State of Himachal Pradesh vs Kuldip Singh and Another

V.K. Sharma, J.—The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 24.9.2003, of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. II), Hamirpur, whereby the Respondents herein who shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the accused'' were tried for the offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were ultimately acquitted.

In brief the case of the prosecution was that accused No. 1 Kuldip Singh is husband of Smt. Ruko Devi (PW-5) and accused No. 2 Santosh Kumari is her sister in law. The matrimonial relations between the accused Kuldip Singh and Smt. Ruko Devi were cordial for sometime after the marriage. However, thereafter both of them started subjecting her to cruelty. It is alleged that on 3.1.2002, at about 10/11 P.M both the accused in furtherance of their common intention gave beatings to Smt. Ruko Devi with ''Jaari'' (a household tool for washing clothes). Resultantly, she suffered simple injuries. The matter was reported to the police which investigated the case.

On completion of investigation the accused were sent up to face trial. On being charged, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. It examined as many as 8 witnesses. On close of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, their defence was that of total denial. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.

On conclusion of the trial the accused were acquitted. It is how the State is in appeal before this Court.

I have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the record.

In her deposition as PW-5 complainant Smt Ruko devi stated that she was married to accused No. 1 Kuldip Singh on 2.12.1996. After about 5-6 months he started harassing and torturing her at the instance of her Jethani Santosh Kumari. He used to turn her out of the matrimonial home and she used to complain about it to her parents, who used to send her back to the matrimonial home with the intention to settle her there. However, even despite that accused No. 1 Kuldip Singh used to give beatings to her. He had been saying that her parents had not given sufficient dowry. Regarding the occurrence relating to 3rd/4th January, 2002, she has stated that accused No. 1 Kuldip Singh had given beatings to her at about 10/11 P.M. At that time he had raised the volume of the Tape Recorder so that sound of her cries could not go outside. According to her, initially she was given beatings by the first accused with fist and kick blows and thereafter with ''Jaari''. He had also threatened to do away with her life. She had suffered injuries on her hip, back. left leg and foot and other parts of the body. Regarding previous beatings, she had reported the matter orally to the Pardhan Gram Panchayat Shri Roshan Lal and Smt. Naraini Devi Up-Pradhan Mahila Mandal. In cross examination she has stated that she had not lodged any report about the earlier beatings. She has denied that she used to allege that accused Kuldip Singh was having illicit relations with Smt. Santosh Kumari, though she has admitted that earlier also she had left the matrimonial home on 5-6 occasions, yet has volunteered to state that it was owing to the ill behaviour of the accused. It is further admitted that accused Kuldip Singh had brought her back to the matrimonial home at the intervention of the members of the Gram Panchayat and some other respectable persons. According to her neither anyone was attracted to the occurrence nor had come to her rescue.

The complainant was examined by PW-6 Dr. Chaman Lal, who had observed the following injuries on her person:

Injury No. 1 - There was a reddish coloured bruise measuring 2x1 cm situated on the back right side of chest.

Injury No. 2 - There was a reddish coloured bruise 6x4 cm on left buttock.

There was a reddish coloured bruise 2x2 cm on the front of mid of right thigh.

The learned trial court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to lead any independent, cogent and trustworthy evidence to corroborate the version of the complainant. Even the complainant who stated in her statement in the court that accused No. 1 Kuldip Singh used to harass her for having brought insufficient dowry had not stated about it while lodging FIR with the police. Similarly, none of the material prosecution witnesses including Pradhan Gram Panchayat, PW-1 Roshan Lal and PW-3 Smt. Naraini Devi, Up-Pradhan, Mahila Mandal have supported the prosecution case in its material particulars. Even otherwise the evidence led by the prosecution which is in the nature of ordinary wear and tear in married life would not amount to commission of an offence u/s 498A IPC.

In view of the above, I do not see any lawful cause or basis for any interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.09.2003. As such the appeal is dismissed.