Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shashi Kumar And Ors vs State Of H.P on 2 January, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2009.
.
Date of Decision: 02.1.2017.
___________________________________________________________
[
Shashi Kumar and Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. .......Respondent.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? yes
For the petitioners:
rt Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. P.M. Negi, Additional Advocate General with
Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
____________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2008, partly modifying the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.10.2008/25.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, HP, in Police Challan No. 6-II-2007, whereby the accused-petitioners have been sentenced as per description given herein below:-
"Section 498-A of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-.
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -2-
Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-.
.
In default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 30.7.2006, complainant, Sunita Devi lodged a police report, on the basis of which, FIR Ext.PW2/A came to be registered against the of accused persons. The complainant, who is resident of village Thati Rihala stated that her marriage was solemnized on January 30, 2005 rt with accused No.1, Shashi Kumar. She also disclosed that accused No1 (husband of the complainant), who is serving in GREF, started making allegations against her after one week of marriage. She also alleged that after 20 days of marriage, accused No.1 started beating her but she with a view to save her marriage, never disclosed this fact to her parents. She also reported that after two months of the marriage, her husband went back on his duty and thereafter, she joined ITI course of Draftsman at Shahpur with the consent of her family members. The complainant further alleged that when her husband/accused No.1 came back from service after four months, he started torturing her on trivial issues and also abused her. As per the complainant, when she disclosed about aforesaid unruly behavior of her husband to her mother in law and sister in law, they also abused her and told her that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -3- she has no right to speak in the family. In the complaint, as referred above, petitioner also alleged that accused had been taunting her .
about not bringing dowry and she was given beatings after every 8-10 days. She further stated in the complaint that she was extended threats to not to disclose anything to anyone and in the month of January, 2006, when her husband came back on leave, he again of started giving beatings to her. She also disclosed in the complaint that thereafter she and her husband went to her parents' house, where she narrated the entire story to her parents, who advised them to live rt properly. She also stated that thereafter, accused No.1 behaved properly for one month and thereafter, he again started giving beatings to her. She also informed her parents with regard to this over the telephone. Her father along with Panchayat came to her house and oral agreement was arrived at between the parties, wherein husband of the complainant (i.e. accused No.1) agreed that he would not beat her in future. But unfortunately, on 25.7.2006, accused gave her beatings and did not allow her to go out. It is only on 29.7.2006, when her situation became worse due to severe beatings given by her husband-accused No.1, he went to Kakar to bring medicines and he also telephoned her parents. Her parents along with Pradhan, Gram Pachayat, Sandhol, Kusum Lata, Up-Pardhan, Mohan Singh and another Up-Pradhan Arjun Singh went to the matrimonial house of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -4- complainant and took her away. Police on registration of the case, investigated the matter and also prepared the site plan Ext.PW11/B .
and also got medically examined the complainant vide application Ext.PW11/A. Dr. Gopal Berri issued MLC Ext.PW1/A. X-ray of nasal bone was also conducted, wherein fracture on both nasal bones was reported as per report, Ext.PW4/A. Police after recording the of statements of witnesses, presented the challan under Sections 498 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons in the competent court of law.
rt
3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, HP, after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused persons framed charges for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of having committed offences under the aforesaid Sections and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as per description already given above.
4. The present petitioners-accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.PC before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, HP, who vide judgment dated 16.2.2009, partly ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -5- accepted the appeal preferred by the petitioners-accused and quashed the conviction and sentence of the accused persons under .
Section 498-A of the IPC. Hence, the instant criminal revision petition before this Court, by the petitioners, praying therein for acquittal under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below.
of
5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Session Judge, whereby judgment of rt conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the petitioners-
accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC have been maintained, is not sustainable as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr. Sharma, while referring to the judgments passed by the courts below contended that learned trial Court firstly erred in law and facts and thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the petitioners under Section 498 but convicted and sentenced them under Section 325 of the IPC and as such, findings are vitiated to the effect that same are contrary to law and facts. While referring to the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, Mr. Sharma, further contended that courts below miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and bare perusal of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -6- the judgment passed by the court below clearly suggests that it has mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence and as such, great .
