JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 28.4.2005 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No1, Hamirpur in criminal case No. 92-II/2001, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that marriage of PW-1 Nirmala Devi was solemnized with accused Dev Raj on 29.1.1998 in accordance with the Hindu rites. Accused Dev Raj and her mother-in-law Kalan Devi started taunting her for not bringing refrigerator, cooler and Rs. 50,000/- in dowry. They used to give her beatings. She left the matrimonial house in March, 1999 and went to her parental house at Paplah. Accused Dev Raj, after 8 days came to her parents’ house and asked her to accompany him to matrimonial house. She told that they would go in the next morning. Accused Dev Raj gave beatings to her in the presence of her parents. On 24.6.2001, accused Dev Raj alongwith Tilak Raj, Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dhirar, Nek Ram, the present Pradhan and Chaman Lal came to her parents’ house and asked her to accompany them to the matrimonial house. Thereafter, her father Ishwar Dass called Suraj Parkash, Raghu Nath, Khiali Ram and Roshan Lal from the village and consulted them and thereafter it was decided that she would be sent to the matrimonial house. On 27.6.2001, accused Dev Raj came to her parents’ house and took her to the matrimonial house. On 28.6.2001, both the accused gave beatings to her. On 30.6.2001 at about 1.30 P.M., she had gone to feed grass to the cattle in the cowshed where both the accused came and started saying that she has not brought Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and gave fist blows to her and also kicked her. Accused Dev Raj strangulated her. She raised alarm, but since the cowshed was at an isolated place, nobody came to her rescue. She narrated this incident to Tilak Raj, who informed her parents on telephone. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. Ex.PW-1/A was registered against the accused persons. Complainant was taken to C.H.C. Bhoranj. She was medically examined. She was also referred to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for detailed E.N.T. examination. PW-10 conducted the X-ray Ex.PW-10/A of SIN/LAP of the complainant PW-1. She narrated this incident to Tilak Raj, who informed her parents on telephone. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. Ex.PW-1/A was registered against the accused persons. Complainant was taken to C.H.C. Bhoranj. She was medically examined. She was also referred to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for detailed E.N.T. examination. PW-10 conducted the X-ray Ex.PW-10/A of SIN/LAP of the complainant PW-1. PW-15 Medical Officer examined PW-1 at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. He after examination, opined that the injury sustained by the complainant was simple in nature. After receiving the report of the Radiologist PW-10 and opinion of PW-15 Medical Officer, PW-16 vide MLC Ex.PW-16/A opined the injury sustained by the complainant to be simple in nature. The Investigating Officer prepared the spot map Ex.PW-12/A. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3.Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses in all to prove its case. Statements of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused Dev Raj has denied that he ill-treated or tortured the complainant PW-1 for dowry and gave her beatings. He has admitted that vide coimpromise Ex.PA, he undertook not to ill-treat PW-1 in future and to maintain her. He denied that he gave beatings to the complainant and strangulated her. He has stated that the complainant wanted divorce from him. He claimed innocence. He has not led any evidence. Similarly, accused Kalan Devi has admitted the marriage of the accused Dev Raj with complainant (PW-1). She has also admitted that on 27.6.2001, accused Dev Raj brought the complainant to the matrimonial house. She has denied rest of the prosecution case. Learned trial court acquitted the accused on 28.4.2005. Hence the present appeal. 4.Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. 5.Mr. Himmat Negi has supported the judgment of the trial court. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully. 7.The Court will advert to the first question whether the accused has tortured and harassed the complainant Nirmala Devi for bringing insufficient dowry and on 30.6.2001 have voluntarily caused hurt to her. PW-1 Nirmala Devi has deposed that the accused started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry after six months of the marriage. They were demanding dowry, cooler, refrigerator and ‘ 50,000/-. PW-1 Nirmala Devi has deposed that the accused started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry after six months of the marriage. They were demanding dowry, cooler, refrigerator and ‘ 50,000/-. This incident was narrated by her to her parents. She left the matrimonial house. Her husband came under intoxication to her parents’ house and asked her to accompany him to the matrimonial house. He gave beatings to her in the presence of her parents. According to her, she was pursuing the studies of 10th class at the time of her marriage. She has also placed on record copy of the record of the Gram Panchayat. She has reported the matter to the Gram Panchayat after six months of her marriage. She never lodged report regarding demand of dowry and beatings given by the accused. 8. PW-2 Ishwar Dass is the father of the complainant. According to him, accused used to give beatings to his daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. They were demanding refrigerator, cooler and ‘ 50,000/- from PW-1. He had given one Black and White television. The same was broken by the accused. Accused Dev Raj had come to their house intoxicated and asked to send PW-1 with him. He gave beatings to PW-1 in their presence. He also dragged his daughter. However, he has admitted that he has not disclosed this incident to any one. He has categorically admitted that the accused has never demanded dowry from them and he did not file any complaint against the accused. 9. PW-3 Bhram Dass is the uncle of PW-1. He is witness to Ex.PA dated 24.6.2001. He was not aware about the date and month of the marriage of the complainant with the accused. 10. PW-4 Tara Devi is the mother of the complainant. According to her, PW-1 was looked after properly for five months. Thereafter, she was given beatings by the accused. 