Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 571 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. KULWANT RAI

2010-03-23

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral)-This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 17.5.1997, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police by Karam Chand, brother of complainant Krishna Devi, in which he alleged that his sister Krishna Devi PW-1 had been married to respondent for the last about six years. He alleged that the respondent kept his sister nicely for some time and after sometime started giving her beating. She gave birth to a daughter and she came back to Mandi to her parental place as she was given beatings and maltreatment by the respondent. He stated that since his mother was not able to bear the expenses of the complainant and her daughter, she shifted her to State Home, Mandi and got her admitted there. She stayed there for 1½ years. During this period, the respondent used to take Krishna Devi’s daughter from State Home. Krishna Devi was also sent to Bilaspur for sometime, came back to Madi and got her daughter admitted at Bal Ashram, Shimla. It was further alleged that thereafter also, the respondent used to visit Mandi and used to quarrel with his mother and sister. It was further alleged that 4 months earlier, the respondent came to Mandi and his sister was sent back and the respondent took the daughter from Shimla. He further alleged that his sister and her daughter had been missing since 15.4.1993 and, therefore, the report was lodged with the police. On this report, a case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the respondent was tried by the learned trial Court, leading to the acquittal of the respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the FIR was registered on the complaint made by Karam Chand, brother of complainant Krishna Devi, who has not been examined by the prosecution. In the said complaint also, he had made general allegations in regard to the beatings and maltreatment. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the FIR was registered on the complaint made by Karam Chand, brother of complainant Krishna Devi, who has not been examined by the prosecution. In the said complaint also, he had made general allegations in regard to the beatings and maltreatment. The month, date or year or probable period of the places have not been mentioned by Karam Chand. In the report lodged with the police, he had made a missing report of his sister and her daughter and it appears that they were traced subsequently and the challan was filed only under Section 498-A I.P.C. In regard to allegation made in the complaint there is nothing about the dowry as mentioned above or any specific instance has been mentioned by Karam Chand, who lodged the report with the police. 5. The said woman or the aggrieved party Smt. Krishna Devi has been examined as PW-1. She also made general assertions in her statement in regard to the demand of dowry or the beatings given to her by her husband or the fact that she was turned out at that time by her husband. She stated that she brought money from her mother and gave it to the respondent and the evidence consists of her mother’s statement as PW-2 which clearly shows that they had no money and her mother was not able to keep her in her house and, therefore, she had kept her in State Home. Therefore, her statement that she brought money from her mother and gave it to the respondent does not inspire confidence. She did not state about the exact amount of money brought by her and give it to the respondent. Her mother PW-2 Kalan Devi is silent about the money or any specific demand of dowry made at that time. The allegations made in the statement of complainant as PW-1 as well as her mother PW-2 are general and vague in nature and are not specific and do not even specify about the month, date or year or the nature of injuries inflicted upon PW-1 Krishna Devi. No report was ever lodged with the police, Panchayat or other authority. The allegations made in the statement of complainant as PW-1 as well as her mother PW-2 are general and vague in nature and are not specific and do not even specify about the month, date or year or the nature of injuries inflicted upon PW-1 Krishna Devi. No report was ever lodged with the police, Panchayat or other authority. There is no medical evidence on record to substantiate the injury inflicted by the respondent on the person of his wife PW-1 or upon her brother Karam Chand, who suffered injury as stated by PW-1 or his mother PW-2. 6. On close scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is clear that there is nothing specific on record to establish even a single instance in regard to the beating so that it could be concluded that the respondent was guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C. The learned trial Court had observed that there was no independent evidence produced by the prosecution. But in such type of case(s), no independent witnesses can be instead upon, since such occurrence takes place inside the house and the only relevant witnesses can be immediate neighbours, who may have heard the cries of the aggrieved party i.e. woman or the persons to whom the complaint had been made by her at that time. Apart from this, no other independent witness can be insisted upon. But keeping in view the evidence of the prosecution consisting of the statements of the woman Krishna Devi and her mother, it is clear that since the evidence was having general in nature and was not specific in regard to time or place of the occurrence, it is difficult to conclude that the respondent could have been held guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C. The net conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged.