State of H.P. vs Jeet Singh and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Amb, dated 8.9.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint Ext. PW1/A was filed by complainant Smt. Asha Devi under Sections 498A, 506, 120B I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. against 8 persons including 4 accused persons. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court against the four respondents for the sections mentioned above. They were charged and tried by the learned trial Court, leading to their acquittal.

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

On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that material statement was that of the complainant Smt. Asha Devi, PW-1, who is the wife of respondent No. 1 Jeet Singh. Respondent No. 2 Malkiat Singh is brother-in-law of the complainant, while Rattani Devi, respondent No. 3 is mother-in-law and Saroj Kumari, respondent No. 4, is sister in-law, of the complainant, who have been arrayed as accused persons. Complainant''s statement was recorded as PW-1 and a perusal of the same shows that she has only made vague statement that she was given beatings by all the accused persons. She did not name the accused persons, who used to give her beatings. She however stated that they were demanding more dowry articles from her and her husband was saying that he will perform second marriage, while the other accused persons were demanding colour TV and scooter etc. She further stated that her daughter was born in private hospital at Amritsar and expenses of Rs. 20,000/- were paid by her parents. She further stated that all the respondents gave beatings to her and she is presently living in her parents house. In her complaint neither she named the accused persons, who gave beatings or demanded dowry articles nor she stated that all the persons used to give her beatings and demanded dowry articles. She did not state any date of occurrence when such demand was made or beatings were given by the accused persons and she made only general allegations against all the respondents in regard to demand of dowry and beatings, which cannot be said to have been substantiated by her from her own statement. Even in the complainant Ext. PW1/A filed by the complainant, no date of demand of dowry or beatings were given. It was not substantiated by her in her own statement. She never stated that she made any complaint to the Panchayat and in the police in writing. Thus, the vague allegations cannot be said to have been substantiated by her from her own statement, which was sufficient to demolish her case.

Apart from the above, the prosecution had examined PW-2 Smt. Vimla Devi, Ward Panch, who stated that the respondents used to give abuses to the complainant, which was never the case of the complainant. She further stated that the respondents used to claim that the complainant remains ill. It was also never the case of the complainant in the complaint lodged by her or in her statement. She further stated that when the child was born, the accused persons did not pay any money. She further stated about the abuses given by sister-in-law of the complainant, which was never so stated by the complainant.

PW-4 Smt. Sheela Devi is the mother of complainant, who has stated that husband of Asha Devi used to maltreat her and give her beatings and the other respondents used to maltreat her. They used to maltreat her and give beatings since the complainant was not of their liking, which was never the case of the complainant. She further stated that when the child was born at Amritsar, the expenses were paid for birth of the child. She further stated that they were demanding Rs. 20,000/- and the complainant is living with her. In cross-examination, she admitted that the expenses of the hospital at Amritsar were borne by respondent No. 1, husband of the complainant. PW-5 Veena Bansal, who is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, has stated that after the birth of the first child, the in-laws of the complainant used to harass her and the complainant came to her. She and Ward Panch went to the parents house of the complainant and talks were going on. She stated that Malkiat Singh, Jeth of the complainant told at that time that their daughter was ill and they should keep her with them or pay Rs. One Lakh. This was a new version introduced by this witness. It was never the case of the complainant, who never stated that efforts were made and both the parties were called in the Panchayat. Thus, the evidence led is contrary and vague allegations made have not been substantiated by the complainant. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, cannot be said to be 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 accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.