Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 443 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. MADAN LAL

2010-03-09

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Dharamshala, H.P., dated 24.12.2001, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A, 120B and 506 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a written complaint, dated 28.9.1999, Ext.PW-7/A, was filed to the police by the complainant Smt.Samindali Devi, in which she alleged that she was married to respondent No.1 Madan Lal (since deceased). She alleged that her husband was maltreating her, giving beatings to her and was not paying any maintenance to her. She further alleged that her husband came back two months ago from Army service and gave her abuses and turned her out. She further alleged that yesterday, her husband brought another woman alongwith a girl and told her that he has already married the said woman and would not give maintenance to her. She also alleged that she was turned out and thus, she lodged the present complaint with the police on which a case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed against respondent No.1 (husband) as well as against respondents No.2 and 3, who are Jethani and Nanad of the complainant. The respondents were tried by the learned trial Court and were acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 3. The present appeal is preferred by the State of H.P. against all the respondents, but during the pendency of the the appeal, respondent No.1 Madan Lal, husband of the complainant, died and, therefore, the appeal stands abated as against him. 4. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The Court has to consider evidence as against respondents No.2 and 3 only, since the husband of the complainant against whom the main allegations were made is already dead. A perusal of the statement of the complainant PW-2 Samindali Devi shows that she made only vague allegations as against respondents No.2 and 3 that they also used to give her beatings and abuses. She never alleged the exact date, month or year or the period when these beatings were given to her by respondents No.2 and 3. A perusal of the statement of the complainant PW-2 Samindali Devi shows that she made only vague allegations as against respondents No.2 and 3 that they also used to give her beatings and abuses. She never alleged the exact date, month or year or the period when these beatings were given to her by respondents No.2 and 3. Even in cross examination, she did not substantiate the assertions made by her in her examination-in-chief. 6. The mother of the complainant Smt.Goran Devi, who was examined as PW-6, also stated vaguely about the beatings given to the complainant by respondents No.2 and 3, but she did not specifically state as to when the beatings were given and when she was informed by the complainant that she has been beaten by respondents No.2 and 3. The other witnesses have deposed mainly as against respondent No.1, who is already dead. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence led as against respondents No.2 and 3 to hold that any case is made out or that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse. 7. In view of the fact that there is no evidence as against respondents No.2 and 3 and the learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, had concluded that the guilt of respondents No.2 and 3 does not stand proved, the said findings cannot be termed perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed as against respondents No.2 and 3 only. The bail bonds furnished by respondents No.2 and 3 shall stand discharged. March 9, 2010.