STATE OF H.P. Vs. PREM SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been instituted by the State against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, discharging all the Respondents herein who had been charged for offences under Sections 420, 498A, 493, 465, 467, 383, 365, 406, 366, 464 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that one Manju Devi who is the daughter of Ram Rakha, resident of village Tarer, Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, had filed a complaint that she was married to Prem Singh, Respondent, for 10/12 years and they lived happily for 2/3 years after their marriage. She alleged that after sometime, her husband, Kalan Devi, (mother -in -law) and her "Jethani" (sister -in -law), Satya Devi, started maltreating and harassing her and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home but lateron she was brought back by her husband. After sometime she was again subjected to the same treatment. All of them even went to the extent of leveling false allegations of sexual infidelity against her accusing her that the child in her womb was that of somebody else and not of her husband. She then continues that to overcome this humiliation and insults, her maternal grandfather paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - to Kalan Devi in the presence of Sohan Singh, son of Kalu Ram and accused Sohan Singh, son of Shiv Ram (since dead).

(3.) ON a prima facie consideration of the material on record and after hearing the parties, the learned Court discharged all the accused holding that the case put up by the prosecution was improbable and inherently impossible. The Court concluded not on a meticulous examination of the evidence but on a prima facie scrutiny of the material on record. Learned Court holds that no case is made out against the Respondents because the complainant accompanied Kashmir Singh and resided with him happily in Village Boharwin till 25.03.1995, i.e., for about a month. Learned Court holds that the story put up by the complainant that she was forcibly made to sign documents under coercion; threat etc. cannot be countenanced and is inherently improbable. She resided happily with Kashmir Singh as his wife. To reach at this conclusion, the learned Court considers the entire sequence of events from the time when the documents were purportedly signed, the complainant willingly accompanied Kashmir Singh in the bus and stayed in the house of one Joginder Singh for the first two days and thereafter with Kashmir Singh. The learned Court further strengthens its conclusions by the statement of the complainant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The Court holds: