Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 07.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 April, 2025

2025:HHC:9999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 78 of 2012
Reserved on: 07.03.2025
Date of Decision: 10.04.2025

Surender Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner. : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista,
Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present petition is directed against the judgment

dated December 12, 2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), which affirmed the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2009

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1,

Shimla H.P. (learned Trial Court). (For convenience, the parties

shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were

arrayed before the learned Trial Court.)
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:9999

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

petition are that the victim Anshuman Sharma (PW-1) was

married to accused Surinder Sharma on 17.02.2006 in Arya Samaj

Temple, Solan, District Solan, H.P. against the wishes of her

parents. The accused treated her properly for about one week

after her marriage. Thereafter he started compelling her to bring

dowry from her parents. The victim refused to do so and the

accused started abusing and beating her. He would beat her on

trivial matters and ask her to bring money from her parents. He

would keep her confined to her room and would not provide her

any food, money or water. She was not allowed to meet anyone or

go anywhere. He would beat the victim in a state of intoxication.

He told her that in case she failed to bring any dowry from her

parents, he would beat her to death. He asked her to call her

mother and demand ₹30,000/-. The victim's mother declined to

pay the money. The parents of the accused resided with the

victim and the accused and they asked the accused about the

dowry brought by the victim. The accused replied that the victim

had not brought any dowry. They abused the victim and gave her

beatings to her. They asked the victim to bring dowry or they

would marry the accused to some other person. The victim
2025:HHC:9999

became pregnant. The accused used to beat her. The victim had

married against the wishes of her parents so she could not

complain to any person; however, when the situation

deteriorated, she wrote letters to her parents narrating her woes.

The accused took the victim for her Sonography test, where it

was revealed that she was carrying a baby girl. The accused

asked the victim to abort the fetus, however, the victim declined.

The accused started beating and hitting her on her stomach to

force her to abort the fetus. She gave birth to a baby girl on

20.04.2007. The accused became angry. He did not care for the

victim. He would consume liquor and abuse the victim and her

daughter and beat the victim. He gave beatings to the victim on

09.05.2007 at about 11:00 a.m. He tried to throw the baby girl on

the floor. The victim intervened and the baby fell on the bed. The

accused gave beatings to the victim and told her that he would

kill her. He left after some time and locked the door from the

outside. He returned after some time and he pushed her out of

his room with the baby girl. The victim went to her parents

home. The accused called her and repeated his threats of killing

her and her baby. The matter was reported to the police and

F.I.R. (Ext.PW-12/F) was registered at the Police Station. S.I.
2025:HHC:9999

Prem Lal (PW-12) conducted the investigation. He seized the

letters (Ext.P-1 to P-3), vide memo (Ext. PW-2/A). He visited

the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW-12/A). The accused

produced the report of Sonography (Ext.PW-8/A), which was

seized vide memo (Ext.PW-5/A). He recorded the statements of

witnesses as per their version. After completion of the

investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the

Court.

3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the

commission of offences punishable under
Section 498-A
,
and
of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its

case. Anshuman Sharma (PW-1) is the informant. Pushpa

Sharma (PW-2) is the mother of the informant. Shankuntla

Shandil (PW-3) is the witness to recovery. Devinder Lakhanpal

(PW-4) and Arun Sood (PW-7) are the family friends to whom

the victim had handed over the letters. Dinu Ram (PW-5) is the

witness to recovery but he did not support the prosecution case.

Meena Thakur (PW-6), Amit Mohini (PW-10) and Asha Verma

(PW11) are the house owners, who had rented the house to
2025:HHC:9999

accused. Dr. Jitender Jhingta (PW-8), conducted the Sonography

of the informant. Parkash Chand (PW-9), sold the land to

accused Sureinder Sharma. SI Prem Lal (PW12), conducted the

investigation of the case.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under
Section
of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He

stated that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated.

