Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1132 (HP)

State Of H. P. v. Nikku Ram

2017-10-03

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Instant criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.PC, is directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.10.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., whereby the respondent-Accused came to be acquitted of charge framed against him under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that an FIR Ext.PW1/A came to be registered against the respondent-Accused at the behest of the complainant namely Promila Devi, who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the Accused in the year, 2004 at Deotsidh Temple as per Hindu rites. After two months of marriage, respondent-Accused apart from giving beatings also started demanding dowry and on 28.8.2006, Accused allegedly gave beatings to the complainant in the presence of one Sanjiv Kumar i.e. relative of the complainant. Thereafter, on 8.9.2006, the complainant received one summon from Gram Panchayat Galore Khas, whereby she was called upon to appear before the Panchayat on 15.9.2006. Accordingly, complainant, her mother and her brother namely Dinesh Kumar appeared before the Gram Panchayat on 15.9.2006, wherein Accused allegedly again gave beatings to the complainant at about 1:30 p.m. in the presence of Up-Pradhan, lady ward member, mother and brother of the complainant. As per the complainant, brother and mother of the complainant saved him from the clutches of the Accused. Complainant also alleged that she was subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, a case came to be registered against the respondent Accused. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent Court of law under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the respondent-Accused put notice of accusation to him for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as six witnesses, whereas respondent-Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied all the allegations levelled against him and claimed himself to be innocent. Though respondent Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence but he furnished documents Exts.D1 to D3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as six witnesses, whereas respondent-Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied all the allegations levelled against him and claimed himself to be innocent. Though respondent Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence but he furnished documents Exts.D1 to D3. Learned court below on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent-Accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondent-Accused after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned court below. 4. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below, strenuously argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Chauhan made this court to travel through the impugned judgment of acquittal vis-a-vis evidence led on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that prosecution successfully proved on record that respondent Accused demanded dowry from the complainant and also gave beatings to her in presence of her mother and brother. Mr. Chauhan, while specifically inviting attention of this court to the statements of PW1 (complainant), PW3 (mother) and PW4 (brother of the complainant), contended that bare perusal of depositions made by these aforesaid witnesses clearly proves on record that an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was demanded by the respondent-Accused as a dowry from the complainant and she was also subjected to mental torture. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan invited attention of this court to the statement of PW2 (Dr. Arun Saxena) to state that injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant were medically proved in accordance with law by the prosecution and as such, there was no scope left for the court below to acquit the respondent-Accused of charges framed against him. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan invited attention of this court to the statement of PW2 (Dr. Arun Saxena) to state that injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant were medically proved in accordance with law by the prosecution and as such, there was no scope left for the court below to acquit the respondent-Accused of charges framed against him. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that there is total misreading, misrepresentation and mis-construction of evidence adduced on record and as such, respondent-Accused deserves to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and carefully gone through the record. 6. Despite repeated pass-overs, none came present on behalf of the respondent-Accused and as such, this Court had no option but to decide the instant case on the basis of material available on record. 7. This Court solely with a view to ascertain correctness and genuineness of aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, carefully perused the impugned judgment of acquittal vis-a-vis evidence led on record by the prosecution, perusal whereof certainly not persuade this Court to agree with the contention of Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General that there is complete mis-reading, misinterpretation and mis-construction of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, rather this Court after having carefully gone through the evidence led on record by the prosecution has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was given beatings and subjected to mental torture by the respondent-Accused. Similarly, this Court was unable to lay its hand to the evidence led on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was ever demanded by the respondent-Accused. This Court after having carefully perused/analyzed evidence led on record by the prosecution has reason to believe that the complainant never wanted to remain in the company of the respondent-Accused despite there being availability of all facilities at the house of the Accused-respondent namely Nikku Ram. 8. 80,000/- was ever demanded by the respondent-Accused. This Court after having carefully perused/analyzed evidence led on record by the prosecution has reason to believe that the complainant never wanted to remain in the company of the respondent-Accused despite there being availability of all facilities at the house of the Accused-respondent namely Nikku Ram. 8. PW1 Promila Devi, complainant, while deposing before the court below that her marriage was solemnized with the Accused in the year, 2004 categorically stated that after her marriage with the Accused, she was kept properly for two months by the respondent-Accused, whereafter he started demanding dowry. Similarly, aforesaid prosecution witness stated that her husband demanded Rs. 80,000/- on the pretext that no dowry was given to her at the time of marriage. Interestingly, aforesaid witness further deposed before the court below that she had disclosed aforesaid factum with regard to demand of dowry to her mother, who after making her understand, sent her back to the house of her in-laws, but there is no mention, if any, of alleged demand of dowry by the respondent-Accused in the statement of PW3 Smt. Raj Kumari, i.e. mother of the complainant. It emerge from the statement of PW1 Promila Devi that she had appeared before Gram Panchayat Galore Khas, where she was advised to approach appropriate court of law for redressal of her grievance. In her statement, she stated that she was given beatings on the road by the Accused and people saved her from the Accused. But interestingly, none of the independent witnesses including up-Pradhan Gurbax and one lady ward member was examined/cited as prosecution witnesses to give strength to the aforesaid version of the complainant that she was given beatings by the respondent-Accused in front of gram Panchayat on 15.9.2006. PW1 in her crossexamination categorically admitted that all facilities are available in the house of Accused but she is not interested to live with him and wants to get divorce. Apart from above, she further admitted that she also gave in writing to this effect and in this regard, she also identified her signatures upon Mark D/1. 