e. Smt. Mohindro Devi (PW-4) also does not help the prosecution. She is neither from the neighbourhood nor has she witnessed the occurrence of the alleged incident. Also with regard to dowry demands her version is vague and unspecific. 10. An endeavour was made to substantiate the charge against the accused persons by proving complaint (Ext.PW-5/A) alleged to have been filed by the prosecutrix on 12.1.2000 before the Mahila Ayog (Women Commission). In my view, the Court below has rightly not considered the same. Who received the same and what action was taken thereupon has not been shown. In the said complaint it is mentioned that the accused gave beatings to the prosecutrix and also confined her in a room. This fact was known to 5 Fakiya and Lachhman. Now why did the Investigating Agency not associate the said persons during investigation? They have also not been examined in the Court as witnesses. The possibility of the complaint being ante-dated is also not ruled out either. 11. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 18 , 2010 (PK)