STATE OF HP vs KAMAL KISHORE

2026:HHC:20999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2015
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Date of decision: 02.06.2026
Uploaded on: 02.06.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Appellant.
Versus
Kamal Kishore & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant : Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondents : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6.

: Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 to 4.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
State has preferred this appeal against judgment dated
24.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in
Sessions Trial No.02 of 2013 titled ‘State of H.P. vs. Kamal Kishore &
Ors.’ arising out of FIR No.118 dated 17.08.2012, registered at Police
Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, under Sections 366, 376, 495 and
120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’). Vide the impugned
judgment, respondents have been acquitted of respective charges
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-2- 2026:HHC:20999
framed against them under Sections 376, 417, 493, 494, 495 and 120B
High Court of H.P.
of IPC.
2. Prosecution’s case is that on 17.08.2012, victim-Rinki @
Jyoti (PW-1) approached Police Station Barsar along with a written
application (Exhibit PW-1/A), alleging therein that accused persons had
hatched a conspiracy and solemnized her marriage with respondent
No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already married, on 10.07.2012, in a
hotel at Shimla and thereafter brought her back to Village Samoh,
District Hamirpur, whereas she had not seen village Lahorli Kalwal,
where respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore had been residing with his
uncle ( Fufa ) and aunty ( Bua ).
3. It was further alleged that respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore
used to visit her in Village Samoh in the house of respondent No.2-
Meena Kumari and had sexual intercourse with her whenever he visited
there. According to the complainant, her marriage was solemnized by
concealing the fact that respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore had already
married Shalini Devi (PW-2) in the year 2004, and this fact came in her
knowledge on 16.08.2012, when her mother called upon members of
Mahila Mandal, whereupon she realized that injustice had been done
to her.
4. PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti, in her complaint, named Meena
Kumari, Sarita Devi, Kamal Kishore, Promila Devi and Harbanshi Devi,
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-3- 2026:HHC:20999
as well as Mahinder and his wife, as persons who were present at the
High Court of H.P.
time of solemnization of her marriage with Kamal Kishore, and further
alleged that a photo album was also prepared during the marriage
ceremony.
5. The aforesaid written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), apart
from complainant-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1), was also signed by Kamla Devi
(PW-5), Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Kanchan Devi, Ward Panch, Samoh,
as well as Sandesh Kumari and Lata Devi.
6. On the basis of written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), on
17.08.2012 FIR (Exhibit PW-15/A) was registered at Police Station
Barsar, District Hamirpur.
7. Investigation was carried out and, after finding sufficient
material to prosecute the respondents, challan was presented before
the Court under Sections 376, 417, 493, 495 and 120B IPC against
respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and under Sections 417, 495 and
120B IPC against remaining respondents, namely, Meena Kumari,
Jagdev Singh, Sarita Devi, Promila Devi and Harbanshi Devi.
8. After committal by the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge,
finding a, prima facie , case of commission of offence under Section
376, 493, 494, 495 and 417 read with Section 120B of IPC by the
respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and under Section 417 read with
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-4- 2026:HHC:20999
Section 120B by remaining respondents/accused, charges were
High Court of H.P.
framed against them accordingly. On pleading not guilty, respondents
were subjected to trial.
9. To establish prosecution case, 18 witnesses were
examined and thereafter statements of the respondents under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘ Cr.P.C. ’) were
recorded. Four defence witnesses (DWs) were also examined by the
respondents. Upon conclusion of the trial, by appreciation and
assessment of the evidence on record, the respondents were acquitted.
10. To prove the factual matrix of the prosecution’s case, PW-
1 Rinki @ Jyoti (complainant-victim), PW-2 Shalini Devi (wife of
respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore), PW-4 Tirath Ram (Up Pradhan,
Gram Sudhar Sabha) and PW-5 Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal,
Samoh) were examined.
11. PW-3 Dr. Anukriti Singh, after examining the victim upon
her production by PW-10 Lady Constable Renu Sharma, had issued
MLC and handed over the same along with relevant
documents/samples to PW-10 LC Renu Sharma.
