Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Pardeep Kumar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 299 of 2009
Decided On : 02-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Desh Raj Thakur, Narender Thakur.
For the Respondents: N.K. Thakur, Karanveer Singh.

Point of Law: Delay in making a complaint to police cannot be said to be so inordinate that could be fatal for prosecution case.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A, 325, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Appeal – Demand of dowry – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Lack of jurisdiction – Court acquitted respondent, on grounds, firstly, that Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try offence as allegations made by complainant related to occurrence that had taken place at Delhi, secondly, that prosecution had failed to connect the injury suffered by complainant with alleged incident, thirdly, that delay in lodging FIR had remained unexplained and lastly, evidence led by prosecution was held to be deficient in proving charge against respondent beyond all reasonable doubts (Para 10).
Finding of the Court:
It become evident from aforesaid documents that respondent and complainant had not been able to maintain cordial relations and their matrimonial relations were strained – Certain instructions were placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General, which were received by him from Superintendent of Police, Instructions, so placed on record reveal that the complainant had solemnized another marriage after her divorce with respondent and respondent had also solemnized second marriage – Keeping in view entirety of facts and circumstances of case, Court concur with findings returned by learned Appellate Court to extent that prosecution evidence was not sufficient to convict the respondent.
Results: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed judgment dated 17.11.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2007, whereby the judgment dated 20.07.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 138-1-2002/65-II-2003 convicting the respondent, has been set aside.

2. Respondent alongwith two others namely Ramesh Chand and Sudershana Devi were tried for offences under Section 498-A and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 138-1-2002/65-II-2003, respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 325 of IPC, however, the other two accused persons were acquitted.

3. The case was registered against the respondent and other co-accused, on the basis of complaint made by Smt. Mamta Sharma, wife of respondent alleging inter-alia that she had been harassed and maltreated for demand of dowry by the accused persons after her marriage. The allegations were levelled against respondent and his parents. As per complainant, she had procured money from her parents many times on the asking of the accused persons. Respondent used to give her beatings. He had a Car Repair Work Shop at Delhi. When she accompanied her husband to Delhi, there also, she was being ill-treated. After her return from Delhi, complainant had narrated the entire incident to her parents. At the instance of parents of complainant and with the intervention of certain other persons husband and father-in-law of complainant agreed to take the complainant with them. She stayed in her matrimonial home for about five months, but throughout this period, she was ill-treated. In June, the complainant again accompanied her husband to Delhi, but there also, respondent kept on ill treating her by giving beatings. He was always coercing the complainant to bring money from her parents. On the night of 28.07.2002, respondent after bolting the door from inside stuffed the mouth of complainant with a cloth and gave her beatings with fists. Complainant had received an injury in her ear. She made a complaint to her uncle Sh. Tara Chand. Finally, she came back to her parents and reported the matter to police.

4. On completion of investigation, challan was filed against respondent and his parents. Prosecution examined total eight witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Sandeep Narula proved his opinion Ext. PW1/A. PW-2 Smt. Shobha Rani and PW-3 Rajinder Kumar were examined to prove the allegations against accused persons, being parents of the complainant. PW-4 Sh. Joginder Pal Kalia was the uncle of the complainant and was also examined to prove the prosecution case. PW-6 Dr. Sunil Sharma was examined as a Medical Expert and he proved his opinion Ext. PW-6/A. Complainant was examined as PW-7. PW-5 and PW-8 were the police witnesses. Respondent and other co-accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Three witnesses were examined in defence.

5. Learned Trial Court convicted the respondent and acquitted his parents. Respondent was sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- for offence under Section 498-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC, respondent was sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. Respondent assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence order passed against him by learned Trial Court by filing an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Una. The appeal of the respondent was assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, which was accepted and respondent was acquitted of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document