No defence was sought to be adduced by him.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimony of

prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The accused gave

beatings to the victim. He asked her to bring ₹30,000/- from her

mother. The accused had threatened to do away with the

victim's life. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted the

accused for the commission of an offence punishable under

Section 498-A
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5000/- and in

default of payment of fine to further undergo simple

imprisonment for three months.

7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed

by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal,

which was decided by learned Sessions Judge (learned Appellate
2025:HHC:9999

Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings

recorded by learned Trial Court that the accused had subjected

the victim to cruelty soon after her marriage. He gave her

beatings and asked her to bring a dowry from her parents. The

victim wanted to save her marriage and the delay in reporting the

matter was not material. The incident of cruelty was committed

within the four walls of the house, and normally direct evidence

regarding cruelty or harassment of the women by her husband

was not available. The minor contradictions in the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses were not sufficient to discard the

prosecution case. There was no infirmity in the judgment and

order passed by learned Trial Court; hence, the appeal was

dismissed.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments

and order passed by learned Courts below, the petitioner has

filed the present revision petition asserting that the learned

Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. They

ignored the provisions of
Section 498- A
of IPC. The relationship

between the victim and the accused was not cordial and she filed

a false case to settle her score. The victim never made any

complaint against the petitioner before any authority, which
2025:HHC:9999

makes her version highly doubtful. There is no material

corroboration of the testimony of the victim from the

independent witnesses. Therefore, it was prayed that the present

petition be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the

learned Courts below be set aside.

9. I have heard Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional

Advocate General for the respondent/State.

10. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below erred in

appreciating the material placed before them. The statement

made by the victim was general without any particulars. She

wanted to get rid of the petitioner and filed a false complaint to

secure the divorce. She had divorced the petitioner and has

remarried, which shows that her purpose has been achieved. She

never made any complaint to any person regarding the

harassment. There is no proof that the letters stated to have been

written by her were delivered to her parents. Learned Courts

below did not appreciate these facts and wrongly convicted the

petitioner/accused. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be

allowed and the petitioner be acquitted.
2025:HHC:9999

11. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate

General submitted that the petitioner had married the accused

against the wishes of her parents. She was not permitted to leave

her home. She initially resigned to her fate but when the

behaviour of the petitioner did not improve, she was forced to

file the complaint to the police. The learned Appellate Court had

rightly pointed out that incidents of cruelty take place within the

four walls of the house and cannot be witnessed by the others.

Therefore, there can be no corroboration of the testimony of the

victim. The testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by the

letters written by her to her parents. Learned Courts below had

rightly appreciated the material placed before them. Therefore,

he prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed.

12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

of learned counsel for the parties made at the bar and have gone

through the records carefully.

13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
, (2022) 8 SCC 204:

(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional

court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent
2025:HHC:9999

defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed on page

207: -

"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the
outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings
of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed
appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record.
The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not
supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like to the appellate
court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely
narrow.
Section 397
of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short
"
CrPC
") vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error
which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It
is also well settled that while considering the same, the
Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and
evidence of the case to reverse those findings.

14. This position was reiterated in
State of Gujarat v.

Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao
, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 wherein it was

observed:

"13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under

Section 397
Cr. P.C. which vests the court with the power to
call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities
of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into such
proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of
this court in
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra
, (2012) 9 SCC
460 where the scope of
Section 397
has been considered and
succinctly explained as under:

"12.
Section 397
of the Code vests the court with the power to
call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the
2025:HHC:9999

purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity
of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and
it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the
orders, which upon the face of it bear a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If
one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked
where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous,
there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding
recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely
indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.

13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex-facie. Where the Court is dealing with the
question as to whether the charge has been framed properly
and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be
reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the
categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much-
advanced stage in the proceedings under the
CrPC
."

