JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 31-7-1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the respondent/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of a charge under Ss. 498-A and 506 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of complainant Sudarshna Devi (PW-1) with the accused was solemnised on October 12, 1993. They lived happily for 3-4 months after the marriage but thereafter the accused started maltreating PW-1 saying that she had brought insufficient dowry and started beating her after consuming liquor. The beatings so given to her resulted in abortions 2 - 3 times. Further the accused refused to maintain her and turned her out of the matrimonial home more than once. Lastly, on 24-5-1995 she was beaten up by the accused causing her bodily injuries and on the next day the prosecutrix left for her parents house at Nagrota Bagwan. On 25-5-1995 the matter was reported at Police Post, Nagrota Bagwan vide report Ext. PW-6/B. Because of the inaction on the part of the concerned police PW-1 approached Dy. S. P. Dharamshala and on his direction F.I.R. Ext. PW-1/A was registered at Police Station, Dharamshala under Ss. 498-A and 506 IPC. After the investigation, the Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Dharamshala submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under S. 498-A to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra. A charge under Ss. 498-A and 506 IPC was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined six witnesses. Statement of the accused under S. 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the case of the prosecution as a whole and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 5. To prove the charge, the main witnesses examined by the prosecution are the complainant (PW-1), her father Sidhu Ram (PW-2), her mother Kamla Devi (PW-3) and Dr. S. K. Mahajan (PW-5). 6. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 5. To prove the charge, the main witnesses examined by the prosecution are the complainant (PW-1), her father Sidhu Ram (PW-2), her mother Kamla Devi (PW-3) and Dr. S. K. Mahajan (PW-5). 6. PW-1 has stated that on 25-5-1995 she was beaten up by the accused while he was under the influence of liquor at about 6 or 6.30 P.M. and was turned out of the house and she had to go to her parents house. The beatings resulted in injury to her on the head whereby she could not open her eye. In the cross-examination, however, she has stated that on 24-5-1995 the accused accompanied her to Nagrota Bagwan and then stated that the accused took her to Nagrota Bagwan on 25-5-1995 and that they had started their journey to Nagrota Bagwan at 5 or 6 P. M. by a bus from Vidhubari. By this admission PW-1 has contradicted herself regarding her beating by the accused on 25-5-1995 at 6 P.M. After she was beaten up on 24-5-1995 and had left her matrimonial house and came to her parents house on that day there was no occasion for the accused to accompany her to her parents house on 25-5-1995. It is not stated by the complainant that when the accused had come with her to her parents house, he beat her at her parents house on 25-5-1995 whereas it is so mentioned in her report Ext. PW-6/B. She has also stated that the beatings by the accused had resulted in abortions 3 or 4 times whereas it is not so mentioned in the report Ext. PW-6/B. As per the contents of the F.I.R. Ext. PW-1/A such abortions took place 2 or 3 times but while making her statement in the Court the number of abortions have now increased to 3 or 4. She could not specify the material time regarding the alleged beatings and the abortions. 7. PW-2 has stated that accused used to beat PW-1 for bringing insufficient dowry. He has further stated PW-1 after having been beaten by the accused came to his house on 25-5-1995. At that time she was ill but he is not aware since when she was ill. 7. PW-2 has stated that accused used to beat PW-1 for bringing insufficient dowry. He has further stated PW-1 after having been beaten by the accused came to his house on 25-5-1995. At that time she was ill but he is not aware since when she was ill. He got her medically examined and lodged report about her beating at the Police Post Nagrota Bagwan. He has thus contradicted PW-1 on all material particulars as she has stated that she had left for her parents house on 24-5-1995. She had not stated that at that time she was ill. In the cross- examination he could not state the day or month when his daughter was beaten up by the accused. He has denied that the accused had accompanied PW-1 to his house on 25-5-1995 whereas it is so stated by PW-1. He claims to have got PW-1 medically examined on 25-5-1995 at 5 P.M. but this version is not supported by the contents of the M.L.C. and the statement of PW-5 who claims that PW-1 was examined by him on 25-5-1995 at 8.30 P.M. He has not stated that the beatings given by the accused to PW-1 had resulted in any abortion. 8. PW-3 Kamla Devi has stated that the accused used to beat PW-1 for bringing insufficient dowry and on 25-5-1995 after having been beaten up by the accused PW-1 came to her house and at that time she had injuries on her entire body including face and eyes. She has further stated that those injuries were bleeding and the clothes of the PW-1 were drenched with blood. Thus, this witness has given a highly exaggerated version about the alleged injuries which is not even the case of the complainant PW-1. She is not in a position to tell the date, month or year when the accused had beaten up PW-1 or demanded dowry. State of Himachal Pradesh, Appellant v. Ashok Kumar Contrary to the statement of PW-2 she claims that PW-1 was taken to the Doctor by her. In the cross-examination, she has stated that they do not want their daughter to settle in the house of the accused and that the accused had still been visiting their house and even after the case he had visited their house thrice. In the cross-examination, she has stated that they do not want their daughter to settle in the house of the accused and that the accused had still been visiting their house and even after the case he had visited their house thrice. She has denied the suggestion that the accused has been visiting their house with a view to take back the complainant to his house and has stated that the accused had been coming to their house only to quarrel with them. This explanation of PW-3 about the coming of the accused to her house apparently is far from being true in view of her own admission that they do not want that PW-1 must settle/live in the house of the accused. 