prejudice has been caused to the petitioners who are innocent persons. Mr. Sharma further contended that evidence adduced on record by the prosecution could not be read in piece meal while holding accused guilty of having committed the offence under Section of 325 IPC. As per Mr. Sharma, when learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record came to conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioners-accused under Section 498-A of the rt IPC, there was no occasion to convict the petitioners-accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the same set of evidence. While inviting attention of this Court to para 38 of the judgment passed by the learned sessions Judge, Mr. Sharma contended that though learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that to prove an offence under Section 498-A, it is/was necessary for prosecution to prove that cruelty meted out to the complainant is/was due to demand of dowry but it is not understood when there was nothing on record to substantiate that cruelty, if any, was meted out to the complainant by the petitioner accused while demanding dowry, how petitioner accused could be held guilty of having committed offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC that too on the same set of evidence, which nowhere suggests that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -7- complainant was ever given beatings by the petitioner accused. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Sharma, made this .
Court to travel through the statements of witnesses adduced on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that none of the prosecution witness stated that they were disclosed by the complainant that she was being given beatings repeatedly by her husband and his family of members. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Sharma, further contended that learned court below also failed to appreciate the medical evidence adduced on record in its right perspective because rt admittedly, there is no explanation that if the plaintiff had suffered fracture of bones, how she could wait for medical examination for 3-4 days. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sharma prayed that accused petitioners may be acquitted of the charges framed under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC against them after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.
6. Per contra, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondent-State supported the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. He vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and prosecution has been able to prove its case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -8- beyond reasonable doubt and courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. He further contended .
that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court, is warranted, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of facts as well as law, recorded by the courts below. Mr. Negi, also reminded this Court of its limited powers while of exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-
appreciate the evidence, especially, when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of rt the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case "State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri" (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:-
"In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP -9-
8. True, it is that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 Cr.PC while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the .
instant case, where accused persons have been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned courts below are of not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record.
9. As far as scope of power rt of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 10 -
under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness .
committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order."
10. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse material adduced on record by the prosecution as well as statements of petitioners-accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, perusal whereof, clearly suggests that after marriage of the complainant with accused No.1, Shashi Kumar, there had been minor rt altercations between them on trivial issues. Though, complainant in her complaint as well as statement recorded by the court categorically stated that she was given repeated beatings by the accused but certainly, perusal of her statement, nowhere suggests that she specifically leveled allegations, if any, of beatings against other members of the family but for her husband. The complaint as well as statement of the complainant clearly suggests that repeatedly, complainant made an attempt to prove that her husband, who used to reside outside, from his matrimonial house, on account of his service/job, used to give her beatings and torture her on petty issues.
But if statements of all the prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction, it certainly suggests that on 25.7.2006, there was an altercation between accused No.1/petitioner No.1, and the complainant over issue of taking admission at ITI at Shahpur by the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 11 -
complainant, who claimed that she had joined ITI Shahpur with the consent of her family members.
.
11. Since there is no appeal, if any, either by the State or by the complainant against the acquittal of present petitioners under Section 498 A IPC , as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, this Court sees no occasion to analyze the evidence led on record by of the prosecution to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of findings returned by the court below qua the alleged offence committed by the petitioners accused under Section 498 of the IPC.
rt But admittedly, learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the petitioner accused under Section 498 (A), came to the conclusion, rightly so, that "to prove offence, if any, under Section 498 -A, it must be proved that cruelty meted out to the complainant is due to demand of dowry."
Learned sessions Judge while examining the grounds taken in the appeal having been preferred by the petitioners accused on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution came to the conclusion that there is no evidence about the demand of dowry in this case and as such, offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, cannot be allowed to sustain. Learned Sessions Judge further concluded that the complainant made general statement that accused person had been demanding dowry but such general allegation about the demand of dowry cannot be relied upon.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP- 12 -
12. This Court after perusing the evidence adduced on record in the shape of PW7 and PW10 comes to the conclusion that dispute .
between the parties was with respect to the admission of the complainant in ITI Shahpur against the wishes of her husband i.e. accused No.2. After noticing the evidence led on record by the prosecution, this Court sees no reason to differ with the finding returned of by the learned Sessions Judge as far as allegation under Section 498-A is concerned. Admittedly, in the present case, evidence available on record, nowhere suggests that there was serious attempt, if any, on the rt part of the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses to prove on record that the complainant was meted out with cruelty for the demand of dowry. In view of the aforesaid, this Court after carefully examining evidence led on record, sees substantial force in the argument having been made by the counsel representing the petitioner accused that evidence on record, could not be read in piece peal by the court below while acquitting them under Section 498-A of the IPC and maintaining their conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
13. True, it is as emerge from record that there is no evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that cruelty, if any, was meted out to the complainant by the petitioner while demanding dowry, meaning thereby, court below while coming to aforesaid ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 13 -
conclusion was of the view that allegation of beating as alleged by the complainant against the petitioners-accused were not in context of .