12. PW-8 Dr. Ajay Kumar, after examining accused-
respondent No.1 upon his production by PW-13 Constable Gani Khan
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-5- 2026:HHC:20999
had issued MLC and handed over the same with all relevant
High Court of H.P.
documents/samples to PW-13 Constable Gani Khan.
13. PW-14 HC Ravi Kumar was working as MHC at the
relevant time, with whom parcels and samples, received from PW-10
LC Renu Sharma and PW-13 Constable Gani Khan, were preserved in
Malkhana, and thereafter the sealed parcel was sent to RFSL Gutkar,
District Mandi.
14. PW-11 Constable Tarun Verma brought the report dated
20.09.2012 (Exhibit PX) from RFSL.
15. PW-7 Lalit Kishore Sharma, In-charge at Lakshmi Narayan
Mandir, Totu, was examined to prove booking of accommodation/hall
for solemnization of marriage between complainant-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-
1) and respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir,
Totu, Shimla, on 10.07.2012.
16. PW-17 Basu Dev Sharma was examined as Pandit of
Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Totu, who solemnized the marriage between
Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) and Kamal Kishore in the said Temple on
10.07.2012.
17. PW-6 Yashpal Singh, Panchayat Secretary, was
examined to prove copies of the Parivar Register of Arjun Singh (Exhibit
PW-6/B), birth certificate of the daughter of Kamal Kishore & Shalini
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-6- 2026:HHC:20999
Devi (Exhibit PW-6/C) and marriage certificate of Kamal Kishore &
High Court of H.P.
Shalini Devi (Exhibit PW-6/D), taken in possession by Investigating
Officer from him vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-6/E).
18. PW-9 Constable Anil Kumar had witnessed the production
of photographs pertaining to marriage of Kamal Kishore with the
prosecutrix, which were taken into possession by Investigating Officer
from respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-
9/A).
19. PW-12 Sharda Devi, Panchayat Secretary, Tikkar
Rajputan, Barsar, was examined to prove production of copy of the
Parivar Register (Exhibit PW-12/B), as per the Panchayat record,
pursuant to application (Exhibit PW-12/A) submitted by I.O.
20. PW-15 ASI Jogender Pal and PW-18 S.I. Rajinder Singh
are Investigating Officers in present case.
21. PW-15 ASI Joginder Pal had registered the FIR on the
basis of written application (Exhibit PW-15/A) and had sent the victim
for medical examination to CHC Barsar along with PW-10 LC Renu
Sharma. Thereafter, he had recorded statements of Urmila Devi
(mother of the complainant), Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal,
Samoh), Sandesh Kumari (Ward Member) and Tirath Ram (Up
Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh). He had arrested Kamal
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-7- 2026:HHC:20999
Kishore, Meena Kumari and Jagdev Singh on 17.08.2012. He had also
High Court of H.P.
prepared the spot map (Exhibit PW-15/B) and recorded the statement
of Jagar Nath, Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh. He had also
recorded statements of PW-11 C. Tarun Sharma/Verma and PW-13 C.
Gani Khan and thereafter handed over the investigation to PW-18 SI
Rajinder Singh.
22. PW-16 Anant Ram, SHO, Police Station Barsar, District
Hamirpur, on receiving the case file after investigation, had prepared
the Challan and presented it before the Court of JMIC, Barsar, District
Hamirpur.
23. In present matter, prosecution case is that till 16.08.2012,
victim was not aware of former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal
Kishore and all respondents, including Kamal Kishore, had kept her in
dark and got her married to Kamal Kishore, who was already married.
Therefore, she filed a complaint at Police Station Barsar.
