State of H.P. vs Sanjay Kumar and Others

K.C. Sood, J.

Cr. MP(M) No. 867 of 2004

Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Application for Leave to appeal be registered.

Cr. MP(M) No. 334 of 2005

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Barsar, District Hamirpur, dated 15th November, 2003. The Respondents were tried by the learned trial Magistrate for an offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted by the impugned judgment.

Case of the prosecution is:

Complainant Anita Kumari was married to accused-Sanjay in April, 1999. Sanjay, the husband, is serving in the Indian Army. Anita Kumari was well treated for a year but thereafter Respondents started mal-treating her for the reason that she could not bear a child. In March, 2000 husband came on leave and "mentally harassed" the complainant. He also physically hit her. Smt. Veena, sister-in-law of the complainant, would come to her parental house and harass the complainant. In July, 2000, she protested and told her in-laws that she should not be harassed. Thereafter, she was taken to her parental house by her father-in-law Sarwan Singh (Respondent No. 2) who told her to stay in her parental house until permitted to come to her matrimonial home. She then informed her parents about the mal-treatment given to her by her in-laws. After some time in January 2001, father of Anita along with her uncle Hardyal went to the matrimonial house of the complainant but Respondents refused to accept her in their house.

It is in this background that the complaint was lodged with the police, on which a case against the Respondents u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

The complainant when stepped into the witness box has given a different version. In the First Information Report the complainant alleged that her father-in-law proclaimed that the complainant was unable to bear a child, which was not true. She also made an allegation, which does not find mention in the FIR, that a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as dowry, was made by the husband on 15th March, 2000. She admitted in her cross- examination that the harassment, which she alleged, was never reported to any person including the Gram Panchayat of the village of her in laws or parental house. The learned trial Magistrate, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the evidence led by the complainant was neither reliable nor acceptable. The learned Magistrate took note of material contradictions in the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. Father of the complainant stated that in fact every thing which transpired in the matrimonial home of the complainant was told by the complainant to her mother and not to him but the mother was not examined. She was withheld by the prosecution. It was the evidence of (PW-4) Hardyal, uncle of the complainant, that the complainant only complained to the effect that she was being mentally harassed by Sanjay-accused whenever he would come on leave. According to her, she was not permitted to receive telephone calls from her partents. However, it is admitted position that there is no telephone either in the house of the complainant or accused.

Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code, which comprises Section 498A was introduced in the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. A perusal of Statement of objects and reasons for the introduction of this Chapter shows that this provision was designed to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or relatives of husband on account of unlawful demands of dowry by them.

The Apex Court in Brij Lal Vs. Prem Chand and Another, observed that the degradation of society due to the pernicious system of dowry and the unconscionable demands made by greedy and unscrupulous husbands and their parents and relatives resulting in an alarming number of suicidal and dowry deaths by women has shocked the Legislative conscience to such an extent that the Legislature has deemed it necessary to provide additional provisions of law, both "procedural and substantive" to combat the evil and it is with this end in view that Sections 113A and 113B in the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 498A and 304B in the Indian Penal Code were introduced.

In the present case nothing could be culled from the evidence of the complainant relating the acts of the Respondents which remotely would derive her to commit suicide or cause any injury or danger to her life and limb in terms of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Story of the complainant that an unlawful demand was made by the accused has no foundation. This allegation was never part of the First Information Report. In fact grievance of the complainant was that she was turned out of the house as she could not bear a child. Such an allegation, in my view, will not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Code.

The acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, cannot be said to be either dehors the evidence on record or perverse.

Leave refused.

Dismissed.