Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 07.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 April, 2025
2025:HHC:9999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 78 of 2012 Reserved on: 07.03.2025 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025 Surender Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner. : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition is directed against the judgment dated December 12, 2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), which affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Shimla H.P. (learned Trial Court). (For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:9999
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the victim Anshuman Sharma (PW-1) was married to accused Surinder Sharma on 17.02.2006 in Arya Samaj Temple, Solan, District Solan, H.P. against the wishes of her parents. The accused treated her properly for about one week after her marriage. Thereafter he started compelling her to bring dowry from her parents. The victim refused to do so and the accused started abusing and beating her. He would beat her on trivial matters and ask her to bring money from her parents. He would keep her confined to her room and would not provide her any food, money or water. She was not allowed to meet anyone or go anywhere. He would beat the victim in a state of intoxication. He told her that in case she failed to bring any dowry from her parents, he would beat her to death. He asked her to call her mother and demand ₹30,000/-. The victim's mother declined to pay the money. The parents of the accused resided with the victim and the accused and they asked the accused about the dowry brought by the victim. The accused replied that the victim had not brought any dowry. They abused the victim and gave her beatings to her. They asked the victim to bring dowry or they would marry the accused to some other person. The victim 3 2025:HHC:9999 became pregnant. The accused used to beat her. The victim had married against the wishes of her parents so she could not complain to any person; however, when the situation deteriorated, she wrote letters to her parents narrating her woes. The accused took the victim for her Sonography test, where it was revealed that she was carrying a baby girl. The accused asked the victim to abort the fetus, however, the victim declined. The accused started beating and hitting her on her stomach to force her to abort the fetus. She gave birth to a baby girl on 20.04.2007. The accused became angry. He did not care for the victim. He would consume liquor and abuse the victim and her daughter and beat the victim. He gave beatings to the victim on 09.05.2007 at about 11:00 a.m. He tried to throw the baby girl on the floor. The victim intervened and the baby fell on the bed. The accused gave beatings to the victim and told her that he would kill her. He left after some time and locked the door from the outside. He returned after some time and he pushed her out of his room with the baby girl. The victim went to her parents home. The accused called her and repeated his threats of killing her and her baby. The matter was reported to the police and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-12/F) was registered at the Police Station. S.I. 4 2025:HHC:9999 Prem Lal (PW-12) conducted the investigation. He seized the letters (Ext.P-1 to P-3), vide memo (Ext. PW-2/A). He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW-12/A). The accused produced the report of Sonography (Ext.PW-8/A), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-5/A). He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.
3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 342 and 506 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. Anshuman Sharma (PW-1) is the informant. Pushpa Sharma (PW-2) is the mother of the informant. Shankuntla Shandil (PW-3) is the witness to recovery. Devinder Lakhanpal (PW-4) and Arun Sood (PW-7) are the family friends to whom the victim had handed over the letters. Dinu Ram (PW-5) is the witness to recovery but he did not support the prosecution case. Meena Thakur (PW-6), Amit Mohini (PW-10) and Asha Verma (PW11) are the house owners, who had rented the house to 5 2025:HHC:9999 accused. Dr. Jitender Jhingta (PW-8), conducted the Sonography of the informant. Parkash Chand (PW-9), sold the land to accused Sureinder Sharma. SI Prem Lal (PW12), conducted the investigation of the case.
5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He stated that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated. No defence was sought to be adduced by him.
6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The accused gave beatings to the victim. He asked her to bring ₹30,000/- from her mother. The accused had threatened to do away with the victim's life. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of ₹5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge (learned Appellate 6 2025:HHC:9999 Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by learned Trial Court that the accused had subjected the victim to cruelty soon after her marriage. He gave her beatings and asked her to bring a dowry from her parents. The victim wanted to save her marriage and the delay in reporting the matter was not material. The incident of cruelty was committed within the four walls of the house, and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment of the women by her husband was not available. The minor contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. There was no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court; hence, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and order passed by learned Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. They ignored the provisions of Section 498- A of IPC. The relationship between the victim and the accused was not cordial and she filed a false case to settle her score. The victim never made any complaint against the petitioner before any authority, which 7 2025:HHC:9999 makes her version highly doubtful. There is no material corroboration of the testimony of the victim from the independent witnesses. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
9. I have heard Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
10. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material placed before them. The statement made by the victim was general without any particulars. She wanted to get rid of the petitioner and filed a false complaint to secure the divorce. She had divorced the petitioner and has remarried, which shows that her purpose has been achieved. She never made any complaint to any person regarding the harassment. There is no proof that the letters stated to have been written by her were delivered to her parents. Learned Courts below did not appreciate these facts and wrongly convicted the petitioner/accused. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be acquitted.