demand of dowry, rather, alleged beatings, if any, given to the complainant was on other issues. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that it clearly emerge from the record that actual bone of contention particularly, between the husband and the complainant of was admission of the complainant at ITI Shahpur. Complainant/PW2 in her complaint as well as statement specifically stated that on 25.7.2006, she was wrongly restrained in the house and was given severe beatings rt by the accused. She further stated that when her condition was deteriorated, her husband took her to the Kakar for treatment, where her father came to know about the incident. She further stated that thereafter her parents came to her in laws and Panchayat was convened and she was saved from the clutches of the accused. She further stated that thereafter, matter was reported to the police on 30.7.2006, on the basis of which, FIR Ext.PW2/A was registered. In her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion put to her that husband had been paying her expenses for ITI Course at Shahpur. She also admitted that Panchayat members advised both of them to live properly and live positively in the matrimonial house. She denied the suggestion put to her that accused had been not demanding dowry from him. She also denied the suggestion put to her by the defence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 14 -
that on 25.7.2006, she slipped on the floor and struck against refrigerator and sustained injuries. She also denied that she had been .
stating that she would do govt. job after completing her ITI.
14. Close reading of aforesaid statement having been made by the complainant (PW2) nowhere suggests that there was any specific allegation specifically about the alleged beatings given to her of by other members of family i.e. accused Anju Kumari and Bholan Devi.
At best, after reading complete statement as well as complaint/ report, one comes to the conclusion that beatings, if any, were given by the rt husband, not by other members of the family. Though, PW2 in her statement stated that accused persons used to torture her for dowry and have also given beatings and abused her but in the absence of specific allegations that too specifically narrating therein same specific incident, this Court really finds it difficult to agree with the conclusion drawn by the court below, whereby the petitioners were held guilty of having committed offence under Section 325 of the IPC. Apart from above, other prosecution witnesses adduced on record also nowhere proves beyond reasonable doubt that complainant PW2 was given beatings on July 25, 2006.
15. PW3, Bhojha Devi, mother of the complainant deposed before Court below that accused persons had been torturing and beating her daughter. She also stated that they convened Panchayat ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 15 -
and went to the house of accused No.1, thereafter, her daughter was kept proper for three months. She further stated that thereafter her .
daughter was again given beatings and Panchayat was convened and thereafter, they brought complainant to their house. However, in her cross examination, she claimed that her daughter was not at fault and she also admitted like PW2 that accused persons had been paying of expenses of her ITI course. She also admitted that they had been calling Sunita (complainant) to their house. It has also come in her statement that they never filed an application in writing with the rt Panchayat as was claimed in the examination-in-chief.
16. PW5, Mahinder Singh also deposed before the court below that in February, 2006, he was told by the father of the complainant that her daughter is being given beatings by the accused persons and as such, he and Mohan Singh, Pradhan went to the house of the accused persons, where Arjun, Up-Pradhan was also associated. He stated that accused persons were advised to live properly and they admitted their guilt and further undertook not to give beatings to Sunita in future.
17. PW6, Mohan Lal also stated that in Feb, 2006, father of the complainant namely Achar Singh had come to him, because he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dhanera, and told that accused persons have been beating his daughter and as such, they went to the house ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 16 -
of the petitioners accused and advised them to live properly. He also stated that the complainant should not work against their wishes.
.
However, in his cross-examination, PW6 admitted that on July, 29, 2006, they had gone to the house of the accused persons.