24. It is further case of the prosecution that till her mother
called her to her house, victim was not aware of the previous marriage
of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and, in this manner, all the
respondents had committed fraud upon her and, on the basis of
misrepresentation, she got married to Kamal Kishore.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-8- 2026:HHC:20999
25. As per PW-3 Dr. Anukriti Singh, who examined the victim
High Court of H.P.
on 17.08.2012, she sent three slides of vaginal smear for chemical
analysis. After examination and upon receipt of the RFSL report, her
final opinion was that sexual intercourse had occurred, but nothing
suggestive of forceful sexual intercourse was noticed. In her
examination-in-chief, she noticed that the hymen was broken. In cross-
examination, this witness stated that the hymen rupture was old and
healed, which normally gets healed within one week of its rupture, and
that the possibility could not be ruled out that rupture of the hymen was
more than six months old. In the RFSL report, no blood or semen was
found in the preserved samples.
26. Medical evidence in present case is of no help to the
prosecution, keeping in view the events of the incident and nature of
the allegations levelled.
27. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the
complaint filed by PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti and her deposition in the Court
as well as depositions of witnesses PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla
Devi. PW-2 Shalini Devi was also examined to prove former marriage
of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore.
28. PW-6 Yashpal has proved on record the Parivar Register
of family of Kamal Kishore and birth certificate of daughter of Kamal
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-9- 2026:HHC:20999
Kishore & PW-2 Shalini Devi. PW-12 Sharda Devi has produced the
High Court of H.P.
Parivar Register of Urmila Devi, mother of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti.
29. For proving the charges against the respondents with
regard to concealment of the former marriage of respondent No.1-
Kamal Kishore and conspiracy to get PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti married to
respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, the first ingredient required to be
proved was the valid marriage of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti with respondent
No.1-Kamal Kishore and concealment of the former marriage of
respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore. In this regard, the statement of PW-1
Rinki @ Jyoti in the written complaint (Exhibit PW-1/A), her deposition
before the Court and her response in cross-examination are most
relevant. No other relevant witness was examined by the prosecution
in this regard, as Urmila Devi, mother of PW-1, despite being cited as
a witness in the challan, was given up on the ground that her evidence
was repetitive in nature.
30. Mother of PW-1, Urmila Devi was the only material witness
with regard to the claim of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti that information
regarding her marriage with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore was
withheld from Urmila Devi.
31. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2-
Meena Kumari refrained PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti from disclosing her
proposed marriage with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, even after
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-10- 2026:HHC:20999
solemnization of the marriage and, as such, PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti did not
High Court of H.P.
disclose her marriage to her mother. Consequently, Urmila Devi
(mother of PW-1) remained unaware of the marriage of PW-1 Rinki @
Jyoti with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and came to know about the
same only on 16.08.2012, when PW-4 Tirath Ram (Up Pradhan, Gram
Sudhar Sabha) informed her about the solemnization of marriage after
receiving such information in Bani Market, where 5 to 7 persons were
talking about the marriage. Since Urmila Devi was not examined as a
witness, only the statement of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti is available for
evaluating the veracity of the prosecution case in this regard.
32. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-4 Tirath Ram was
present in Bani Bazar on 15.08.2012, where he came to know that
respondent No.2-Meena Kumari had solemnized the marriage of PW-
1 Rinki @ Jyoti with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already
married and had children. On 16.08.2012, he went to village Samoh
and inquired from Urmila Devi, mother of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti, about the
marriage of her daughter with Kamal Kishore, but Urmila Devi was
found completely unaware of the said fact. Thereupon, PW-4 Tirath
Ram disclosed the factum of marriage to her, whereafter, on the very
same day, Urmila Devi reported the matter to the Mahila Mandal and
Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-11- 2026:HHC:20999
33. Thereafter, a meeting was convened in the presence of
High Court of H.P.
Jagar Nath (Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh), Kamla Devi
(Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh) and Sudesh Kumari and others.
PW-4 Tirath Ram, who was Up Pradhan of Gram Sudhar Sabha, stated
that respondent No.2-Meena Kumari and PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti were
called in the meeting. However, Meena Kumari did not appear, whereas
PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti appeared and expressed her ignorance about the
former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and further stated
that after the marriage, she had never visited the matrimonial home.
34. House of Urmila Devi was situated at a distance of about
200 metres from the house of PW-4 Tirath Ram. He admitted that the
father and paternal uncle of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti were drivers and he
(PW-4) was partner of father of accused-Kamal Kishore and they were
having cordial relations.
