BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In police challan emanating from FIR No. 32/04 dated 14th March, 2004, registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, after the complete trial, the accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 6.11.2007 against which State preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. While upholding the acquittal of the co-accused reversed the judgment of acquittal qua Appellant Baljinder Singh, vide its judgment dated 18th July, 2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 2-NL/10 of 2008, which has been challenged in the present appeal.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant Veena Devi was married to Appellant Baljinder Singh, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the accused' on 4.5.2001. During this wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. The accused-husband is a matriculate. His father was a bank employee and died while in service. After his death, the accused was given job on compassionate ground in State Bank of Patiala, where he has been working as a Cashier. The complainant-wife is a graduate, her father is a Police Officer. It is alleged that the complainant in the beginning was kept well, but after few matters, dispute shot up in the matrimonial home. She alleged ill-treatment at the hands of mother, sister and brother of the accused. They alleged that the ear-rings given to her in the marriage by her parents were not of gold, but were of some cheap metal. It was also alleged that "milni" in her marriage was not properly performed with one Mohinder. The aforesaid relatives of the accused had instigated him as a result of which he used to give beatings to the complainant. The father of the complainant at that time was posted as SHO at Police Station Jubbal. Since both the parties did not put on well, as such, complainant started living separately from her husband in the house of her parents at Nalagarh. She also filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindi Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites. The petition for maintenance ended into compromise, consequently, the petition for conjugal rites was withdrawn.

(3.) It is alleged in the complaint filed by Smt. Veena Devi that the accused did not join the marriage of her brother and had not come despite invitation. She alone attended the marriage, thus this was another cause for creating bad blood inter-se the parties.