8
2025:HHC:9999
11. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had married the accused against the wishes of her parents. She was not permitted to leave her home. She initially resigned to her fate but when the behaviour of the petitioner did not improve, she was forced to file the complaint to the police. The learned Appellate Court had rightly pointed out that incidents of cruelty take place within the four walls of the house and cannot be witnessed by the others. Therefore, there can be no corroboration of the testimony of the victim. The testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by the letters written by her to her parents. Learned Courts below had rightly appreciated the material placed before them. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed.
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204:
(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent 9 2025:HHC:9999 defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed on page 207: -
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.
14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 wherein it was observed:
"13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C. which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460 where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the 10 2025:HHC:9999 purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex-facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much- advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
15. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. The scope of Section 498-A of IPC was explained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Aluri Venkata Ramana vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and Ors. (12.12.2024 - SC Order):
MANU/SCOR/151680/2024, wherein it was observed: -11
2025:HHC:9999 "7. Firstly, the provision under Section 498-A IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under:
"498A. Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
8. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in the year 1983 with the primary objective of protecting married women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws. The section provides a broad and inclusive definition of "cruelty," encompassing both physical and mental harm to the woman's body or health. In addition, it covers acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security, including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty.
9. The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause (b), independent of the "wilful conduct" described in clause (a), thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is significant to note that the inclusion of the word "or" at the end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to 12 2025:HHC:9999 unlawful demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms of cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related demand does not preclude the application of the section in cases where there is mental or physical harassment unrelated to the dowry. In interpreting the provision, it is crucial to consider the broader objective behind its introduction to safeguarding women from all forms of cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not.
10. The statement of objects and reasons for the introduction of this provision in the Indian Penal Code by The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No.45 of 1983) reads as under -
"The increasing number of Dowry Deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the workings of the Dowry Prohibition Act, of 1961. Cases of cruelty by the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the hapless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty. It is therefore proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of Dowry Death but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws."
11. It is relevant to note the last line which explains that the aim of the introduction of Section 498A in the IPC is not only to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases of cruelty to married woman by their in-laws. A reasonable interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this section goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to dowry demand.
12. In the judgment of U. Suvetha v. State (2009)6 SCC 757 this Court outlined the necessary ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, as follows:
"7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:
(a)The woman must be married;13
2025:HHC:9999
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."
13. From the above ingredients reiterated by this Court, it is clear that an unlawful demand for dowry is not a pre- requisite element to constitute "cruelty" under Section 498A IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the provision, namely, wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or mental harm (clause a), or harassment intended to coerce the woman or her family to meet any unlawful demand (clause b). Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of dowry demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC and make the offence punishable under the law.
14. Further, in the judgment of Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 6 SCC 407, this Court observed that -
"25. The word 'cruelty' in common English acceptation denotes a state of conduct which is painful and distressing to another. The legislative intent in Section 498-A is clear enough to indicate that in the event of there being a state of conduct by the husband to the wife or by any relative of the husband which can be attributed to be painful or distressing, the same would be within the meaning of the section".
15. The impugned judgment of the High Court carefully examined several legal precedents pertaining to the two distinct limbs of Section 498A IPC. The High Court correctly observed that the decisions cited by the counsel for the accused did not establish that the wilful conduct referred to in clause (a) of Section 498A would only be considered as cruelty if it is coupled with a dowry demand or any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, as specified in clause (b). The High Court rightly rejected this contention. However, following this observation, the High Court also noted that the Appellant did not specifically allege a demand for property or valuable security, and further concluded that the allegation of the accused physically assaulting the 14 2025:HHC:9999 Appellant did not amount to "wilful conduct" as envisaged under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The judgment of the High Court primarily focused on the issue of whether a dowry demand is a necessary element for the applicability of Section 498A IPC. The conclusion it arrived at was that the two clauses of the provision must be read disjunctively, thereby confirming that the absence of a dowry demand does not preclude the application of the section. Despite this, the High Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 498A IPC. Notably, the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why the allegations made by the Appellant, specifically that she had been physically beaten did not amount to "cruelty" under Section 498A IPC. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings appears to have been primarily influenced by the lack of a dowry-related demand in the case, without addressing the broader implications of the allegations of physical abuse, which can fall within the scope of "cruelty" as contemplated by the provision."
17. It is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the definition of cruelty not only covers the acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands of dowry but also recognizes the acts which involve mental or physical harm to the deceased.