9. PW1 in her crossexamination categorically admitted that all facilities are available in the house of Accused but she is not interested to live with him and wants to get divorce. Apart from above, she further admitted that she also gave in writing to this effect and in this regard, she also identified her signatures upon Mark D/1. 9. PW3 Smt. Raj Kumari, mother of the complainant, while deposing on oath that marriage of her daughter (PW1) was solemnized with the Accused in the year 2004, also supported the version of PW1 that respondent Accused kept the complainant well for two months and thereafter, started torturing her but as has been taken note above, there is no mention, if any, of demand of dowry, by the respondent-Accused, in the statement of PW3, whereas PW1, in her statement categorically stated that she had informed her mother as well as brother with regard to beatings given by the respondent-Accused as well as dowry demanded by him. Similarly, PW3 in her statement stated that when her daughter went to her in laws with Sanjiv Kumar, she was again given beatings but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, Sanjiv Kumar, was never cited as prosecution witness. This witness further deposed before the Court below that the case was called in Panchayat at 12:00 noon and after that, they went to their own houses and Accused went to their house. There is no whisper, if any, with regard to the beatings allegedly given by the respondent-Accused during Panchayat meeting as alleged by the PW1. This witness further admitted in her cross examination that persons namely Gurbax, Baldev and Joginder were also present in the Panchayat but unfortunately, none of these persons were cited as prosecution witnesses. She further admitted in her crossexamination that after proceedings before Panchayat, she asked her daughter to go to her in-laws. She further admitted that when her daughter refused to go to the house of her in-laws, she slapped her. 10. Shri Dinesh Kumar (PW4) brother of the complainant also deposed that marriage of his sister was solemnized with the respondent Accused, who works as a meson. This witness also stated that respondent Accused gave beatings to the complainant during Panchayat meeting and she was saved by the ward member of the Panchayat. 10. Shri Dinesh Kumar (PW4) brother of the complainant also deposed that marriage of his sister was solemnized with the respondent Accused, who works as a meson. This witness also stated that respondent Accused gave beatings to the complainant during Panchayat meeting and she was saved by the ward member of the Panchayat. He also in his cross examination admitted that his sister made a statement before the Panchayat that she does not want to live with the Accused. It has also come in his statement that when his sister refused to go to her in laws, his mother slapped her. He further stated that when his sister refused to go to her in laws, Sanjiv Kumar dragged her on the road and he also admitted that beatings were given to the complainant by means of ''danda'', which was 3-4 feet. 11. Conjoint reading of statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, who are closely related to each other nowhere proves the case of the prosecution that respondent-Accused gave beatings to the complainant and also demanded the dowry, rather beatings, if any, were given to the complainant by her mother and person namely Sanjiv Kumar, who insisted upon the complainant to go to her in laws house. Similarly as has been taken note above, though there is an allegation of demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-, but none of the prosecution witnesses save and except complainant (PW1) stated something specific with regard to the demand of dowry by the respondent-Accused. Neither mother of the complainant (PW3) nor her bother (PW4) stated something specific with regard to demand of dowry by the respondent Accused and as such, no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the version put forth by the complainant (PW1). PW1 was not interested to live with her husband, rather she wanted to take divorce as is clearly evident from her statement made before the court below. It also emerge from the statements of PW3 and PW4 that PW1 was not interested to stay with her husband and she wanted to take divorce from him. No doubt, perusal of statement of PW2 Dr. It also emerge from the statements of PW3 and PW4 that PW1 was not interested to stay with her husband and she wanted to take divorce from him. No doubt, perusal of statement of PW2 Dr. Arun Saxena suggests that complainant was medically examined and certain simple injuries were found on her body but that may not be sufficient to conclude that alleged beatings were given by the respondent-Accused because none of the prosecution witnesses specifically stated that beatings, if any, were given to respondent Accused in their presence. 12. PW3 though stated that beatings were given to the complainant by the respondent Accused in presence of one Sanjiv Kumar and Up-Pradhan Gurbax Singh and one lady member, but as has been noticed above, none of these persons were cited as PWs and as such, learned court below rightly not placed reliance upon the statement of aforesaid PWs because of material contradictions in their statements. 13. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon''ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established principle that ''no man is guilty until proved so'', utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon''ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. Reliance is also placed on Judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 5 SCC 645 , wherein it has been held as under:- "45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an Accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh vs. State of U.P., (2008) (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an Accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh vs. State of U.P., (2008) (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses." 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this Court sees no valid reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned court below, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.