State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gopal Kaushal, Kalu Ram and Shakuntla Devi

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment of the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., dated 31.3.2005, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them u/s 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.10.2003, a report was lodged with the Police at Police Station, Rohru by the complainant PW-1 Smt. Renu that her marriage was performed with respondent No.1 Shri Gopal Kaushal in the month of July, 1998. The other respondents are the parents of the said Gopal Kaushal, her husband. It was alleged that in the marriage the dowry was given by her father according to his capacity. Two daughters were born from this wedlock who were aged about 4 years and 2 1/2 years. It was further alleged that after some time her husband Gopal Kaushal and his parents started demanding money from her parents to pay of their loans. She alleged that on their asking they had given money several times, which was brought from her father. It was further alleged that they are maltreating her and the respondents had turned her out after giving beatings and she has been compelled to live in her parents house. It was further alleged that on 8.10.2003, the respondents gave beatings to her and turned her out from the house and gave threatening not to come back until or unless she brings Rupees 3 lacs and a vehicle from her parents. It is further alleged that the respondents had thrown her from her house and she took shelter in her parents house and on this a case was registered u/s 498A IPC. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the report lodged by the complainant with the police, it is clear that the complainant has made general allegations in regard to the demand made by the respondents and she alleged that she gave money to them after bringing it from her father. The last demand pertains to the demand of a sum of Rs.3 lacs made on 8.10.2003. It is clear that apart from the demand of cash, there was no demand of specific dowry or dowry articles. In regard to the amounts paid by the complainant to the respondents, which she brought from her father, no date, month or year has been stated by the complainant and her brother who also paid money several times to the respondents, as has come in the statement of the complainant.

To substantiate these allegations, she has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and admitted that up to 2-3 years there was no dispute with the respondents. She has admitted in her statement that even inspite of dispute having arisen after three years, she still lived in the house of the accused for about two years. There is nothing on record to show that any report was lodged with Panchayat, Police or any medical examination was got done by the complainant and she made complaint to any person who was living near to her in-laws house. In her statement also she has simply stated that the accused used to demand that she should bring money from her parents, which she brought and gave to the parents of the accused but no date, month or year for demanding the money or amount was stated in her statement. She stated that the last demand made was of Rs.3 lacs, which she was unable to pay and then she came back to her parents house and thereafter lodged the complaint. She admitted in crossexamination that a dispute took place between her father and her husband during business and they stopped talking with each other. She also admitted that her father and brother also gave beatings to respondent Gopal Kaushal, her husband and her husband also gave beatings to her father. She also stated that the case was also made out. No demand of any dowry was ever made in the presence of any person. She also stated that she was unable to allege the date, month or year when any demand of dowry was made by the respondents. She stated in cross-examination that she gave money several times, including a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which were paid by her to her husband but no date, month or year was stated and it was not specifically mentioned that which amount was paid by her father or by her brother. Nothing can be made out by the statement of the complainant in regard to the cruelty meted out to her by the respondents and at which particular time or period or nature of cruelty, except money was being demanded by the respondents for which evidence is not specific.

PW-2, Mathu Ram is the father of the complainant, who has also stated that after 2- 21/2 years of the marriage, the respondents started demanding money from his daughter. He stated that his daughter came to him and told about the demand and he paid the amount in instalments several times. However, he did not state the date, month or year when the amount was paid. He stated for the first time that he paid a sum of Rs.1,76,000/-, which was never stated by PW-1 Renu in her statement. He stated that the relations with the complainant and her husband are restrained and they have made efforts but they did not bore any fruit. He admitted that at the time of engagement or marriage no dowry articles were demanded by the respondents. The first demand was made by his daughter in the year 2000 but in whose presence, the demand was made by the respondents and when it was paid. He admitted that he cannot say complainant sustained injuries at any time. He denied the suggestion that he and his son gave beatings to the accused, which fact was stated by PW-1 in her statement.

PW-3 Vinod Kumar brother of the complaint and PW-4 Manoj another brother of the complainant have also been examined apart from PW-6 Mina Devi but their statements are general in nature and do not corroborate the statement of complainant and her father on material particulars.

From a bare perusal of the evidence, it is clear that no specific instance of cruelty has been brought on record and has not been substantiated by any cogent or reliable evidence and the evidence led is general in nature. The learned trial Court has taken view on the basis of the evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, which findings cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.