Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2351 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. SUKH DEV

2016-11-07

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he reversed the verdict of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, qua the commission by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? respondent herein of offences constituted under Sections 498A and 506 IPC borne in F.I.R Ext.PW-5/A. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of application filed by the complainant Hira Devi FIR was registered at Police Station Manali. The complainant had alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the accused on 20.10.2008 by exchange of affidavits. Thereafter they cohabitated together. Thereafter, the accused demanded dowry of Rs. four lacs and gave her beatings. The accused told her that marriage will not be registered until Rs. four lacs is paid to him. On 18.7.2009 she was given merciless beatings by the accused and demanded dowry of Rs. four lacs. She came in a Government bus along with accused and she was threatened that in case dowry amount was not paid to him the accused will throw her in the Pandoh Dam. It was further alleged that when she reached near a place known as 17 miles, she noticed Gokal Chand who is her cousin. She called him and at the relevant time the accused was also sitting with her. He inquired from the accused who told him that he wanted four lacs rupees dowry. Thereafter she fled away from the spot. The matter was investigated and after completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused whereas the learned Sessions Judge returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge standing not based on a proper appreciation by him of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. Ext.PW-1/A embodies an affidavit holding therewithin recitals qua marriage standing solemnized inter se the complainant and the accused/respondent herein where after both stayed for two days at Manali thereafter both cohabitated at Jahu. The accused/respondent herein in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. admitted the factum of the complainant being his wife. However, despite the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitting the factum of the informant being his legally wedded wife would not per se render open an inference qua the charge to which he stood tried standing efficaciously proven. The complainant in F.I.R. borne on Ext.PW-5/A has voiced therein qua the accused/respondent by belabouring her hence subjecting her to cruelty. She therein also ascribes to the accused an inculpatory role qua his demanding Rs. four lacs as dowry from her. Necessarily hence the factum of the accused/respondent belabouring her also his making a demand upon her for dowry stood enjoined to be proven by creditworthy evidence. She therein also ascribes to the accused an inculpatory role qua his demanding Rs. four lacs as dowry from her. Necessarily hence the factum of the accused/respondent belabouring her also his making a demand upon her for dowry stood enjoined to be proven by creditworthy evidence. Though in her testification the complainant has supported the recitals constituted in Ext.PW-5/A yet PW-2 wherefrom whom she concerts to lend corroborative vigour to her testimony has not rendered the required efficacious corroboration to her testification. Even though in his examination in chief he has testified qua on 18.7.2009 while he was standing at a place called 17 miles for alighting a bus therefrom his thereat noticing the complainant travelling in a bus along with the accused where after he testifies qua the complainant weeping in his presence and disclosing to him qua the accused belabouring her also his demanding four lacs as dowry from her. He in his examination in chief has testified qua earlier to 18.07.2009 also the complainant twice or thrice disclosing to him of the respondent herein belabouring her besides making a demand of dowry. He in his examination in chief has testified qua earlier to 18.07.2009 also the complainant twice or thrice disclosing to him of the respondent herein belabouring her besides making a demand of dowry. The aforesaid disclosures embedded in the examination of PW-2 for theirs being construable to lend corroborative vigour to the testification of PW-1 were enjoined to not suffer any erosion qua their probative sinew arising from contradictions thereto occurring in his cross-examination to which he subjected to by the learned defence counsel yet when there-within he has been unable to disclose with precision the time(s) whereat revelations earlier to 18.07.2009 stood purportedly made to him by the complainant qua the latter standing belaboured by the accused, is an abundant portrayal of his relevant testifications in his examination in chief where-within he has made the aforesaid disclosures not warranting imputation of credence thereon also when he in his cross-examination concedes to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel qua the accused not in his presence demanding dowry from the complainant besides his admitting qua the respondent herein not threatening the complainant in his presence also predominantly his admitting the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel qua his deposing in Court at the instance of PW-1, with aplomb fosters an inference of his not rendering a voluntary deposition in purported corroboration to the testification of PW-1 rather his rendering a version qua the relevant fact only at the behest besides at the instance of PW-1. In sequel thereto his testifying a tutored besides a concocted version qua the incident renders it to not stand imbued with any virtue of truth. 10. Be that as it may, the factum of the relevant disclosure standing made to him on 18.07.2009 at a place called 17 miles whereat he was standing for alighting a bus whereupon he noticed both the accused and the complainant to be travelling together is unbelievable given in his cross-examination his deposing qua the relevant revelations standing made to him at 15 miles. Since the anvil of the prosecution case is qua the relevant disclosure purportedly made by PW-1 to PW-2 occurring at 17 miles whereas PW-2 in his cross examination unraveling therein qua the relevant disclosures standing made to him by PW-1 at 15 miles distance inter se both location stands conceded by him to be two and half kilometers ipso facto renders the factum of the relevant disclosure occurring at 15 miles to be stained with a gross vice of inveracity also thereupon a conclusion is erected qua his contriving the factum of PW-1 making any disclosure to him on 18.7.2009. Consequently, the testification of PW-2 in purported corroboration of the testification of PW-1 is unworthy of reliance. In aftermath, the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW-1 cannot acquire any formidable vigour. 11. The complainant in her testification embodied in her examination in chief voices therein qua hers disclosing the factum probandum to her mother who despite her name occurring in the list of prosecution witnesses was given up by the learned APP concerned. Though her examination would have lent corroborative vigour to the testification of PW-1 yet the prosecution chose to not examine her as its witness rather it proceeded to examine PW-2 who however has for reasons aforesaid not lent any vigour to the prosecution version. Cumulatively hence the omission of the prosecution to examine the mother of the complainant as its witness whereas with the complainant making a communication qua hers unveiling the relevant disclosures to her mother constrains a conclusion of the prosecution failing to prove the charges to which the accused stood subjected to. 12. The accused respondent herein and the complainant both resided together at Jahu whereat she alleges qua hers standing belaboured by the former. However, she did not make any disclosure qua the purported belabourings perpetrated upon her person by the accused at Jahu to any of the inhabitants of the homesteads existing in the vicinity of her homestead rather she proceeded to make a disclosure to her mother and to PW-2 the latter of whom for reasons afore stated had not supported the prosecution case whereas the former stood unexamined by the prosecution. In sequel thereto the complainant is to be concluded to contrive the factum of the accused respondent herein belabouring her at Jahu. 13. In sequel thereto the complainant is to be concluded to contrive the factum of the accused respondent herein belabouring her at Jahu. 13. The prosecution has not placed on record the apposite medical certificate prepared by the doctor concerned holding communications therein of the complainant standing subjected to physical beatings by the respondent herein. Omission of the aforesaid factum when construed in tandem with the factum qua the F.I.R qua the relevant occurrence standing belatedly lodged before the Police Station concerned significantly also when the relevant delay stands in-explicated, stirs an inference of the allegations constituted in the F.I.R. holding no truth rather theirs being a result of mere concoction on the part of the complainant. 14. For the reasons which have been recorded herein above, this Court holds that the learned Sessions Judge has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 15. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.