15. The present revision has to be decided as per the

parameters
laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. The scope of
Section 498-A
of IPC was explained by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Aluri Venkata Ramana vs. Aluri

Thirupathi Rao and Ors.
(12.12.2024 - SC Order):

MANU/SCOR/151680/2024, wherein it was observed: -
2025:HHC:9999

"7. Firstly, the provision under
Section 498-A
IPC must be
examined. The said provision reads as under:

"498A. Husband or relative of the husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to a fine.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty" means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand."

8.
Section 498A
of the IPC was introduced in the year 1983
with the primary objective of protecting married women
from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws.
The section provides a broad and inclusive definition of
"cruelty," encompassing both physical and mental harm to
the woman's body or health. In addition, it covers acts of
harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into
fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security,
including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision
also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a
woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty.

9. The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to

Section 498A
is specifically outlined in clause (b),
independent of the "wilful conduct" described in clause (a),
thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is
significant to note that the inclusion of the word "or" at the
end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the
purposes of
Section 498A
can either involve wilful conduct
that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to
2025:HHC:9999

unlawful demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms of
cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related
demand does not preclude the application of the section in
cases where there is mental or physical harassment
unrelated to the dowry. In interpreting the provision, it is
crucial to consider the broader objective behind its
introduction to safeguarding women from all forms of
cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm
inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not.

10. The statement of objects and reasons for the introduction
of this provision in the
Indian Penal Code
by The Criminal
Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No.45 of 1983)
reads as under -

"The increasing number of Dowry Deaths is a matter
of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been
commented upon by the Joint Committee of the
Houses to examine the workings of the
Dowry
Prohibition Act
, of 1961. Cases of cruelty by the
husband and the relatives of the husband which
culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the hapless
woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of
the cases involving such cruelty. It is therefore
proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act
suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of
Dowry Death but also cases of cruelty to married
women by their in-laws."

11. It is relevant to note the last line which explains that the
aim of the introduction of Section 498A in the
IPC
is not only
to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases of
cruelty to married woman by their in-laws. A reasonable
interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this
section goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to
dowry demand.

12.
In the judgment of
U. Suvetha v. State
(2009)6 SCC 757 this
Court outlined the necessary ingredients required to
establish an offence under
Section 498A
of the IPC, as
follows:

"7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:

(a)The woman must be married;
2025:HHC:9999

(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or
harassment; and

(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been
shown either by the husband of the woman or by
the relative of her husband."

13. From the above ingredients reiterated by this Court, it is
clear that an unlawful demand for dowry is not a pre-
requisite element to constitute "cruelty" under
Section 498A

IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two
broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the
provision, namely, wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury
or mental harm (clause a), or harassment intended to coerce
the woman or her family to meet any unlawful demand
(clause b). Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of
dowry demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of

Section 498A
IPC and make the offence punishable under the
law.

14. Further, in the judgment of
Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar

(2001) 6 SCC 407, this Court observed that -

"25. The word 'cruelty' in common English
acceptation denotes a state of conduct which is painful
and distressing to another. The legislative intent in
Section 498-A is clear enough to indicate that in the
event of there being a state of conduct by the husband
to the wife or by any relative of the husband which can
be attributed to be painful or distressing, the same
would be within the meaning of the section".

15. The impugned judgment of the High Court carefully
examined several legal precedents pertaining to the two
distinct limbs of
Section 498A
IPC. The High Court correctly
observed that the decisions cited by the counsel for the
accused did not establish that the wilful conduct referred to
in clause (a) of Section 498A would only be considered as
cruelty if it is coupled with a dowry demand or any unlawful
demand for property or valuable security, as specified in
clause (b). The High Court rightly rejected this contention.
However, following this observation, the High Court also
noted that the Appellant did not specifically allege a demand
for property or valuable security, and further concluded that
the allegation of the accused physically assaulting the
2025:HHC:9999

Appellant did not amount to "wilful conduct" as envisaged
under clause (a) of
Section 498A
IPC. The judgment of the
High Court primarily focused on the issue of whether a
dowry demand is a necessary element for the applicability of

