STATE OF H.P. Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Dehra, Distt. Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 49-II of 2003, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 read with Section 120-B IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that complainant, namely, Seema Devi had made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC on 12.1.2003 that after her marriage with the accused-respondent No.1,namely, Subhash Chand in the year 2007 and one male issue was born from the wedlock, however, the accused- respondents have repeatedly been beating and maltreating her and on many occasions, on the indulgence of the Panchayat, compromise was effected. It was also alleged that on 11.1.2003 at around 6/7 p.m., the victim/complainant was asked by her father- in-law, namely, Kishori Lal and Brahmi Devi to vacate the room and on her refusal, the husband-accused and Trishla Devi, sister-in-law of the complainant, threatened the complainant to leave the house and subsequently accused Subhash Chand brought a bottle of Kerosene oil and in furtherance of a common intention sprinkled Kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. To save herself, the complainant ran towards the courtyard, where her sister-in-law, accused Trishla Devi threw a bucket of water on the complainant whereas the complainant has been shouting for help. FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 read with Section 120-B IPC. During the course of investigation, police took into possession compromise, effected between the parties, namely, compromises dated 20.7.2002, 25.5.2000, 19.5.2001 and 10.10.2001. After completion of investigation, the police presented the challan in Court for trial for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.

(3.) THE prosecution examined complainant Seema Devi as PW-7, PW-8 Mohindra Devi, PW-4 Sushma Devi, PW-5 Azad Singh and PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, as witnesses of facts and circumstances. PW-3 Rattan Chand and PW-1 Suram Singh were examined as eye witnesses. To corroborate the medical evidence on record, the prosecution examined Dr. Vivek Sood as PW-6. Besides this, the prosecution examined S.I. Jasbir Singh as PW-7, HC Sat Paul as PW-10 and S.I. Jeet Singh as PW- 11, as formal police witnesses.