JUDGMENT :

The accused/appellants herein faced trial for charges drawn under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) readwith Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The learned trial Court i.e the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P, upon, the afore drawn charges, through its decision made on 29.5.2010, upon, Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2009, made an order of acquittal, vis-à-vis, the accused for the charges drawn under Section 306/34 of the IPC. However, the learned trial Court made an order of conviction, upon, the accused for the charges drawn under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. Through a separate order drawn on 5.6.2010, the learned trial Court sentenced the accused, to, undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and, also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, upon the accused, besides in default of payment of fine, the learned trial Court sentenced, the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months, for, commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

3. The State of Himachal Pradesh, is not aggrieved, from the verdict of acquittal as made, upon the accused, by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis charges drawn under Section 306 of the IPC. Consequently, the verdict of acquittal as made upon the accused, in respect of the afore drawn charge acquires, the, completest conclusivity, and, binding effect.

4. However, the accused become aggrieved, from theirs becoming convicted, for the charge drawn against them, under, Section 498-A/34 of IPC. Therefore, they are led to constitute there against the instant appeal before this Court.

5. The brief facts of the case are that one Sonia was married to accused Kamal Kishore on 6.5.2001 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the accused started ill-treating the deceased, and, also demanded an amount of Rs.60,000/- from her. The afore amount was not given by the parents of the deceased to the accused Kamal Kishore, on, account of which the accused started ill-treating her, and, also subjected her to cruelty. When the deceased was pregnant, accused Kamal Kishore took her to her parental house. He also told her that in case she delivers a female child, he will not take her back to her matrimonial home. The deceased gave birth to a female child and accused Kamal Kishore did not come to take her back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Dhar Kalan, where a compromise was effected, and, the accused took her back to her matrimonial home. Even thereafter, the accused continued to ill-treat her, and, on account of the ill-treatment being meted to her, she lastly consumed poison and died.

6. After investigation of the case, the challan was prepared and presented in the Court. After receipt of the file on commitment from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dalhousie, the learned trial Court charged the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution evidence was recorded. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, to, which they pleaded innocence and false implication, and, the accused did not choose to lead evidence in defence.

7. As stated supra since for want of the State of Himachal Pradesh, preferring an appeal against the verdict of acquittal, as became pronounced, upon, the accused by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis charges drawn against them, under Section 306/34 of the IPC, thereupon, the afore verdict of acquittal vis-à-vis the charge (supra), assumes conclusivity and finality. Further consequence thereof, is that since prima-facie, there is inter-connectivity inter-se cruelty physical or mental, with the charge drawn under Section 306/34 of IPC, and, whereon a binding and conclusive verdict, became pronounced by the learned trial Court. Therefore, prima-fac