Section 498A
IPC. The conclusion it arrived at was that the
two clauses of the provision must be read disjunctively,
thereby confirming that the absence of a dowry demand does
not preclude the application of the section. Despite this, the
High Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings
against the accused under
Section 498A
IPC. Notably, the
High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why
the allegations made by the Appellant, specifically that she
had been physically beaten did not amount to "cruelty"
under
Section 498A
IPC. The High Court's decision to quash
the proceedings appears to have been primarily influenced
by the lack of a dowry-related demand in the case, without
addressing the broader implications of the allegations of
physical abuse, which can fall within the scope of "cruelty"
as contemplated by the provision."

17. It is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that the definition of cruelty not only covers the

acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family

into fulfilling unlawful demands of dowry but also recognizes the

acts which involve mental or physical harm to the deceased.

18. Victim Anshuman Sharma (PW-1) stated that she

married the accused on 17.02.2006 in Arya Samaj Temple, Solan,

District Solan, against her parents' wishes. The accused treated

her properly for 10-15 days after her marriage but thereafter he

started beating her and asking her to bring dowry from her

parents. When she refused, the accused beat and abused her. He
2025:HHC:9999

did not provide anything to her. He kept her confined in a room

and did not permit her to meet anyone. He used to say that he

would kill her if she failed to bring any dowry. He dialled the

victim's mother and asked the victim to demand ₹30,000/-from

her mother, however, the victim's mother declined to pay

money. Her parents-in-law visited her matrimonial home. They

enquired the accused about the dowry brought by her and the

accused replied that she had not brought anything. They abused

her. Her husband also gave beatings to her. They resided in the

house of Chinta Mani and before that in the house of Krishan

Mohini. The accused continued to beat her even after she had

become pregnant. The accused used to say that he would kill her

and her family members by using 'Tantra'. She had married

contrary to her parents' wishes, so she sued to remain silent and

suffered the cruelty. She wrote letters to her parents (Ext.P-1 to

P-3). She was taken to the doctor who told her that she had a

baby girl. The accused used to ask her to abort the foetus. He

used to beat her. He even tried to kick her on her stomach so that

she would abort. She delivered a baby girl on 20.4.2007. The

accused abused her after the delivery of the baby girl and

threatened to kill the victim and her daughter. He gave her
2025:HHC:9999

beatings on 09.05.2007 from 11-12 a.m and tried to throw the

baby girl on the floor. She saved the baby girl and she fell on the

bed. The accused left the room and locked it from the outside. He

returned after some time and turned her out of his home. She

took shelter in her parental home. The accused threatened to

kill the victim and her daughter. She filed a complaint before the

police.

19. She stated in her cross-examination that the accused

had treated her properly for 10-15 days after her marriage. She

had not reported the matter to any person because she tried to

save her marriage and thought that the behaviour of the accused

would improve. She used to reconcile the matter with the accused

after the quarrel to pacify him.

20. The testimony of the victim is duly corroborated by

the letters (Ext.P-1 to P-3) written by her to her parents. She

mentioned in the letter (Ext.P-1) that she had committed a

wrong by marrying against her parents' wishes. The behaviour

of her husband was not good towards her. Perhaps, the

behaviour would improve with time. She would try to live her life

and should be forgiven as a stupid child.
2025:HHC:9999

21. Letter (Ext. P-2) reads that the victim was disturbed.

Her husband beat her daily on one pretext or the other. She tried

to counsel him but the situation did not improve. She was not

aware of what he wanted from her. The accused had started

visiting the home after consuming liquor. He would beat the

victim and quarrel with her. He used to abuse the victim's

parents and taunt her by saying that her parents were not giving

her anything. He saw the victim's mother at Kasumpti, but she

did not talk to him. The accused said that she (victim mother)

had deliberately ignored him. He gave beatings to the victim and

she had blood from the mouth. She was pregnant.

