JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the State against Judgment dated 3.5.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.T. No. 17/10, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake) who were charged with and tried for offence under Sections 498-A/34, 315/34, 323/34 and 506/34 IPC have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant Sareena was married to accused No. 1 Ramesh Chand on 2.3.2006. Accused No. 3 Kailasho Devi is the mother-in-law of the complainant, accused No. 2 Sunka Ram was the father-in-law of the complainant and accused No. 4 Surender Kumar is the brother-in-law of the complainant. All the accused, after two months of marriage, started torturing Sareena mentally as well as physically. Accused used to demand dowry as well as Rs. 50,000/- from Sareena. Accused threatened the complainant if she did not bring money, she would be thrown out of the house. When Sareena was carrying four months’ pregnancy, she was forced by the accused to leave the matrimonial home. She came to her parents at Khabli. On 10.3.2007, accused Ramesh had gone to Khabli and asked Sareena to come back with him. Sareena refused. Ramesh told Sareena that his family members would come to Khabli and would beat her. Sareena did not go with the accused on 10.3.2007. On 14.3.2007, all the accused came to the house of father of Sareena and asked her to come back. Sareena again refused. All the accused used criminal force against Sareena. She was pulled down from the bed and given kick and fist blows. Accused Ramesh Chand had given blows on her stomach which resulted into bleeding. Sareena was saved from the clutches of accused by her parents. She suffered severe pain. In the next morning, police was informed and statement of Sareena under Section 154 CrPC was recorded. FIR was registered. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. During the pendency of appeal, accused No. 2 Sunka Ram expired on 31.7.2016. 5. Mr. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. During the pendency of appeal, accused No. 2 Sunka Ram expired on 31.7.2016. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person. 6. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 3.5.2010. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully. 8. PW-1 Sareena testified that she was married to the accused Ramesh as per Hindu rites and customs on 2.3.2006. Accused and his family members were decent with her for two months. Thereafter, her husband Ramesh, brother-in-law, Surender Kumar alias Munnu, mother-in-law Kailasho Devi and father-in-law, Sunka Ram started torturing her mentally and physically. Accused used to beat her and used to demand dowry. They also used to say that they want to construct a house. They demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the construction of house. Initially she did not reveal this to anybody and kept tolerating the behaviour of the accused. Her husband Ramesh continued to harass her. Remaining accused used to help him. Mother-in-law, Kailasho Devi pushed her and snatched her ornaments. Accused had been beating her for the 8-9 months. She narrated her woes to her parents. She also told the accused that her parents have no capacity to pay the money. She was carrying four months’ pregnancy. She was forced to leave the house of the accused. On 10.3.2007, Ramesh came to her father’s house and asked her to accompany him otherwise his family members would come and beat her. She did not go with the accused. On 14.3.2007 at 8.30 PM, all the accused alongwith complainant’s sister-in-law, Shobha Devi and her husband Som Raj came to her father’s house. Complainant’s younger sister-in-law, Shivani was also with them. Accused asked her to come to their house. She refused. Accused Ramesh gave her beatings. Ramesh pulled her down from the bed. He gave kick and fist blows on her stomach. Her parents and one Amit saved her from the clutches of the accused. She started bleeding and suffered pain. Accused left her and went away. On the next morning she was taken to the hospital. She refused. Accused Ramesh gave her beatings. Ramesh pulled her down from the bed. He gave kick and fist blows on her stomach. Her parents and one Amit saved her from the clutches of the accused. She started bleeding and suffered pain. Accused left her and went away. On the next morning she was taken to the hospital. Police came. Her statement Ext. PW-1/A was recorded. She was medically examined. Doctors told that the child was aborted. In her cross-examination, she deposed that there were two rooms in her parental house. She admitted that on 14.3.2007, they did not inform the Doctor or the police. Volunteered that there was no doctor and further her parents did not want to flare up the matter. She was a graduate. 