11. PW-1 has deposed that her marriage was solemnized on 29.1.1998. The accused started harassing her. She left the matrimonial house after seven months. However, in earlier statement Ex. PW-1/A she has deposed that she left the matrimonial house in the month of March, 1999. She has admitted that she was studying in 10 th standard at the time of her marriage. The examination was held in the month of March. She has denied the suggestion that she had gone to her parental house for taking examination. PW-1/A she has deposed that she left the matrimonial house in the month of March, 1999. She has admitted that she was studying in 10 th standard at the time of her marriage. The examination was held in the month of March. She has denied the suggestion that she had gone to her parental house for taking examination. PW-4 Tara Devi mother of the complainant has also admitted that PW-1 has undertaken matriculation examination from the parental house. According to the prosecution, on 24.6.2001 accused Dev Raj alongwith Pradhan had visited the parents of the complainant. PW-2 Ishwar Dass called the respectable persons from the village. The compromise Ex.PA was arrived at on 24.6.2001. The accused had undertaken not to harass the complainant. It was effected in the presence of Chaman Lal, Tilak Raj, Ex-Pradhan, Nek Ram present Pradhan and Jagdish Chand. 12. PW-6 Sant Ram has deposed that he has effected the compromise between Dev Raj and the complainant. Accused Dev Raj has also admitted in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the compromise was arrived at between the parties. Statements of PW-7 Suraj Parkash and PW-8 Tilak Raj are also to the similar effect. It is not stated in Ex.PA that the accused was mal-treating the complainant for bringing insufficient dowry. There is no reference of dowry in Ex.PA. He has only agreed that in future he would neither harass nor give beatings to the complainant. 13. PW-2 Ishwar Dass is the father of the complainant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no demand of dowry by the accused. The terms and conditions contained in Ex.PA as per the version of PW-5 Chaman Lal were dictated by PW-2. PW- 8 Tilak Raj and PW-9 Nek Ram have deposed that accused Dev Raj has never given beatings to the complainant. These witnesses were declared hostile. The compromise Ex.PA will not amount to admission on the part of the accused Dev Raj that the family was demanding dowry. 14. Now, the Court will advert to whether the accused have caused volunteer hurt to the complainant PW-1. According to prosecution, on 28.6.2001, the accused gave beatings to her. These witnesses were declared hostile. The compromise Ex.PA will not amount to admission on the part of the accused Dev Raj that the family was demanding dowry. 14. Now, the Court will advert to whether the accused have caused volunteer hurt to the complainant PW-1. According to prosecution, on 28.6.2001, the accused gave beatings to her. On 30.6.2001 at about 1.30 P.M. when she had gone to the cow-shed to feed grass to the cattle, the accused gave beatings to her and started saying that she had not brought Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. She raised alarm, but nobody came to her rescue as the cow-shed was at an isolated place. It has come in the statement of PW-1 that there was a marriage in their village. She alongwith her sister-in-law had gone to attend the marriage. They came back at about 12.00 P.M. Her sister-in-law told her to feed grass to buffalo. She went to the cow-shed to feed grass to the buffalo. In the meantime, accused came there and asked her as to why she had not brought Rs. 50,000/-. He gave beatings to her. Her mother-in-law caught hold of her from her arm. She bit her and kicked accused Dev Raj. She raised alarm, but nobody was there. She managed to escape from the accused. She narrated the entire incident to Tilak Raj. She also disclosed that on 29.6.2001, her mother-in-law had sprinkled kerosene on her and they got washed the clothes worn by her. PW-2 Ishwar Dass, father of the complainant has narrated that on 30.6.2001, accused again gave beatings to his daughter PW-1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that they did not go to the village Sota. According to PW- 4 also, accused gave beatings to PW-1 on 30.6.2001. PW-5 Chaman Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that there was a wedding party on 30.6.2001 and the accused is a cook by profession. He was present at the wedding party. Accused persons were also present at the wedding party. According to PW-8 Tilak Raj on 30.6.2001, the complainant was weeping and was asking to take her to her parents. She was not intending to stay there. He was declared hostile. PW-8 Tilak Raj is a witness to whom the complainant has reported the incident. He has not supported the prosecution case. According to PW-8 Tilak Raj on 30.6.2001, the complainant was weeping and was asking to take her to her parents. She was not intending to stay there. He was declared hostile. PW-8 Tilak Raj is a witness to whom the complainant has reported the incident. He has not supported the prosecution case. He has denied that on 30.6.2001 PW-1 had told her that accused persons gave beatings to her. PW-14 Mast Ram has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 15. According to the opinion of the Radiologist, injury received by the complainant was within the duration of six hours with blunt weapon. He has issued MLC Ex.PW-16/A. He has admitted in his cross­examination that the injury was not possible by fist and kick blows. According to him, there was no external and internal injury on the person of injured except her allegation regarding difficulty in swallowing. According to PW-15 Dr. K.C. Dogra, E.N.T. Specialist, he examined the complainant on 2.7.2001. According to him, there was no evidence of laryngeal cartilage fracture. PW-16 Dr. S.N. Sharma though has deposed that the skin of laryngeal frame work was reddish in colour but in his substantive evidence nowhere stated that the redness on the laryngeal frame work on the complainant was possible by strangulation. Similarly, PW-15 Dr. K.C. Dogra has not deposed that the redness on the neck of the complainant PW-1 was possible by strangulation. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand raised by the accused towards dowry. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 vis-a-vis statement Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Ishwar Dass has admitted that there was no demand of dowry. PW-1 has admitted that she wanted divorce from accused Dev Raj. There is no reference in Ex.PA of demand of dowry. The medical examination of the complainant does not prove that the complainant was strangulated. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. 16. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.