22. Letter (Ext.P-3) reads that the accused had beaten the

victim on the previous night. He abused her parents and said as

to why they were not dying. They did not acknowledge the

marriage between the accused and the victim. They were

enjoying themselves but were not providing anything to the

victim. He was demanding ₹30,000/- for purchasing the land at

Malayana. The victim was very disturbed. She was beaten daily

and was apprehensive about the safety of the baby. How she

could have asked for the money? She told the accused that when

she had married him against the wishes of her parents, why he
2025:HHC:9999

was demanding money from them but the accused did not listen.

He wanted ₹30,000/-. She did not know what would happen in

future. Her fate was to get beaten daily but she was worried

about her child. She should be forgiven and taken out of this life

otherwise her baby would be killed.

23. These letters were written when she was residing in

her matrimonial home. They show the victim's feelings and

what she was going through. They corroborate the victim's

testimony regarding the beatings given to her.

24. It was submitted that the victim had not made any

complaint to any person and this makes her testimony suspect.

This submission is not acceptable. The victim stated on oath and

also mentioned in the letters written by her that she had married

contrary to the wishes of her parents. Thus, she was unable to go

to her parents because she was not sure whether she would be

accepted or not. This is also apparent from her letters wherein

she had repeatedly written that she should be forgiven. There is

nothing to show that the victim's parents responded to her

letters and the victim remained under the impression that she

had nowhere to go. That is why she wrote in her letter (Ext.P-3)

that her fate was to get beaten every day, clearly showing that
2025:HHC:9999

she had resigned to her fate. She could not have been expected to

make the complaint against her husband and lose the shelter

which she had. She was not sure about the reaction of her parents

and could not count on them to protect her. Therefore, the

prosecution case cannot be doubted because the victim had not

made the complaints to any person.

25. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in

holding that the victim had a reasonable cause for filing the

complaint belatedly. This submission is not acceptable. As

already stated, the victim had resigned to her fate. She was

getting beaten every day as per the letters written by her,

however, one day she and her baby girl were turned out of her

matrimonial home. Therefore, she lost the shelter she had and

had nothing more to lose, which forced her to take shelter in her

parents' house and make a complaint against the petitioner. The

circumstances in which the victim had married the accused and

was residing in her matrimonial home prevented her from

making complaints to any person or coming out of the house to

save herself.

26. The victim's mother Pushpa Sharma (PW-2) stated

that she was serving in H.P. Secretariat. The victim married the
2025:HHC:9999

accused on 17.02.2006 contrary to her parents' wishes. The

victim did not visit her parents' home after her marriage. She

resided in her matrimonial home. The victim wrote the letters to

her which were delivered to her by Davinder Lakhanpal (PW-4)

and Arun Sood (PW-7). The accused demanded dowry from the

victim. He asked her (the victim) to talk to her mother. One day

victim demanded ₹30,000/- but she declined. The accused

turned the victim out of her matrimonial home on 09.05.2007

with her baby girl. She stated in her cross-examination that she

was not aware of the relationship between the accused and the

victim before her marriage. The victim informed her

telephonically about the marriage. She (the victim) informed her

about the misbehaviour of the accused telephonically and by

writing the letters. The victim did not tell her about her

pregnancy; however, she had talked about the delivery of the

child on 20th April. She went to the hospital to see the victim and

her daughter.

27. Her testimony corroborates the victim's version in

material particulars. She has deposed about the writing of letters

by the victim to her, complaining about the harassment. She

stated that she had counseled the victim clearly showing that she
2025:HHC:9999

had not expressed any desire to bring the victim to her parental

home. Therefore, the victim was justified in believing that she

would not be welcome in her parental home and continue to

suffer in the matrimonial home.