18. Victim Anshuman Sharma (PW-1) stated that she married the accused on 17.02.2006 in Arya Samaj Temple, Solan, District Solan, against her parents' wishes. The accused treated her properly for 10-15 days after her marriage but thereafter he started beating her and asking her to bring dowry from her parents. When she refused, the accused beat and abused her. He 15 2025:HHC:9999 did not provide anything to her. He kept her confined in a room and did not permit her to meet anyone. He used to say that he would kill her if she failed to bring any dowry. He dialled the victim's mother and asked the victim to demand ₹30,000/-from her mother, however, the victim's mother declined to pay money. Her parents-in-law visited her matrimonial home. They enquired the accused about the dowry brought by her and the accused replied that she had not brought anything. They abused her. Her husband also gave beatings to her. They resided in the house of Chinta Mani and before that in the house of Krishan Mohini. The accused continued to beat her even after she had become pregnant. The accused used to say that he would kill her and her family members by using 'Tantra'. She had married contrary to her parents' wishes, so she sued to remain silent and suffered the cruelty. She wrote letters to her parents (Ext.P-1 to P-3). She was taken to the doctor who told her that she had a baby girl. The accused used to ask her to abort the foetus. He used to beat her. He even tried to kick her on her stomach so that she would abort. She delivered a baby girl on 20.4.2007. The accused abused her after the delivery of the baby girl and threatened to kill the victim and her daughter. He gave her 16 2025:HHC:9999 beatings on 09.05.2007 from 11-12 a.m and tried to throw the baby girl on the floor. She saved the baby girl and she fell on the bed. The accused left the room and locked it from the outside. He returned after some time and turned her out of his home. She took shelter in her parental home. The accused threatened to kill the victim and her daughter. She filed a complaint before the police.
19. She stated in her cross-examination that the accused had treated her properly for 10-15 days after her marriage. She had not reported the matter to any person because she tried to save her marriage and thought that the behaviour of the accused would improve. She used to reconcile the matter with the accused after the quarrel to pacify him.
20. The testimony of the victim is duly corroborated by the letters (Ext.P-1 to P-3) written by her to her parents. She mentioned in the letter (Ext.P-1) that she had committed a wrong by marrying against her parents' wishes. The behaviour of her husband was not good towards her. Perhaps, the behaviour would improve with time. She would try to live her life and should be forgiven as a stupid child.
17
2025:HHC:9999
21. Letter (Ext. P-2) reads that the victim was disturbed. Her husband beat her daily on one pretext or the other. She tried to counsel him but the situation did not improve. She was not aware of what he wanted from her. The accused had started visiting the home after consuming liquor. He would beat the victim and quarrel with her. He used to abuse the victim's parents and taunt her by saying that her parents were not giving her anything. He saw the victim's mother at Kasumpti, but she did not talk to him. The accused said that she (victim mother) had deliberately ignored him. He gave beatings to the victim and she had blood from the mouth. She was pregnant.
22. Letter (Ext.P-3) reads that the accused had beaten the victim on the previous night. He abused her parents and said as to why they were not dying. They did not acknowledge the marriage between the accused and the victim. They were enjoying themselves but were not providing anything to the victim. He was demanding ₹30,000/- for purchasing the land at Malayana. The victim was very disturbed. She was beaten daily and was apprehensive about the safety of the baby. How she could have asked for the money? She told the accused that when she had married him against the wishes of her parents, why he 18 2025:HHC:9999 was demanding money from them but the accused did not listen. He wanted ₹30,000/-. She did not know what would happen in future. Her fate was to get beaten daily but she was worried about her child. She should be forgiven and taken out of this life otherwise her baby would be killed.
23. These letters were written when she was residing in her matrimonial home. They show the victim's feelings and what she was going through. They corroborate the victim's testimony regarding the beatings given to her.
24. It was submitted that the victim had not made any complaint to any person and this makes her testimony suspect. This submission is not acceptable. The victim stated on oath and also mentioned in the letters written by her that she had married contrary to the wishes of her parents. Thus, she was unable to go to her parents because she was not sure whether she would be accepted or not. This is also apparent from her letters wherein she had repeatedly written that she should be forgiven. There is nothing to show that the victim's parents responded to her letters and the victim remained under the impression that she had nowhere to go. That is why she wrote in her letter (Ext.P-3) that her fate was to get beaten every day, clearly showing that 19 2025:HHC:9999 she had resigned to her fate. She could not have been expected to make the complaint against her husband and lose the shelter which she had. She was not sure about the reaction of her parents and could not count on them to protect her. Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be doubted because the victim had not made the complaints to any person.
25. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the victim had a reasonable cause for filing the complaint belatedly. This submission is not acceptable. As already stated, the victim had resigned to her fate. She was getting beaten every day as per the letters written by her, however, one day she and her baby girl were turned out of her matrimonial home. Therefore, she lost the shelter she had and had nothing more to lose, which forced her to take shelter in her parents' house and make a complaint against the petitioner. The circumstances in which the victim had married the accused and was residing in her matrimonial home prevented her from making complaints to any person or coming out of the house to save herself.
26. The victim's mother Pushpa Sharma (PW-2) stated that she was serving in H.P. Secretariat. The victim married the 20 2025:HHC:9999 accused on 17.02.2006 contrary to her parents' wishes. The victim did not visit her parents' home after her marriage. She resided in her matrimonial home. The victim wrote the letters to her which were delivered to her by Davinder Lakhanpal (PW-4) and Arun Sood (PW-7). The accused demanded dowry from the victim. He asked her (the victim) to talk to her mother. One day victim demanded ₹30,000/- but she declined. The accused turned the victim out of her matrimonial home on 09.05.2007 with her baby girl. She stated in her cross-examination that she was not aware of the relationship between the accused and the victim before her marriage. The victim informed her telephonically about the marriage. She (the victim) informed her about the misbehaviour of the accused telephonically and by writing the letters. The victim did not tell her about her pregnancy; however, she had talked about the delivery of the child on 20th April. She went to the hospital to see the victim and her daughter.
27. Her testimony corroborates the victim's version in material particulars. She has deposed about the writing of letters by the victim to her, complaining about the harassment. She stated that she had counseled the victim clearly showing that she 21 2025:HHC:9999 had not expressed any desire to bring the victim to her parental home. Therefore, the victim was justified in believing that she would not be welcome in her parental home and continue to suffer in the matrimonial home.
28. Davinder Lakhanpal (PW-4) stated that he knows the victim's father and the victim. She was residing in the house of Kewal Krishan. He went to the house of Kewal Krishan in August 2006 and when he met the victim, she told him that her husband was beating her and keeping her confined to the room. The accused demanded money from her. She handed over the letter (Ext.P-2) to him to deliver to the victim's mother. He delivered the letter to the victim's mother. He stated in his cross- examination that the victim was his daughter's class fellow. He did not remember the date of the delivery of the letter. He never talked to the accused.
29. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he was making a false statement. He stated that he knew the victim because of his acquaintance with the victim's parents and his daughter being the victim's class fellow. Therefore, he was a natural person to whom the victim could confide. The victim also handed over the letters to this witness 22 2025:HHC:9999 for delivering it to her mother. His testimony corroborates the statement of the victim and her mother about the delivery of the letters.
30. Arun Sood (PW-7) stated that he retired from UCO Bank. He knew the victim's family. The victim's father also served in UCO Bank. The victim married the accused in February contrary to her parents' wishes. She was residing in a rented house at Dev Nagar after her marriage. She met the victim in March 2006. He enquired about her well-being and the victim replied that the accused used to beat her daily and confine her in the room. She handed over a letter to him with a request to deliver it to her mother. He delivered the letter to the victim's mother. The victim again met him at Vikasnagar Bus Stand in September 2006. She handed over another letter to him with the request to deliver it to her mother. He delivered the letter on the same day. The victim was residing in Hem Kunj in September 2006. He was the neighbour of the victim. The accused had beaten the victim one day and he saw her bleeding. The owner of the house was present, who scolded the accused and asked him to vacate the room. He stated in his cross-examination that he did not know the accused but he knew the victim. The victim's father 23 2025:HHC:9999 worked with him. He had seen the accused and the victim quarrelling once in September 2006. He denied that he was making a false statement because the victim's father was his colleague.
31. It was submitted that the testimony of this witness is not reliable. He is the colleague of the victim's father. This is hardly any reason for him to depose falsely. The victim would have confided to a known person. The fact that he knew the victim would encourage her to deliver the letter to him with the hope that it would reach her mother instead of reaching the accused. Therefore, the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded because of the acquaintance with the victim's father. His testimony corroborates the testimony of the victim and her mother regarding sending/receiving the letters.
