JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 22,05.2001. 2. It appears, Raj Kumar (A-1) and Kamia Devi (A-2) mother of Raj Kumar (a-1) along with Shakti Chand father of Raj Kumar (A-1) were prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. The learned trial Magistrate by his impugned judgment acquitted the accused. Aggrieved the state is in appeal. 3. In order to appreciate, the controversy facts may be noticed in brief. 4. Mahmia Chudhary, complaint herein, was married to Raj Kumar in the year 1991. After one year of the marriage, a daughter was both to her. Two other daughters, who are twin, were born to her in January, 1994. At the time of her marriage, Raj Kumar (A-1) was employed with Malve cottage Mill, Delhi. It appears, A-1 left the job and returned back to his native village Dari (Dharamshala) and started his own business. There was a matrimonial discord. The disputed were taken to the panchayat. Complainant Mahima Chaudhary filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission alleging her harassment in the hands of the accused. However, she did not join the investigation by the state Human Rights commission and the allegations made by her were found to be untenable. On 22nd October, 1996, Mahima Chaudhary lodged complaint with the police Station, Dharamshala, alleging that after birth of two twin daughters, she was taunted by her husband, father -in- law and mother -in -law for having given birth to three daughters and they also used to harass her. The father -in -law and mother -in -law also used to tell her that she forced her husband to leave the job, therefore, she should leave their house along with the children and they would marry their son to some other girl. Her husband, according to the compliant have 200 bighas of land in village Sarah and she should get that land mutated in his name, otherwise he would leave her. She proceeded to allege, that the entire incident was communicated by her to her parents by a letter. According to her, in the year 1994 she was beaten by her husband, father-in-law and mother in law. They also told her that she can go and commit suicide. She proceeded to allege, that the entire incident was communicated by her to her parents by a letter. According to her, in the year 1994 she was beaten by her husband, father-in-law and mother in law. They also told her that she can go and commit suicide. She left her matrimonial house and went to the house of Chaudhary Hardyal also informed the Tehsildar, Chaudhary Hardayal He statement and statement of house at Nahan. On 22.05.1996, her husband came to Nahan and gave in writing that he would not harass her in future nor his parents would harass her and she returned back to her matrimonial house along with her husband. On 6th October, 1996, according to the allegations in the complaint she was again beaten by her in- laws and husband on which date she was examined by the Doctor. It is in this background that a report in terms of FIR no.311 was lodged with the police on 22nd October. 1996. 5. It may be noticed that Shakti Chand, father of Raj Kumar (A-1) died during the course of the trial. 6. Learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that the complainant had substantially improved her statement in the court on all material aspects, compared to the statement, which she made to the police under Section 161 of the code of criminal Procedure. He also found contradictions and improvement made by Kamla Thakur, mother of the complainant (PW-3), Prem Prakash Thakur, brother of the complainant (pw-4), Smt. Lat Thakur, Sister of the complainant (PW-7). Learned trial Magistrate took a view that from the scrutiny of the evidence, particularly in view of the improvements made by the various witness in the court and contradictions case was not proved and proceeded to acquit the accused. 7. The prosecution case rested on: (A) Unlawful demand made by the Accused and also by Sunil Chaudhary, brother of the Accused, as they demanded Chairs for the dining table; (B) She was taunted by the accused For having given birth to three Female children; (C) Her husband used to demand money from her brother; (D) Sunil Chaudhary, brother of Raj Kumar (A-1), asked the Complainant to Kill the three Daughter as they were unable to support them; (E) She was physically tortured. 8. 8. It is Significant to note that neither in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 161 of code of criminal Procedure, any allegation was made by the complainant against Sunil Chaudhary brother of Raj Kumar (A-). In the cross-examination, she was confronted with the statement under Section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. PW-2\A), for Which she had no explanation to offer. Similarly, she made improvement to say that for dining Table the chair were demanded by her in - laws. She did not say so in her statement recorded by the police under section 161 of the code of criminal Procedure though she insisted that she had got it recorded. There is no other evidence of any such demand. 9. So far demand of money by A-1 from the brother of the complainant is concerned, there is not a whisper of such a demand in the statement of the complainant. It is true that Perm Prakash Thakur (PW-4) in his statement stated that on two occasion Raj Kumar (A-1) took Rs. 5,000/- and on two occasions he gave Rs. 3,000/- to Raj Kumar but he did not say that any demand was made by Raj Kumar (A-1) for this money. If this amount was given to Raj Kumar by they, brother of the complainant of this own as gift or it was given as loan, then it cannot be said that any unlawful demand was made by the ; accused, for the purpose of section 498-A of the Indian Penal code. This apart, payment of money to A-1 is also an improvement as he did not say so in this statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure. So far gifting of the land by the parents of the complaints to Raj Kumar (A-1) is concerned, it is merely a self serving statement made by the complaint which is not corroborated by any other evidence. Even the mother of the complaint Kamla Thakur (PW-3) does not say a word about it. It is admitted position, that both the brother of accused are government employees occupying high position in the government. The father accused is a retied chief engineer. It is incredible that such a demand would be raised by the accused. 10. Even the mother of the complaint Kamla Thakur (PW-3) does not say a word about it. It is admitted position, that both the brother of accused are government employees occupying high position in the government. The father accused is a retied chief engineer. It is incredible that such a demand would be raised by the accused. 10. Complainant Mahima Chaudhary and her mother Kamla Thakur do say that when the first daughter was born to the complaint, A-2 along with other family members and A-1 came to Nahan and she started crying that if son was born to Mahima, she would have got a gold chain. On this Kamla Thakur (Pw-3) mother of the compliant, took chain from her neck and gave it to Kamla Devi, mother of Raj Kumar (A_1). However there is no foundation for this allegation. This allegation was made by both the complainant and Kamla Thakur for the first time in the court. They did not say word about their respective statement under Section 161 of the code of criminal Procedure. The family of the accused is well placed in life. They have their own land at Dharamshala. Raj Kumar, husband of tne complainant was admittedly earlier employed at Delhi and now runs his own business at Dharamshala. 