28. Davinder Lakhanpal (PW-4) stated that he knows the

victim's father and the victim. She was residing in the house of

Kewal Krishan. He went to the house of Kewal Krishan in August

2006 and when he met the victim, she told him that her husband

was beating her and keeping her confined to the room. The

accused demanded money from her. She handed over the letter

(Ext.P-2) to him to deliver to the victim's mother. He delivered

the letter to the victim's mother. He stated in his cross-

examination that the victim was his daughter's class fellow. He

did not remember the date of the delivery of the letter. He never

talked to the accused.

29. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this

witness to show that he was making a false statement. He stated

that he knew the victim because of his acquaintance with the

victim's parents and his daughter being the victim's class fellow.

Therefore, he was a natural person to whom the victim could

confide. The victim also handed over the letters to this witness
2025:HHC:9999

for delivering it to her mother. His testimony corroborates the

statement of the victim and her mother about the delivery of the

letters.

30. Arun Sood (PW-7) stated that he retired from UCO

Bank. He knew the victim's family. The victim's father also

served in UCO Bank. The victim married the accused in February

contrary to her parents' wishes. She was residing in a rented

house at Dev Nagar after her marriage. She met the victim in

March 2006. He enquired about her well-being and the victim

replied that the accused used to beat her daily and confine her in

the room. She handed over a letter to him with a request to

deliver it to her mother. He delivered the letter to the victim's

mother. The victim again met him at Vikasnagar Bus Stand in

September 2006. She handed over another letter to him with the

request to deliver it to her mother. He delivered the letter on the

same day. The victim was residing in Hem Kunj in September

2006. He was the neighbour of the victim. The accused had

beaten the victim one day and he saw her bleeding. The owner of

the house was present, who scolded the accused and asked him to

vacate the room. He stated in his cross-examination that he did

not know the accused but he knew the victim. The victim's father
2025:HHC:9999

worked with him. He had seen the accused and the victim

quarrelling once in September 2006. He denied that he was

making a false statement because the victim's father was his

colleague.

31. It was submitted that the testimony of this witness is

not reliable. He is the colleague of the victim's father. This is

hardly any reason for him to depose falsely. The victim would

have confided to a known person. The fact that he knew the

victim would encourage her to deliver the letter to him with the

hope that it would reach her mother instead of reaching the

accused. Therefore, the testimony of this witness cannot be

discarded because of the acquaintance with the victim's father.

His testimony corroborates the testimony of the victim and her

mother regarding sending/receiving the letters.

32. Meena Thakur (PW-6) stated that the accused was a

tenant in her house in the year 2006. She was residing on the

same floor where the accused was residing. She was not aware of

the relationship between the accused and the victim. She did not

witness any quarrel between them. She was permitted to be

cross-examined. She denied that the accused had locked the

victim in the room. She denied that the accused opened the door
2025:HHC:9999

after five minutes and the victim came out of the room along

with the baby. She denied that the victim was bleeding from her

mouth. She volunteered to say that she met the victim at the

door. She enquired from the victim as to what had happened. The

victim was crying and talking to someone on the phone. She

admitted that the accused was working as a Pandit. The victim

left the home on 09.05.2007. She denied her previous statement

recorded by the police. She stated in her cross-examination by

the learned counsel for the defence that the victim had never

complained to her about the quarrel or the beating. The accused

was happy after the birth of the baby girl. The parents of the

accused visited the house and they had nice behaviour towards

their daughter-in-law and their granddaughter.

33. It was submitted that the testimony of this witness

does not corroborate the prosecution's version regarding the

beating and the harassment and her testimony makes the

prosecution case suspect. This submission cannot be accepted.