32. Meena Thakur (PW-6) stated that the accused was a tenant in her house in the year 2006. She was residing on the same floor where the accused was residing. She was not aware of the relationship between the accused and the victim. She did not witness any quarrel between them. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied that the accused had locked the victim in the room. She denied that the accused opened the door 24 2025:HHC:9999 after five minutes and the victim came out of the room along with the baby. She denied that the victim was bleeding from her mouth. She volunteered to say that she met the victim at the door. She enquired from the victim as to what had happened. The victim was crying and talking to someone on the phone. She admitted that the accused was working as a Pandit. The victim left the home on 09.05.2007. She denied her previous statement recorded by the police. She stated in her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defence that the victim had never complained to her about the quarrel or the beating. The accused was happy after the birth of the baby girl. The parents of the accused visited the house and they had nice behaviour towards their daughter-in-law and their granddaughter.
33. It was submitted that the testimony of this witness does not corroborate the prosecution's version regarding the beating and the harassment and her testimony makes the prosecution case suspect. This submission cannot be accepted. The learned Appellate Court had rightly held that the incidents of cruelty generally take place within the four corners of the house and are not witnessed by any independent person. Further, the victim had the reason not to complain to any person and to lose 25 2025:HHC:9999 the only shelter, she had. Therefore, the fact that the victim had not made any complaint to her will not make her testimony suspect. She categorically stated that the victim was crying on 09.05.2007 and she was talking to someone on the phone. This version corroborates the testimony of the victim that she was beaten on that day and was turned out of her home. Further, this witness has been contradicted by her previous testimony and is shown to have made two inconsistent statements. Her credibility is suspect and her testimony cannot be used to discard the prosecution case. (please see Dilo Begum vs. State of H.P. 2024:
HHC:1519 para 24 to 34)
34. Amrit Mohini (PW-10) stated that the accused resided in the building owned by her. She was not aware of the behaviour of the accused with the victim because she used to leave for her job. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied that she had counselled the accused many times and when he did not pay any heed to her advice, she asked him to leave the room. She admitted that the accused had left the room in September 2006.
She also contradicted her previous statement and she denied the same. This witness is also shown to have made inconsistent statements on different occasions - one before the Investigating 26 2025:HHC:9999 Officer and another before the Court. Therefore, her credit has been impeached and her testimony cannot be used to discard the prosecution case.
35. Asha Verma (PW-11) stated that the accused obtained one room in her building for ₹1100/- per month. She was going to school to bring her children when she heard some noise from the room of the accused. She saw that the victim was bleeding from her face. The victim revealed that the accused had beaten her. She returned the advance given to her by the accused and asked the accused to vacate the room. The accused vacated the room.
36. She was not cross-examined at all, which means that her testimony is accepted as correct by the accused. She categorically stated that she had seen the victim bleeding from her face and the victim had told her about the beating given to her. Her testimony corroborates the testimony of the victim regarding the beatings given to her.
37. Dinu Ram (PW-5) is the witness of the recovery of the reports of Sonography of the victim. He did not support the prosecution case, however, the same will not make any difference.
27
2025:HHC:9999
38. Dr Jitender Jhingta (PW-8) stated that he is running an Ultra Sound Clinic at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. He issued a report regarding the Sonography of the victim. He stated in his cross- examination that he had conducted the routine checkup of the victim. He was not aware as to who had brought the victim to the clinic.
39. It was submitted that this witness has nowhere stated that he had disclosed the sex of the foetus to the accused. However, this will not make much difference. The victim's testimony regarding beating and demand for dowry is duly corroborated by her mother, other witnesses and the letters written by her. Therefore, the mere fact that he has not deposed about the disclosure of the sex of the fetus will not make the victim's testimony suspect.
40. It was submitted that the victim wanted to get rid of the accused, as she wanted to marry someone else and she filed a false complaint to achieve this purpose. This submission is not acceptable. The victim married the accused contrary to the wishes of her parents, which shows the confidence reposed by her in the accused. She had left her parents' home for the accused and she had no reason to get rid of the accused. The 28 2025:HHC:9999 accused did not assign any reason in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to why the victim wanted to get rid of him. The fact that the victim had married the accused against the wishes of her parents, resided with him and delivered his baby would make it difficult to believe that the victim would have thought of dumping him and marrying someone without any reason.
41. The testimony of the victim is duly corroborated by the letters written by her and the testimony of other witnesses; therefore, both the learned Courts below had rightly accepted the same and had rightly held that the prosecution case was duly proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
42. The learned Trial Court had sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of ₹5000/- and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This is not excessive. A young girl left her parental home to reside with the accused. The accused gave her beatings and abused her. He asked her to bring a dowry. The accused betrayed the trust of the victim. Hence, in 29 2025:HHC:9999 these circumstances, the punishment of one year and a fine of ₹5000/- is not excessive.
43. No other point was urged.
44. In view of the above, the present revision fails and the same is dismissed.
45. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th April, 2025 (ravinder)