9. Statement of PW-1 Sareena has been duly corroborated by her father, PW-2 Satpal. He deposed that, 3-4 months after the marriage, all the accused started torturing Sareena. They used to ask Sareena to bring Rs. 50,000/-. They used to say that she had brought insufficient dowry and used to beat her. Initially, Sareena did not disclose these facts to him but later disclosed all these facts to him. His daughter told him that her mother-in-law, Kailasho Devi had snatched her ornaments after pushing her. He was not capable of making the payment. On 26.2.2007, Sareena came to his house and at that time, she was carrying 3-4 months’ pregnancy. On 14.3.2007, all the accused came to his house. His daughter was sleeping. They said they wanted to talk to his daughter. Accused went to the room of his daughter and pulled her down from the bed. He saw accused Ramesh giving fist blows on the stomach of his daughter. Other accused were standing there but they did not aske Ramesh not to beat Sareena. On the next morning, they took Sareena to the Hospital. She was medically examined. Police came to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused came to his house on 14.3.2007 and after spending only half an hour, went to Nirmala’s house. Volunteered that the accused had spent about five hours in his house and they had gone to Nirmala’s house at about 11.30-11.45 Pm. On 15th, they had gone to the hospital in a vehicle. They had hired the vehicle from Khabli itself. Akshay was his son. Volunteered that the accused had spent about five hours in his house and they had gone to Nirmala’s house at about 11.30-11.45 Pm. On 15th, they had gone to the hospital in a vehicle. They had hired the vehicle from Khabli itself. Akshay was his son. His vehicle met with an accident near Kotla. He denied the suggestion that Naresh had incurred expenses of the repair of the vehicle of Akshay at Pathankot. 10. PW-3 Amit Sharma deposed that he had gone to the house of Satpal for personal work. His house was adjacent to Satpal’s house. He saw Sareena sitting on the floor and all the accused were standing in her room. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his crossexamination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that the fact of beating to her was told to him by Sareena. 11. PW-4 Dr. Suman Dhiman, conducted ultrasound on 16.3.2007. Report is Ext. PW-4/C. She has also given a detailed report vide Ext. PW-4/D. 12. PW-5 Dr. Vijay Singh Chib testified that Sareena wife of Ramesh was brought with history of domestic violence. He had noticed the following injuries:- “1. A 14-16 weeks old foetus inside yellow coloured blood stained underwear. Foetus was dead. 2. There were no marks of injury seen on abdominal wall. She complained of pain in left shoulder.” 13. Nature of injury No. 1 was grievous and nature of injury No. 2 was simple. Probable duration of injuries was within 12 hours. Injuries were caused with blunt object. He issued MLC Ext. PW-5/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the dead foetus was handed over to the police to ascertain the cause of death by examination in the laboratory. He also testified that injury No. 1 could occur by fist and kick blows and sudden dragging from cot to floor. He admitted that there was no external or internal injury on vagina, uterus and genitalia. There could be so many other reasons for miscarriage of pregnancy. PW-5 Vijay Singh Chib further deposed that an application Ext. PW-5/B was put up before him by the police. He replied the same. He has given his opinion on Ext. PW-5/B. 14. PW-6 ASI Ashok Kumar was posted as IO in Police Station, Dehra in 2007. On 15.3.2007, an information was received from CH Dehra from a Doctor. PW-5 Vijay Singh Chib further deposed that an application Ext. PW-5/B was put up before him by the police. He replied the same. He has given his opinion on Ext. PW-5/B. 14. PW-6 ASI Ashok Kumar was posted as IO in Police Station, Dehra in 2007. On 15.3.2007, an information was received from CH Dehra from a Doctor. He alongwith other police official went to Dehra Hospital and recorded statement of Sareena Ext. PW-1/A. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station. He recorded the statements of Satpal and Neelam. He obtained MLC Ext. PW-5/A from the Doctor. 15. PW-7 Dharam Chand testified that on 15.3.2007, Rukka Ext. PW-1/A alongwith endorsement was received in the Police Station upon which FIR Ext. PW-7/A was registered. He carried out part investigation of the case. On 2.4.2007, he had visited the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. PW-7/C. He recorded statement of Amit. On 28.3.2007, he had moved an application Ext. PW-5/B before the Doctor and on the same day, his opinion was obtained. 16. What emerges from the appraisal of the statements and evidence as discussed herein above is that PW-1 Sareena and Ramesh were married on 2.3.2006. Relations between husband and wife were normal. Thereafter, accused and his family members started harassing PW-1 Sareena. Accused were asking Sareena to tell her parents to pay them Rs. 50,000/-. Her ornaments were snatched by her mother-in-law, i.e. accused No. 3, Kailasho Devi. Ramesh Chand alongwith other accused went to the house of PW-1 Sareena. Ramesh pulled down Sareena and gave kick and fist blows to her stomach. PW-1 Sareena started bleeding. She also suffered pain. She was moved to the hospital. In the morning, medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, FIR was registered. Prosecution has led tangible evidence that accused Ramesh Chand and Kailasho Devi were demanding dowry from the family of PW-1. Kailasho Devi has snatched ornaments of Sareena. Learned trial Court has erred in law by holding that family of Sareena owed Rs. 50,000/- for undertaking repairs of the vehicle of Sareena’s family. PW-2 Satpal, father of PW-1 Sareena, though has admitted that Akshay was his son and he met with an accident near Kotla. However, he has categorically denied that Naresh, brother-in-law of accused Ramesh Chand incurred expenses of repairs of the vehicle of Akshay at Pathankot. 