IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 574 of 2000. Judgment reserved on: 17.3.2008 Date of decision: 8.4.2008 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Vidya Sagar & Ors. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur on 31.1.2000 in case No.47/2 of 1998/96 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents under Sections 498-A, 506-II read with Section 34 IPC, arising out of FIR No.250 dated 19.11.1995 registered at Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. 2. The facts in brief are that PW-1 complainants Ambika and PW-2 Anju Rani are legally wedded wives of Vidya Sagar and Desh Raj respondents respectively. It has been alleged that respondents maltreated and harassed the complainants for not bringing dowry. The respondents Vidya Sagar and Desh Raj Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… demanded fridge in the dowry from the parents of complainants. The respondents had given beatings to the complainants and thrown them from the matrimonial home. The complainants are residing in a rented house at Dhaulra Sector. The complainants had danger to their lives from the respondents. The respondents No.1 & 2 are not providing maintenance to the complainants. The parents of the complainants are poor and they cannot give any dowry to the respondents. The complainant Ambika Kumari was pregnant and had no support. The respondents No.3 to 5 have conspired with respondents No.1 and 2 for maltreating and harassing the complainants. The respondents No.1 and 2 are threatening to solemnize second marriage. On these allegations a complaint Ex.PA was submitted to District Magistrate Bilaspur, who sent the complaint to Dy. Superintendent of Police to look into the matter and Dy. Superintendent of Police directed SHO Sadar Bilaspur to register the case and investigate the case on priority basis. On receipt of application Ex.PA in the Police Station endorsement Ex.PW-4/B was made by the Incharge Police Station and thereupon FIR Ex.PW-4/A came to be registered on 17.11.1995 at Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. On completion of investigation challan was presented under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34IPC against the respondents and charge was framed against respondents under Sections 498-A/34, 506-II/34 IPC, to which respondents did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the charge. The statements of the respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, they pleaded their innocence and …3… in defence respondents examined four witnesses. The learned trial Magistrate on completion of the trial acquitted the respondents as noticed above, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. The learned addl. Advocate General has submitted that the learned trial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record. The prosecution has proved the case against the respondents under Sections 498-A/34 IPC, 506-II/34 IPC. The learned trial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that learned trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Magistrate, he has supported the impugned judgment. 4. In the application Ex.PA the complainants have made general allegations against respondents regarding demand of dowry and beatings given to them. There is no specific allegation of dowry and beatings The complaint Ex.PA was made on 17.11.1995 and it has been stated in the complaint that the respondents have turned out the complainants about one month ago. PW-1 Ambika has stated that she and her sister Anju Rani were married on 3.8.1994 with Vidya Sagar and Desh Raj, respectively. The complainants were beaten by the respondents on 23/24.6.1995. She then stated that the beatings were given on 22.6.1995. She has also stated that they …4… spent whole night in the jungle which is at a distance of about ½ K.M. from the house of her in-laws, which is not believable. She has also stated that after this incident they approached Ranjeet Singh Pardhan but in later part of the statement she again stated that they did not approach the Pardhan. There is no reference of these incidents in complaint Ex.PA. She has admitted that since 16.10.1995 she was living with her parents. She has also stated that a quarrel took place on 5.11.1995 with Desh Raj and Desh Raj reported the matter to Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur against Ambika and five others. She has also stated that the complaint Ex.PA was lodged by her 10-15 days after the said incident. Thus the complaint Ex.PA is a counterblast to aforesaid report of Desh Raj who reported the matter to Superintendent of Police. She has also stated that she got family planning operation on 18.12.1996 on her own without the consent of her husband. This shows the relations between the parties are not cordial. 5. PW-2 Anju Rani has stated that earlier the respondents had quarreled and gave them beatings on 23/24.6.1995, thereafter beatings were given to them on 16/17.10.1995. In cross-examination she has stated that in complaint Ex.PA the occurrence of 23/24.6.1995 has not been mentioned. She denied the occurrence of 5.11.1995, but has been contradicted by PW-1 on this point . PW-3 Krishna Devi is the mother of the complainants. She is not an eye witness and her evidence is based on hearsay. PW-5 Ranjeet Singh has stated that in May/June, 1995 Anju Devi and her husband Desh Raj came. Anju said that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in- …5… law and husband of Ambika used to harass her and turned her out. After one month Ambika came to him and gave an application raising grievance against her in laws. She alleged that her father-in-law teases her. This witness has not stated anything about the demand of dowry or beatings given by the respondents to the complainants. He has not supported the complainants on material particulars. The other witnesses such as PW-4 Ram Lal, PW-6 Jagdish Chand, PW-7 Madan Lal, are police officials and their statements are not relevant for deciding the controversy. No independent witness has supported or corroborated the prosecution story. The PW-1 and PW-2 are interested persons, it is not safe to rely on their statements without corroboration. The respondents have led defence evidence also but irrespective of defence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. The learned trial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record. The view taken by the learned trial Magistrate is possible, no case for interference has been made, hence appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge April 8, 2007 (sks)