18. Conjoint reading of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, who admittedly had visited to the matrimonial house of the complainant on of the request of father of the complainant in Feb, 2006, suggests that there was some dispute between the complainant and her in laws and as such, they gave advice to them to live properly but aforesaid rt prosecution witnesses nowhere stated that during their visit in Feb, 2006, to the matrimonial house of the complainant, they were ever informed by the complainant that she is being given beatings by the petitioner accused. Even PW6 Mohan Lal, who in his cross examination, also admitted that on July 29, 2006, he had gone to house of the accused persons, nowhere stated that on that day, the complainant disclosed him that she has been given beatings by the accused. PW7 though stated that accused persons used to maltreat and give beatings to her daughter for dowry but there is no specific statement, if any, with regard to the complaint, if any, made by her daughter PW2 regarding beatings, allegedly given to her on 25.7.2006, by the petitioner accused. It has come in his statement that he along with Arjun, Pardhan, went to the house of the accused persons. But as has been ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 17 -
discussed above, aforesaid Mohan Lal (PW6), nowhere stated anything with regard to complaint, if any, made by the complainant on July 29, .
2006, with regard to the beatings given to her on July 25, 2006. Similarly in cross-examination, PW7 though stated that he had reported to the police about the demand of dowry and second marriage but at that stage, he was confronted with his statement recorded under Section of 161 Cr.PC, wherein it was not recorded so.
19. PW9, Kusum Lata, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Sandhaul, also stated that she along with PW-7, Achar went to matrimonial house rt of the complainant. She further stated that accused persons used to maltreat her and they were advised not to do so but they failed to improve their behavior. She further stated that her condition was serious and then she was taken by her parents to their house.
20. Aforesaid PW9, Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Sandhaul though stated that the complainant was maltreated but there is nothing in her statement suggestive of the fact on 29.7.2006, when she visited the house of the complainant along with other persons as named above, she was disclosed by the complainant that she has been given beatings on 25.7.2006, moreover, in her statement and examination-in-chief, she also stated that she along with Achar i.e. PW7 father of the complainant, went to the matrimonial house of the complainant where she was told that accused persons used to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 18 -
maltreat her. In her cross-examination, she specifically stated that she does not know as to how the complainant suffered injuries. She also .
stated that she knew Sunita Devi as she belonged to her village, Thathi.
She also admitted that distance of police station Sujanpur is 3-4 Kms from village Thati. She also admitted that Achar Singh PW7 wants to keep Sunita Devi and her husband at his house as Achar Singh is having of four daughters and no son.
21. PW10, Arjun Singh, Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat also corroborated version put forth by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses rt that on 29.7.2006, two Panchayat Pradhan along with the girl and other people had come. He further submitted that he was informed by the accused persons. He stated that he went to the spot and advised both the parties on the point of ITI. It also emerges from his statement that dispute occurred between the parties on the issue of the admission taken by the complainant in ITI because her husband was not happy with her admission in ITI Shahpur. PW10 specifically stated that no other quarrel had taken place in his presence. Though he was declared hostile, but cross examination conducted on this witness clearly suggests that on 29.7.2006, complainant and her parents had visited the house of the petitioners accused along with Panchayat but he specifically denied that accused person had given beatings to the Sunita Devi. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW10 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 19 -
further admitted that root cause of the quarrel was "admission" having been taken by the complainant in ITI against whishes of the accused.
.
Most importantly, in cross examination, he stated that Pardhan was not present on the spot on July 2006. He also admitted that on July 29, 2006, when the complainant was taken by her parents, then it was not the police case.
of
22. PW11 Sub Inspector, Raj Kumar stated that on July 30, 2006, he registered the FIR Ext.PW2/A on the statement of complainant.
He also stated that he got complainant medically examined from rt Medical Officer, Sujanpur Hospital, vide application Ext.PW11/A and obtained MLC Ext. PW11/AB. In his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance, with regard to the admission having been taken by the complainant Sunita at ITI Shahpur against the wishes of her husband.
He also admitted that no special article of dowry was demanded from the parents of the girl. He specifically admitted suggestion put to him that it has not come in investigation that her parents had moved an application to Panchayat. It was also admitted by him that no application was moved in the police station. He also admitted that it has not come in the statement of Achar Singh, PW-7 that the in -laws of the girl were demanding dowry of Rs. 2.50 lacs and wanted to get The accused re-married.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP- 20 -
23. After carefully analyzing the evidence led on record by the prosecution, as has been discussed above, this Court is of the view that .
prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.7.2006, the complainant Sunita Devi was given beatings by the petitioner accused, as a result of which, she suffered injuries as reported by PW1 Dr. Gopal vide MLC Ext.PW1/A. None of the prosecution of witness stated something specific with regard to the beatings, if any, given to the complainant on 25.7.2006, as alleged by PW2. Save and except statement of PW2, who alleged that she was given beatings on rt 25.7.2006, there is no positive evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that PW2 was given beatings on July 25, 2006. PW3 and PW7, who happened to be parents of the complainant, while making depositions before the Court, made general statement that accused persons had been torturing and beatings their daughter, but definitely, there is no specific statement, if any, with regard to the alleged incident occurred on 25.7.2006, as a result of which, the complainant suffered injuries as reported vide MLC Ext.PW1/A. There is nothing in the statements of aforesaid witnesses, from where this Court could infer that there is corroboration, if any, to the claim having been made by PW2 in the complaint as well as submissions made by her before the Court that she was given beatings on July 25, 2006 by the petitioner accused.
