Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 638 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. SUBHASH CHAND

2013-07-03

R.B.MISRA

body2013
Judgment : R.B. Misra, J. - 1. The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Dehra, Distt. Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 49-II of 2003, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant, namely, Seema Devi had made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC on 12.1.2003 that after her marriage with the accused-respondent No.1,namely, Subhash Chand in the year 2007 and one male issue was born from the wedlock, however, the accused- respondents have repeatedly been beating and maltreating her and on many occasions, on the indulgence of the Panchayat, compromise was effected. It was also alleged that on 11.1.2003 at around 6/7 p.m., the victim/complainant was asked by her father- in-law, namely, Kishori Lal and Brahmi Devi to vacate the room and on her refusal, the husband-accused and Trishla Devi, sister-in-law of the complainant, threatened the complainant to leave the house and subsequently accused Subhash Chand brought a bottle of Kerosene oil and in furtherance of a common intention sprinkled Kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. To save herself, the complainant ran towards the courtyard, where her sister-in-law, accused Trishla Devi threw a bucket of water on the complainant whereas the complainant has been shouting for help. FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 read with Section 120-B IPC. During the course of investigation, police took into possession compromise, effected between the parties, namely, compromises dated 20.7.2002, 25.5.2000, 19.5.2001 and 10.10.2001. After completion of investigation, the police presented the challan in Court for trial for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. In order to prove the aforesaid offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, whereas, accused-respondents, through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and in defence the accused- respondents did not adduce any evidence. 3. The prosecution examined complainant Seema Devi as PW-7, PW-8 Mohindra Devi, PW-4 Sushma Devi, PW-5 Azad Singh and PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, as witnesses of facts and circumstances. PW-3 Rattan Chand and PW-1 Suram Singh were examined as eye witnesses. 3. The prosecution examined complainant Seema Devi as PW-7, PW-8 Mohindra Devi, PW-4 Sushma Devi, PW-5 Azad Singh and PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, as witnesses of facts and circumstances. PW-3 Rattan Chand and PW-1 Suram Singh were examined as eye witnesses. To corroborate the medical evidence on record, the prosecution examined Dr. Vivek Sood as PW-6. Besides this, the prosecution examined S.I. Jasbir Singh as PW-7, HC Sat Paul as PW-10 and S.I. Jeet Singh as PW- 11, as formal police witnesses. 4. PW -6 Dr. Vivek Sood after medically examined the complainant noticed superficial burns around 21% on the person of the complainant and the complainant was asked to present herself before the Medical Officer after 14 days but she did not turn up. Nature of injuries were found to be simple in nature and said to have been caused by kerosene oil. I have gone though the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and have noticed that PW-2/ Sukhdev Singh had stated that on 11.01.2003, while he was sitting on Dr. Krishan's S.T.D. at about 5.00 p.m. complainant Seema Devi came there and called on her parents, apprised them that her husband had come home and wanted to take her and son along with him, on which her mother suggested the victim that you have not to go with him and the complainant/Seema Devi said that she would not accompany her husband but would sprinkle kerosene oil on herself and burn herself. She again came to make telephone call after changing her burnt clothes. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Seema Devi's in-laws took proper care of her and Seema Devi was never beaten in his presence, while Seema Devi's mother did not want that her daughter should set up at her in-laws house and used to visit her daughter ones or twice in a week. Whenever, the mother of victim visited the matrimonial house of the victim, the later one (Seema Devi) used to fight with her in-laws. As further stated by PW-2, that on many occasions Seema Devi's parents had also beaten the accused 3-4 times. 5. PW -4/Sushma Devi stated to have received telephone call from the complainant that she has been burnt by her husband. Her husband sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and she was set on fire, after which, her sister-in-law threw one bucket of water. 5. PW -4/Sushma Devi stated to have received telephone call from the complainant that she has been burnt by her husband. Her husband sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and she was set on fire, after which, her sister-in-law threw one bucket of water. On the next day morning, she along with Up-Pradhan Azad Singh and her mother Mohindra Devi reached Seema Devi's house and stated that they were in high tamper. 6. PW -5/Azad Singh appeared as prosecution witness and has stated that Seema Devi's mother came to him and told her that her daughter has been burnt by the accused persons. On the next morning, PW-5 along with Mohindra Devi and one other person came to Seema Devi's in-laws and took her to hospital and compromise was also arrived at. Pw-1/Suram Singh and Pw-3/Rattan Chand have not supported the prosecution case as they have turned hostile. Pw-2/Sukhdev Singh though did not turn hostile but has given different story. Even the complainant/Seema Devi and her mother Pw-8 are not consistent and coherent. Except this incident, as reported by way of FIR, no other complaint was ever lodged to any person of the village or Gram Pradhan of the Panchayat. No other FIR was lodged but what to say of any medical examination conducted in respect of any injury or assault. Sole prosecution witness Pw-2 demolishes the case of the prosecution. 7. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, there is no scope for interference in the findings and judgment arrived at by the learned trial Court. In my considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused/respondents. Criminal appeal being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.