50,000/- for undertaking repairs of the vehicle of Sareena’s family. PW-2 Satpal, father of PW-1 Sareena, though has admitted that Akshay was his son and he met with an accident near Kotla. However, he has categorically denied that Naresh, brother-in-law of accused Ramesh Chand incurred expenses of repairs of the vehicle of Akshay at Pathankot. The learned trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion that there was a civil dispute between the parties. Accused Ramesh Chand has visited the house of PW-1 Sareena on 14.3.2007. PW-1 Sareena has categorically deposed that accused Ramesh Chand gave kick and fist blows on her stomach. She started bleeding. She was taken to the hospital. Statement of PW-1 Sareena has been duly corroborated by her father PW-2 Satpal. He has deposed that on 14.3.2007, accused went to the room of his daughter and pulled down his daughter from the bed. Thereafter, he saw accused giving fist blows on the stomach of his daughter. Ultrasound was conducted by PW-4 Suman Dhiman. She issued MLC Ext. PW-4/C and Ext. PW-4/D. According to the report, it was a case of incomplete evacuation with retained products of conception i.e. incomplete abortion. PW-5 Dr. Vijay Singh has medically examined PW-1 Sareena. According to him, 14-16 weeks old foetus in yellow coloured blood stained underwear was found. Foetus was dead. According to him, nature of injury No. 1 was grievous and nature of injury No. 2 was simple. Probable duration of injuries was within 12 hours and caused with blunt object. Opinion of PW-5 Dr. Vijay Singh was again sought by the police by submitting application Ext. PW-5/B. PW-5 Vijay Singh has stated that in his opinion, miscarriage in this particular case could have occurred due to either of two possibilities as given in application Ext. PW-5/B dated 28.3.2007. Abortion/miscarriage has taken place due to the beatings administered by the accused Ramesh to PW-1 Sareena on her stomach. 17. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, has vehemently argued that there is delay in lodging FIR and that the PW-1 Sareena was not taken to the hospital immediately. It has come on record that no Doctor was available and PW-2 Satpal initially thought that matter should not be flared up. Ramesh and Kailasho Devi have forced PW-1 Sareena to leave the matrimonial home. Accused have admitted their presence in the house of Sareena’s parents on 14.3.2007. It has come on record that no Doctor was available and PW-2 Satpal initially thought that matter should not be flared up. Ramesh and Kailasho Devi have forced PW-1 Sareena to leave the matrimonial home. Accused have admitted their presence in the house of Sareena’s parents on 14.3.2007. Learned trial Court has also erred in holding that matter should have been reported by the parents of the victim to the police or Panchayat. In the Indian society, first attempt of the parents is that matter should be settled amicably and going to the police or Panchayat is the last resort. PW-3 Amit though declared hostile, but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was told by Sareena about the manner in which she was beaten up by the accused. Learned trial Court has perversely come to the conclusion that the accused were falsely implicated. Accused Ramesh and Kailasho Devi have criminally intimidated Sareena by going to her house. Accused Ramesh was aware that his wife was pregnant and despite that, he has given kick and fist blows on the stomach of Sareena resulting into miscarriage of pregnancy, thus, preventing the child from being born alive. Ramesh Chand and Kailasho Devi have caused mental as well as physical cruelty to PW-1 Sareena by demanding dowry. Sareena was forced to leave the matrimonial home and to live with her parents. 18. Prosecution has duly proved that accused Ramesh Chand and Kailasho Devi have caused physical and mental cruelty to Sareena by demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and administering beatings to her. Accused Ramesh Chand has prevented the child from being borne alive by giving fist and kick blows to the stomach of Sareena resulting into miscarriage of pregnancy. Accused Ramesh and Kailasho Devi have criminally intimidated Sareena. According to PW-5 Vijay Singh, injury No. 1 was grievous but accused have been charged only under Section 323 IPC. Ramesh has voluntarily caused hurt by giving beatings to Sareena. However, there is no evidence against Surender Kumar, brother-in-law of the complainant Sareena. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 3.5.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.T. No. 17/10, is set aside. Accused Ramesh Chand is convicted under Sections 498-A/34, 323/34 and 315/34 IPC. Kailasho Devi is convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 506-I/34 IPC. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 3.5.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.T. No. 17/10, is set aside. Accused Ramesh Chand is convicted under Sections 498-A/34, 323/34 and 315/34 IPC. Kailasho Devi is convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 506-I/34 IPC. Convicts be produced to be heard on quantum of sentence on 22.9.2016. 20. Registry is directed to prepare and send the production warrants forthwith.