Both the aforesaid witnesses (PW3 and PW7) apart from above, general ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 21 -
statement with regard to beatings given to her daughter by accused, only alleged that accused persons used to maltreat and beat her .
daughter for dowry but definitely, there is no whisper with regard to the alleged incident of July 25, 2006, which led to registration of FIR Ex.PW2/A.
24. Similarly, statement of PW5 Mohinder Singh, PW6 Mohan Lal of and PW9 Kusum Lata, who happened to be elected representatives of Gram Panchayat, nowhere supports the version of the complainant that she was given beatings on 25.7.2006, rather aforesaid witness rt narrated sequence of events occurred in their presence in Feb.2006 when they along with her father visited matrimonial house of Sunita.
PW9 though stated that she visited the house of the complainant Sunita on 29.7.2006, but as has been discussed above, there is no statement, if any, with regard to information given to her by the complainant with regard to the alleged beatings given to her on 25.7.2006. Statement of PW9 compels this Court to presume that father of the complainant wanted her daughter and son in law i.e. accused No.2 to live at his house because admittedly, he was having no son. PW10, nowhere supported the case of the prosecution rather, he denied that accused person had given beatings to Sunita Devi. As per complainant and her father and mother (PW2 and PW7), PW10 had also visited the house of the complainant on 29.10.2006, but statement of PW10 nowhere ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 22 -
suggests that on 25.7.2006, she was given beatings. Most importantly, none of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, who allegedly visited the .
house of the petitioners accused on 29.7.2006, along with parents of the complainant Sunita, stated that on their visit to the house of the complainant on 29.10.2006, they noticed injuries, if any, on the person of the complainant. Hence, this Court sees substantial force in the of submissions having been made by PW10, wherein he stated that Pardhan was not present on the spot on July 29, 2006. Had aforesaid PWs noticed marks of injury on the person of the complainant, they rt would have definitely disclosed the same at the first instance to the Court while making their depositions.
25. True, it is that medical evidence led on record in the shape of MLC Ext.PW1/A suggests that complainant suffered simple as well as grievous injuries but as has been discussed above, prosecution has been not able to prove on record that injury caused to the complainant was because of beatings given by the petitioner accused and as such, same may not be of any help to the complainant.
Similarly, it is not understood that when on 29.7.2006, parents of the complainant took her away to their house from matrimonial house, why FIR was registered on July 30, 2006, especially, when complainant had suffered grievous injuries on her face. As per her own statement of PW2, when her condition deteriorated, her husband took her to Kakar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 23 -
for treatment but interestingly, there is no document placed on record by the prosecution to prove aforesaid version having been put forth by .
the complainant. Similarly, it is not understood that if the condition of PW2 was so serious, as claimed by her in the statement, then why her parents failed to take her to hospital directly on 29.7.2006, when they took her away from her matrimonial house. Since none of the PWs as of has been discussed above, has categorically stated something with regard to the injury, if any, noticed by them during their visit to the matrimonial house of the complainant on 29.7.2006, this Court is unable rt to accept the version put forth by the prosecution that complainant was given beatings on 25.7.2008, as a result of which, she suffered injuries.
26. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court is of the view that learned first appellate Court erred in maintaining the conviction of petitioner accused recorded by the courts below under Section 325 read with 34 IPC because admittedly evidence led on record by the prosecution, nowhere suggests that prosecution was able to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that on 25.7.2006, complainant was given beatings by the accused. Hence, present petition is allowed. Accordingly, judgments passed by the Courts below are quashed and set-aside.
Petitioners accused are acquitted of the charges so framed against ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP
- 24 -
them. Bail bonds discharged. Interim order, if any, vacated. All applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
.
2nd January, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:08 :::HCHP