The learned Appellate Court had rightly held that the incidents of

cruelty generally take place within the four corners of the house

and are not witnessed by any independent person. Further, the

victim had the reason not to complain to any person and to lose
2025:HHC:9999

the only shelter, she had. Therefore, the fact that the victim had

not made any complaint to her will not make her testimony

suspect. She categorically stated that the victim was crying on

09.05.2007 and she was talking to someone on the phone.
This

version corroborates the testimony of the victim that she was

beaten on that day and was turned out of her home. Further, this

witness has been contradicted by her previous testimony and is

shown to have made two inconsistent statements. Her credibility

is suspect and her testimony cannot be used to discard the

prosecution case. (please see
Dilo Begum vs. State of H.P.
2024:

HHC:1519 para 24 to 34)

34. Amrit Mohini (PW-10) stated that the accused resided

in the building owned by her. She was not aware of the behaviour

of the accused with the victim because she used to leave for her

job. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied that she

had counselled the accused many times and when he did not pay

any heed to her advice, she asked him to leave the room. She

admitted that the accused had left the room in September 2006.

She also contradicted her previous statement and she denied the

same. This witness is also shown to have made inconsistent

statements on different occasions - one before the Investigating
2025:HHC:9999

Officer and another before the Court. Therefore, her credit has

been impeached and her testimony cannot be used to discard the

prosecution case.

35. Asha Verma (PW-11) stated that the accused obtained

one room in her building for ₹1100/- per month. She was going

to school to bring her children when she heard some noise from

the room of the accused. She saw that the victim was bleeding

from her face. The victim revealed that the accused had beaten

her. She returned the advance given to her by the accused and

asked the accused to vacate the room. The accused vacated the

room.

36. She was not cross-examined at all, which means that

her testimony is accepted as correct by the accused. She

categorically stated that she had seen the victim bleeding from

her face and the victim had told her about the beating given to

her. Her testimony corroborates the testimony of the victim

regarding the beatings given to her.

37. Dinu Ram (PW-5) is the witness of the recovery of the

reports of Sonography of the victim. He did not support the

prosecution case, however, the same will not make any

difference.
2025:HHC:9999

38. Dr Jitender Jhingta (PW-8) stated that he is running

an Ultra Sound Clinic at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. He issued a report

regarding the Sonography of the victim. He stated in his cross-

examination that he had conducted the routine checkup of the

victim. He was not aware as to who had brought the victim to

the clinic.

39. It was submitted that this witness has nowhere stated

that he had disclosed the sex of the foetus to the accused.

However, this will not make much difference. The victim's

testimony regarding beating and demand for dowry is duly

corroborated by her mother, other witnesses and the letters

written by her. Therefore, the mere fact that he has not deposed

about the disclosure of the sex of the fetus will not make the

victim's testimony suspect.

40. It was submitted that the victim wanted to get rid of

the accused, as she wanted to marry someone else and she filed a

false complaint to achieve this purpose. This submission is not

acceptable. The victim married the accused contrary to the

wishes of her parents, which shows the confidence reposed by

her in the accused. She had left her parents' home for the

accused and she had no reason to get rid of the accused. The
2025:HHC:9999

accused did not assign any reason in his statement recorded

under
Section 313
of Cr.P.C. as to why the victim wanted to get rid

of him. The fact that the victim had married the accused against

the wishes of her parents, resided with him and delivered his

baby would make it difficult to believe that the victim would have

thought of dumping him and marrying someone without any

reason.

41. The testimony of the victim is duly corroborated by

the letters written by her and the testimony of other witnesses;

therefore, both the learned Courts below had rightly accepted the

same and had rightly held that the prosecution case was duly

proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the

commission of an offence punishable under
Section 498-A
of

IPC.

42. The learned Trial Court had sentenced the accused to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of

₹5000/- and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo

simple imprisonment for three months. This is not excessive. A

young girl left her parental home to reside with the accused. The

accused gave her beatings and abused her. He asked her to bring

a dowry. The accused betrayed the trust of the victim. Hence, in
2025:HHC:9999

these circumstances, the punishment of one year and a fine of

₹5000/- is not excessive.

43. No other point was urged.

44. In view of the above, the present revision fails and the

same is dismissed.

45. The present petition stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms along with pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any.

(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
10th April, 2025
(ravinder)