9. The statements of these witnesses are contradictory of the version as was given at the time of lodging of the report Ext. PW-6/B. In this report there is no allegation whatsoever regarding insufficiency of the dowry which was given to the complainant by her parents at the time of her marriage. The only allegation in this report is that on 24-5-1995 at about 6 P.M. the accused gave beating to the complainant with fist blows and thereafter he brought the complainant to Nagrota Bagwan on 25-5-1995 where he again gave beating to the complainant at 6 P.M. and leaving the complainant at her parents house went to his house. Contrary to this version, now the allegations against the accused in F. I. R. Ext. PW-1/A which has been lodged after about two weeks of the lodging the report Ext. PW-6/B are that the accused used to beat the complainant under the influence of liquor for the reason that she had brought insufficient dowry, that he is not maintaining her and such beatings 2 or 3 times resulted in abortions. The F. I. R. further contains allegation that PW-1 was beaten up by the accused on 24-5-1995 at 6 P. M. evidently, there is improvement in the version as contained in the F.I.R. Ext. PW-1/A regarding the beating of PW-1 for not bringing sufficient dowry. There is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the complainant was brought by the accused to her parents house on 25-5-1995 and was beaten up there at 6 P.M. where after the accused went to his house. PW-1/A regarding the beating of PW-1 for not bringing sufficient dowry. There is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the complainant was brought by the accused to her parents house on 25-5-1995 and was beaten up there at 6 P.M. where after the accused went to his house. These contradictions are sufficient to raise grave doubts about the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. 10. It is evident from the above discussion that the statements of the aforesaid most material witnesses are not only contradictory of each other but are contradictory of the contents of report Ext. PW-6/B which is stated to have been lodged immediately after the alleged occurrence and the statement of PW-1 is self-contradictory. Therefore, no reliance can be laid on their statements. 11. PW-5, who has medically examined the complainant on 25-5-1995, has stated that he had issued M.L.C. Ext. PW-5/A after the medical examination of the complainant. He had found two injuries on the person of the prosecutrix one of which was abrasion on the right side of the nose and another was a contusion. The injuries were simple having been caused with a blunt weapon having the duration of more than 12 hours. If the complainant was beaten up by the accused when they have reached her parents house on 25-5-1995 as is reported by her vide report Ext. PW-6/B, these injuries do not coincide with such beatings since maximum age of these injuries is not mentioned therefore, these cannot be co-related even with the alleged beatings of 24-5-1995. 12. There are other aspects of the case which completely demolish the prosecution case. There is no dispute that 30 to 40 families reside in the village of the accused. Had the accused been habitual of beating PW-1 and the extent thereof was such that it resulted in abortions twice or thrice, the villagers must be knowing about the conduct of the accused. However, none of such villagers had been produced to support the allegations of beating against the accused. 13. S. I. Kashmir Singh, the investigator (PW-4) has admitted that he had visited the village of the accused in connection with the investigation and had made inquiries there. He could not disclose as to from whom he had made such inquiries. However, none of such villagers had been produced to support the allegations of beating against the accused. 13. S. I. Kashmir Singh, the investigator (PW-4) has admitted that he had visited the village of the accused in connection with the investigation and had made inquiries there. He could not disclose as to from whom he had made such inquiries. He has admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any Panch, Nambardar or Chowkidar of the village nor he made enquiries from the parents of the accused. He has admitted that he did not find any evidence against the accused. If so, the two self-contradictory versions of PW-1 are incorrect and appear to have been manipulated because her mother does not want that she should settle in the house of the accused. It may be pointed out that in so far as the case against the accused under S. 506 I.P.C. is concerned, there is no evidence at all to prove it. 14. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Magistrate had rightly concluded that there was not a shred of evidence to lend credence to the allegations of criminal intimidation and the true facts remain shrouded in doubts and the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Therefore, the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. 15. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.