11. It is the evidence of he complainant that after the twin daughters were born to her she was taunted by her mother-in-law (A-2) for having given birth to three daughters and told her that in their family only boys are produced and how she has given birth to a daughter. However, there is no foundation for this allegation in her statement under section 161 of the code of criminal Procedure or in the first information Report. This apart, assuming that the taunts attributed to the accused were hurled on the complainant then such taunts would not constitute cruelty within the mending of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mere foul language or manners would not amount to cruelty. The question whether particular act or behaviour would amount to cruelty or not largely depends upon the character, way of the life of the parties, their social and economic condition, their status, customs and traditions. Mere foul language or manners would not amount to cruelty. The question whether particular act or behaviour would amount to cruelty or not largely depends upon the character, way of the life of the parties, their social and economic condition, their status, customs and traditions. It is true that such taunts causes mental agony, but this is not such a mental agony which ordinarily will drive a ordinary woman, in the rural background, to commit suicide or because grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical). Stray domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law, to her daughter-in-law in the Indian Society, crude and uncultured behaviour by the in-law or the husband towards has wife being mundane matters of normal occurrence in the traditional joint Hindu families will not go to form and constitute "cruelty" unless these acts or conduct singly or cumulatively, are found to be of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide or impair physical or mental health. The allegations made by the complainant are general in nature. There is no evidence on record to show when precisely the taunt were hurled. The evidence regarding this is contradictory. The complainant! in her evidence stated that when her mother-in-law visited her parental house at Nahan on birth of first daughter then she taunted her by saying that she has given birth to a daughter and that in their family daughters have never been produced and it is thereafter her mother Kamla Thakur took chain from her neck and gave it to Kamla Devi, mother of Raj Kumar (A-1). On the other hand, evidence of Kamla Thakur (PW-3) was that her son-in-law Raj Kumar (A-1) along with her mother visited their house on the birth of first child. Mother-in-law Kamla Thakur started crying and saying that if the boy was born she would have got gold chain and it is thereafter that Kamla Thakur (PW-3) mother of the complainant took a chain from her neck and gave it to Kamla Devi, mother of Raj Kumar (A-1). The allegation that the complainant was taunted for having given birth to three daughters thus is not supportable by the evidence on record. Statement of the complainant in this respect is unreliable and without any foundation. 12. The allegation that the complainant was taunted for having given birth to three daughters thus is not supportable by the evidence on record. Statement of the complainant in this respect is unreliable and without any foundation. 12. So far the physical torture to the complainant by her husband and mother-in-law is concerned, it is the allegation of the complainant that she used to be beaten by her in-laws. She even named Sunil Chaudhary, brother of Raj Kumar (A-1), that he had also used to beat her for not bringing dowry. This allegation is not supported by any acceptable evidence on record. The allegation is general in nature. No instance has been given of any physical torture or beatings. It is the evidence of the complainant that in the year 1996. before filling of the FIR, she was beaten by the accused and turned out of the house and she had spent the night in the cold and on the next day the neighboured intervened and she was given a separate room. None of the neighboured who intervened in this matter have been examined. It is her evidence that brother of accused had severely beaten her and she got herself medically examined and her medical report was Ex. PW-1/A. 13. Dr. DP. Swamy, Medical Officer, (PW-1) examined Mahima Chaudhay on October 9, 1996. He could find only one scratch abrasion on the right side of the neck which was 3 cm X 1/2 cm. The Injury indeed was simple in nature caused by some irregular pointed and blunt weapon. In the cross-examination, the Doctor candidly admitted that the injury on the person of the complainant could also be self inflicted. Thus, the allegation of physical torture to the complainant in the opinion of the accused dies not stand scrutiny of evidence. This apart it is the case of the complainant that accused came to her parental house at Nahan and apologized in writing. Such writing has not seen the light of the day. 14. This apart, the complainant rely upon a letter written by Raj Kumar (A-1) to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dari (Ex. This apart it is the case of the complainant that accused came to her parental house at Nahan and apologized in writing. Such writing has not seen the light of the day. 14. This apart, the complainant rely upon a letter written by Raj Kumar (A-1) to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dari (Ex. PW-8/B), whereby father of the complainant wrote to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat saying that his son Raj Kumar brought back his wife and children on 22nd may 1996 Accused Raj Kumar (A-1) requested his father for a separate room and Raj Kumar along with the complainant and children started living in that room. It is stated in he letter that both of them keeps on fighting with each other. He requested Panchayat that they should ask his son to vacate the room. The matter was taken up by the Panchayat. On 17th September, 1996 they went to the house of Raj Kumar. Both husband and wife admitted that they fight with each other and if anything happened to any one of the them, then the parents of the husband will not be responsible for that and thereafter father of the husband permitted them to live in that room. Ex. PW-8/D is the compromise between the complainant and accused Raj Kumar, which was recorded on the same date. In this compromise the complainant categorically admitted that she was at fault and henceforth she will not create any problem or fight with her husband and will live peacefully in the house. These documents show that the complainant herself was not entirely blameless. She was also responsible for matrimonial discord between husband and wife. The allegation made by the complainant in her statement appears to be made up and without any foundation. 15. In view of the evidence on record, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial magistrate cannot be said to be perverse or unsupportable by evidence.