State of H.P. vs Hari Krishan

Surinder Singh, J.—Respondent was acquitted for the offence u/s 498-A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been challenged in this appeal by the State.

In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. PW1 Smt. Suman Sharma wife of the Respondent lodged report Ext.PW8/A with the police with respect to beatings given by him to her on 11.5.2001. She was got medically examined from PW6 Dr. Harjinder Singh. He noticed multiple abrasions on the right and left hand in the fingers of hand and on the left knee of her, having caused within 12 hours and issued MLC Ext.PW6/A. Thereafter another complaint Ext.PA in detail, was filed by her on 16.5.2001 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who sent it for investigation to the police u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the Respondent. After complete trial, learned trial Court acquitted the Respondent on the grounds that there was mark difference between the initial report Ext.PW8/A and the allegations made in the subsequent report Ext.PA made by the complainant. Further PW2 Samriti daughter of the complainant was not shown to have witnessed the alleged incident and also that she introduced the new story at the time of trial that her fingers were cut with the knife by the Respondent, whereas, doctor did not find any sharp injury on her person.

Heard and gone through the evidence on record.

The Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [2009(2) SLJ (SC) 1036] on examining the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code observed that the word "cruelty" has been defined in the section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are "cruelty" and "harassment".

In the initial statement made by the complainant Ex.PW8/A while making a report to the police, the allegation with respect to demand of dowry is not there, but however in subsequent complaint Ext.PA, she alleges it. As PW1, the complainant though stated that the Respondent was maltreating her for want of sufficient dowry and that was the reason that on 11.5.2001, she was beaten up by him after consuming liquor, but this allegation appears to be doubtful in view of the report Ext.PA wherein she stated that the alleged incident had taken place on 13.5.2001 with reference to consumption of liquor. Further it is in evidence that she was residing separately with her three children i.e. two sons and one daughter (PW2) and she alleges that the Respondent did not provide any maintenance to her, as such, a petition was also pending before the Court for seeking maintenance by her.

The allegations made by the complainant lacks probity as she says that on the day of alleged incident, she was attacked with knife by the Respondent and she caused injury on her person, but this fact has not been substantiated by the doctor. He only found the abrasions on the right and left hand on the fingers, palmer surface and right knee, which according to the doctor could be cause by a fall.

The very basis of the complaint made by the complainant lacks truthfulness. In fact, whether the complainant has been beaten up by the Respondent with cruelty is essentially a question of fact. When a particular incident as alleged by the complainant is doubtful, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to discharge the initial onus, otherwise also the petty quarrels cannot be termed as "cruelty" u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

PW2 is the minor daughter of the complainant, who was residing with her. She had no option to toe the line of her mother. Thus, from the above discussion of the evidence, I did not find that there is any evidence of cruelty as defined in the explanation, if any, added to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, on the part of the Respondent with a view to derive the complainant to commit suicide.

Further, the very sustaining of injuries are in question and so also the criminal intimidation as alleged by the complainant, the complainant appears to have been outrageous of the pending litigation i.e. regarding non-providing of maintenance amount despite orders of the Court by the Respondent.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I find that the charges are not proved and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is based upon the record, which requires no interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit, therefore, dismissed.

The Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds, entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case.

Send down the records.