SMT. SITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present leave to appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Case No. 493/2004 by which respondent nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 323/34, 452/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.7.2004 at about 10.30 am, the complainant -appellant Smt Sita Devi was all alone at her house and was cooking her food inside her house. The accused -respondents entered into her house and started hurling abuses upon her and they also assaulted her by 'dandas' (wooden sticks). The accused also snatched the ornaments, which the appellant was wearing at that time. She made cry for help, upon which Kalwa PW2 and Chandra Mohan PW3 etc. came at the spot and thus, she was rescued. The accused -respondents left the place of incident threatening the appellant with dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant -appellant went to the police station to lodge the report with regard to the above incident but the report was not lodged. She, then, went to the hospital where she was medically examined by the doctor. Later on, she prepared a report, which was sent to SSP, Haridwar by registered post. When no heed was paid to her complaint, the complainant -appellant filed a complaint before the competent magistrate.

(2.) AFTER taking the cognizance, the Magistrate examined the complainant -appellant Sita Devi and Kalwa as, PW1 and PW2 and their statements were recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate framed charges against the accused -respondents but they denied of the charges leveled against them and claimed for trial. The prosecution further re -examined Smt. Sita Devi PW1 and Kalwa PW2 under Section 246 Cr.P.C. in support of its case. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of Chandra Mohan PW3 to corroborate the factum of the case. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. It is also pertinent to mention here that the medical report has not been proved by any doctor. The doctor was also not examined by the prosecution.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, the learned magistrate held that Kalwa PW2 and Chandra Mohan PW3 had admitted in their cross -examination that they reached at the place of incident. The learned magistrate also pointed out that according to the complaint and the statement of the appellant which was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the incident took place inside the house whereas the complainant -appellant in her evidence has stated that the incident took place outside her house. The learned magistrate further observed that the report which was sent to the SSP, Haridwar was dictated at the time when the complaint was prepared by her counsel and thereafter, it was sent to the SSP concerned. The learned magistrate further held that a case is pending against the son of the appellant punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 & 498A IPC Thus, there is enmity between the parties. The learned magistrate further held that the appellant who appeared in the witness box could not state that the daughter of the co -accused Rajendra is wedded with the son of the complainant -appellant and she is her daughter -in -law. The appellant has stated that she is not aware of that fact. Suggestion was also put forward by the accused -respondents that the son of the appellant was arrested in the said case and was also sent to jail. The appellant also denied this factum. The learned magistrate found that the injuries, which have been mentioned i(sic) the medical report, did not corroborate with the oral evidence of the appellant and the evidence was also found un -reliable, as such, the accused -respondents were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The factum of evidence had not been disputed by the parties.