Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 441 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHOK KUMAR

2013-05-17

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 29.7.2005, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 216-II/2001, titled as State of H.P. vs. Ashok Kumr & others, whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. IT is the case of prosecution that on 29.7.2001 complainant Smt. Santosh Kumri (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Post, Bhawarna to the effect that the accused person had made demands of dowry and also subjected her to physical harassment and cruelty. Ashok Kumar (accused Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 1) is the husband of the complainant, Jagdish Chand (accused No. 2) and Savitri Devi (accused No. 3) respectively are the father and mother of accused No. 1. Police registered F.I.R. No. 207/01 (Ext. PW 6/B), dated 29.7.2001, under the provisions of Section 498-A and 506 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Palampur. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer Sh. R. S. Pathania (PW-8). With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eight witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. In defence accused examined one witness. 4. THE Court below has acquitted the accused for the reason that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the present appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out. 5. TO establish the fact that the accused had subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty by making dowry demands, beating her as also criminally intimidating her, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the testimonies of the complainant Smt. Santosh Kumari (PW-1), her sister Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-2), bother-in-law Sh. Kuldeep Singh (PW-3) and mother Smt. Raj Kumari (PW-4). 6. Kuldeep Singh (PW-3) and mother Smt. Raj Kumari (PW-4). 6. CONJOINT reading of the testimonies of these witnesses would only reveal that they have not been able to prove the prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt. No illegality or infirmity/perversity could be found in the appreciation of the evidence or the findings in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. In the complaint there is no specific reference of the amount of money demanded by the accused or for that matter, demand of certain articles such as television and gas. F.I.R. (Ext. PW 6/B) is unspecific and conspicuously vague and silent with regard to the allegations of dowry demands or beatings. However, this fact would not make the prosecution case to be fatal. But when one examines the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, one significant fact which emerges is that accused No. 2 and 3 were residing separately and having separate kitchen from that of the complainant and accused No. 1. Hence edifice of the prosecution case falls flat on the ground. 7. THERE is no dispute about the fact that the complainant was married to accused No. 1 prior to 1998-99. In the complaint it is not so mentioned that the accused persons had been making such demands since the time of the marriage or that the same were met by the complainant and her parents. Now, if testimony of the complainant (PW- 1) is examined, it would only reveal that certain household articles were given to the complainant by her parents sometime in the year 1998-99. These articles were given voluntarily without any demand. It is only subsequently, in the year 2001, that the complainant made reference of such articles in the complaint so made. This version of her also stands corroborated by her sister Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-2). 8. EVEN on this count the Investigating Officer (PW-8) has admitted that no dowry articles, which allegedly were given by the parents of the complainant to the accused, were actually found in the house of the accused persons or anywhere else during investigation. It is not the case of prosecution that these articles had been sold off or concealed by the accused. It is not the case of prosecution that these articles had been sold off or concealed by the accused. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that there is no specific instance or proof with regard to the time, place and manner in which such demands were either raised or met. Most significantly, parties were residing in an area where there are houses close by. Investigating Agency did not associate any person from the neighbourhood or from the Panchayat during investigation. Also they did not produce any independent witness during trial. In the instant case, I am of the considered view, that the trial Court rightly held that corroboration of the testimonies of complainant's witnesses was absolutely necessary. 9. SMT. Raj Kumari (PW-4) has exaggerated the version of dowry demands and the articles so demanded. She has referred to 'fridge' which in fact was not even the case of the complainant. PW-4 states that the accused had started subjecting the complainant to cruelty just after 2 3 months of the marriage which version of hers stands contradicted by PW- 1 and PW-2 according to whom the accused had started harassing the complainant only after a period of 1½ - 2 years. Significantly parties were known to the Pradhan of the area. Prior to the registration of the F.I.R. no complaint was ever filed with the Pradhan, Ward Panch or any other authority. Parties hail from rural area. They must have reported the matter to someone. 10. THE witnesses have made statements in Court which are at variance with their statements recorded by the investigating officer with which they were confronted. Hence the statements of the witnesses cannot be said to be believable. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 11. THE accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. As such, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.