Surinder Singh, J.
1. The acquittal of the respondents under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged by the State, in this appeal.
2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. PW 2 Meera Devi was married to the respondent Hans Raj on 8-12-1994, as per the Hindu rites. The complainant Pabbar Singh, the father of Smt. Meera Devi, gave Rs. 20,000/- as Tikka', five tolas of gold ornaments and other necessary articles to his daughter at the time of her marriage. It is alleged that after about one month of her marriage, her husband Hans Raj and parents in law Kanwar Singh and Kaundi Devi started taunting her for bringing less dowry but she always told them that her father had provide whatever he could afford. It is also alleged that the respondents picked up the quarrels and started causing harassment on the point of dowry. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the month of March Smt. Meera Devi was forcibly turned out from the matrimonial house to bring more money if she wanted to reside with them. Pabbar Singh, complainant along with Hem Chand (PW-3) went to the respondents in their village Kenevera to reconcile the matter, but in vain. The complainant also told them that he was ready and willing to pay Rs. one lac to them provided his daughter is kept nicely in her matrimonial house but in turn, Hans Raj respondent told him firstly to pay the amount, thereafter he would think as to what place could be given to his daughter in the family.
3. A legal notice was also served by respondent Hans Raj on his wife Meera Devi to resume the marital ties. After two days of receiving the notice one Shri Sunder Thakur of village Kenevera and Prem Raj both visited the house of the parents of Meera Devi to take her back. Sunder Thakur took the entire responsibility that Meera Devi would be looked after and treated well in the family of the respondents without any alleged taunts. In the month of May, 1995 Meera Devi resumed the marital ties and settled down with her husband in village Kenevera. She conceived a baby. When she was running the 5th month of pregnancy, she was again turned out from the matrimonial house. Shri Pabbar Singh (PW1) filed a complaint, on the basis of which FIR under the aforesaid Sections were lodged in the police station. The investigation was conducted by DSP, Devinder Singh (PW8). On completing the investigation he moved an application to launch the prosecution against the respondents as per the provisions of Section 8-A (amended by the State of H. P.) of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the District Magistrate. Sanction Ext. PW8/B was accorded on 20-4-1996. Thereafter the challan was presented in the learned trial Court against the respondents.
4. Finding a prima facie case against the respondents, they were accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid.
5. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The defence was denial simplicitor and no evidence in defence was led.
7. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and also on the basis of the material contradictions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses in their statements. The acquittal of the respondents has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Shri Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has given a weightage to the minor contradictions and wrongly brushed aside the cogent evidence led by the prosecution. It is also argued that the delay in the instant case, in lodging the FIR stands properly explained from the facts and circumstances brought on record and the learned trial Court misconstrued the law and the evidence led by the prosecution.
9. In response, Shri R. S. Jamalta, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.
10. Precisely the case of the prosecution is based upon the demand of dowry. In order to attract the provision of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 'cruelty' means:
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
11. The perusal of the above explanation added to Section 498-A, makes it abundantly clear that the willful act or conduct ought to be proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under this Section. In the instant case, there is not even an iota of evidence with respect to the cruelty as is included in Clause (a) of the explanation. In so far as explanation (b) is concerned, this requires that there shall have to be series of acts in order to be a harassment so as to bring the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
12. As already stated above, the facts are that the respondents had raised the demand of dowry from PW2 Meera Devi. Said Smt. Meera Devi, as PW2 testified on oath that the respondents stated that she had brought less dowry as compared to the other newly weds in the area and the respondents remain unsatisfied and started demanding the dowry. When she resumed the marital ties for the second time, she was again turned out from the matrimonial house to bring more money. It was then she made the complaint to her father. Respondents had sent Sunder Thakur and Prem Raj of their village to call her back. They were also allegedly informed about the illegal demand of dowry by the respondents. Significantly, none of these persons were examined as the witnesses in this case and otherwise also there names and the story as propounded during the trial of the case did not find mention in the complaint itself filed by the father of Meera Devi. It has come in evidence that she had also filed a petition for the maintenance in the local panchayat, which was compromised. The compromise deed is Ext. PW3/A executed on 5-7-1995 wherein there was no reference with respect to the demand of dowry and the another compromise proved on record is Ext. PW3/B. In this also there is no such reference. PW9 Mohinder Singh, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat has also proved one more compromise deed dated 5-7-1995 Ext. PW9/A placed on record whereby the respondent Hans Raj admitted about some dispute with his wife which came to an end on that date and both of them undertook to lead a peaceful marital life. The compromise which was entered on last of all is Ext. PW3/A executed on 5-7-1995 which means that all the disputes which were inter-se then came to an end. It is not understood what other dispute remained unsettled between them which could be covered under any of the clause aforesaid.
13. PW1 Pabbar Singh has admitted having sent the notice Ext. PW1/A by the accused Hans Raj. He further admitted about the execution of the compromises aforesaid, which have been proved by PWs 3 and 4. The perusal of the documents aforesaid does not anywhere refer to these facts as deposed in Court. Thus, there are considerable improvements and material contradictions in the statement of PW1. Further in cross examination, he significantly admitted that there was no demand of the dowry from him by the respondent, but he alleged that such demand was raised from his daughter. Whereas, in the cross-examination, PW2 Meera Devi has clearly stated that at the time of marriage there was no demand of the dowry from the side of the respondent but only stated that after the marriage the respondents had been administering the abusive language to her and also alleged scuffle. When she was confronted with her statement recorded by the police, this fact did not find mention therein. She also admitted that in the application moved to the Panchayat she did not make any reference to the demand of dowry by the respondent.
14. On culling the aforesaid evidence in the instant case, as already stated above, explanation (a) of 498-A meaning of cruelty is not attracted. The case of the prosecution is also not covered under the explanation (b) as there shall have to be series of acts in order to be a harassment as held by the Apex Court in Girhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2078 : 2002 Cri LJ 2814. It is not any and every cruelty that itself is made punishable but it is only the cruelty as defined in the explanations aforesaid. (See : Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra : 1993 Cri LJ 3019.
15. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of his case, in my considered opinion the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record which requires no interference. Therefore, the appeal merits dismissal which is accordingly dismissed.
16. The respondents are hereby discharged of the bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceeding of this case.
Matter stands disposed of. Send down the records.