35. PW-5 Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh)
deposed that on 16.08.2012, a meeting of Mahila Mandal and Gram
Sudhar Sabha, Samoh was called by Urmila Devi, where she
complained that her daughter had been married by respondent No.2-
Meena Kumari to respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already
married. She further deposed that Rinki @ Jyoti was called in the
meeting, where she admitted her marriage with Kamal Kishore and
expressed her ignorance about the previous marriage of Kamal
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-12- 2026:HHC:20999
Kishore. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police on
High Court of H.P.
17.08.2012.
36. PW-5 Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh)
further stated that she was not aware of the marriage of Rinki @ Jyoti
with Kamal Kishore and this fact was disclosed to her by Urmila Devi
on 16.08.2012. She admitted that Rinki @ Jyoti was pursuing ITI course
at Bani and that her house was situated at a distance of 200 metres
from the house of Urmila Devi, but stated that Rinki @ Jyoti never met
her.
37. Statements of PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi are
based on hearsay information. Therefore, the case of the prosecution
mainly depends upon the veracity of the statement of PW-1 Rinki @
Jyoti. In her deposition before the Court, PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti stated that
her father had died in the month of March, 2012, who was suffering
from serious ailment and, on account of financial hardship faced by the
family, she could not continue her studies after 10+2; on request of
Meena Kumari, who was resident of the same village, her parents had
permitted her to work in the house of Meena Kumari, who had also
assured to continue her studies by bearing the expenses thereof. She
further stated that she was admitted in ITI at Bani by Meena Kumari
and that she used to attend classes and also to work in the house of
Meena Kumari.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-13- 2026:HHC:20999
38. PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti further deposed that in the year 2012,
High Court of H.P.
Harbanshi Devi, Kamal Kishore and Promila Devi came to Meena
Kumari and proposed marriage of Kamal Kishore with her, and
accordingly, PW-1, Meena Kumari informed her about the proposal, but
advised her (PW-1) not to disclose the same to her mother. She further
deposed that she had inquired from accused-Kamal Kishore about his
willingness for marriage, whereupon he had replied that he had no affair
with anyone and was willing to marry her.
39. PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti further stated that on 01.07.2012,
Harbanshi Devi came to Meena Kumari and fixed the date of marriage
as 10.07.2012. According to PW-1, on 09.07.2012, Kamal Kishore sent
a vehicle in which she, along with Meena Kumari, Jagdev Singh and
Sarita Devi, went towards Bijhar, where Kamal Kishore, Harbanshi Devi
and Promila Devi met them, who took them to Shimla. She further
stated that they stayed during the night at Totu in the Sarai of Lakshmi
Narayan Mandir and that on 10.07.2012, her marriage with Kamal
Kishore was solemnized in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, Totu, according
to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, they visited Tara Devi Temple,
Shimla, and returned back to Samoh. During return journey, Kamal
Kishore, Harbanshi Devi and Promila Devi got down at village Lahorli
and PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti returned to village Samoh along with accused
Meena Kumari, Jagdev Singh and Sarita Devi.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-14- 2026:HHC:20999
40. PW-1 further deposed that on 13.07.2012, Kamal Kishore
High Court of H.P.
came to village Samoh and took her to Kullu, where they stayed in a
hotel and during night Kamal Kishore established sexual relations with
her. On the next day, they went to Manikaran and returned to village
Samoh in the night of 14.07.2012, when Kamal Kishore again had
sexual intercourse with her, and thereafter he went back on
15.07.2012. She further stated that later on, he used to visit her and
have sexual intercourse with her. According to her, on 07.08.2012 also,
he stayed during the night in the house of Meena Kumari and had
sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he neither came to village
Samoh nor took her to village Lahorli, and she had never visited village
Lahorli. According to PW-1, on 16.08.2012, she came to know through
her mother that Kamal Kishore was already married and that he had
married her without disclosing the said fact.
41. In the written complaint (Exhibit PW-1/A), a detailed
narration of the incidents has been given, wherein it has been stated
that her (Rinki @ Jyoti) marriage was solemnized at Shimla on
10.07.2012 in a ‘ hotel ’ and thereafter she was brought back to village
Samoh by Meena Kumari, and that till the filing of the complaint, Rinki
@ Jyoti had not visited village Lahorli.
42. In the complaint, complete address and parentage of PW-
2 Shalini Devi, wife of Kamal Kishore, have also been mentioned. It has
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-15- 2026:HHC:20999
further been stated therein that, apart from the respondents, Mahinder
High Court of H.P.
and his wife were also present at the time of the marriage. Whereas, in
her deposition before the Court, PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti gave a different
version by stating that her marriage was performed according to Hindu
rites and customs in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir at Totu and thereafter
they also visited Tara Devi Temple.
43. There is a considerable difference between a hotel and a
temple. Solemnization of marriage according to Hindu rites and
customs in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir is not a minor event, and thus, it
could not have been omitted in a detailed complaint by merely stating
that the marriage was solemnized in a hotel at Shimla. The omission to
mention that after the marriage they visited Tara Devi Temple may be
natural, but the place of marriage, manner of solemnization of marriage
and place of stay are not insignificant facts. It is beyond imagination
that, instead of stating that the marriage was solemnized in a temple,
the complainant stated that the marriage was solemnized in a hotel,
without any reference to the temple in any manner.
44. It appears that during the investigation, in order to
implicate the respondents by introducing evidence of marriage, a major
improvement was made in the prosecution story.
45. From the statement of PW-7 Lalit Kishore Sharma, In-
Charge of Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, it is evident that the hall of the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-16- 2026:HHC:20999
temple was stated to have been booked in the name of Arjun Thakur,
High Court of H.P.
who was the uncle (Fufa) of Kamal Kishore. However, neither in the
complaint nor in the deposition before the Court, the complainant ever
named Arjun Thakur as a person present at the time of solemnization
of her marriage.
46. PW-7 Lalit Kishore Sharma stated that it was Mahinder
who had booked the hall in the name of Arjun Thakur and that the
applications were also written by Mahinder, but Mahinder is not an
accused in the present case. He was cited as a prosecution witness,
but was also given up by the State and, thus, the major link to establish
booking of the hall by or in favour of Arjun Thakur at the instance of the
respondents or Arjun Thakur is missing.
47. PW-17 Basudev Sharma was examined as the Pujari of
the temple and stated that on 10.07.2012, he had performed the
marriage ceremony of Rinki @ Jyoti and Kamal Kishore according to
Hindu rites and customs. However, he remained silent as to how and
in what manner the marriage was solemnized. He also admitted that he
had not issued any marriage certificate.
48. PW-17 further stated that the Temple Committee did not
maintain any register regarding marriages performed there.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-17- 2026:HHC:20999
49. In absence of cogent evidence linking the respondents
High Court of H.P.
with the booking of the hall, the solemnization of marriage in the temple
has not been proved by reliable and cogent evidence.
50. It is prosecution case that Kamal Kishore had produced
photographs of the solemnization of marriage with Rinki @ Jyoti before
the Investigating Officer, which were taken into possession vide seizure
memo (Exhibit PW-9/A) in the presence of witnesses HHC Somraj and
Constable Anil Kumar. HHC Somraj was not examined, whereas
Constable Anil Kumar (PW-9) was examined.
51. In cross-examination, he (PW-9) initially stated that he did
not know from where the accused had brought and produced the
photographs and thereafter stated that the accused had brought the
photographs from room. He further stated that at the time of production
of the photographs, no local resident was present.
52. No independent witness was associated with regard to
production of the photographs by Kamal Kishore. Even otherwise,
these photographs have not been proved on record in accordance with
law. Neither the person who snapped the photographs, nor the person
who developed the photographs, nor the negatives thereof, were
produced in evidence. Therefore, the photographs also do not
constitute conclusive proof of solemnization of marriage between
Kamal Kishore and Rinki @ Jyoti.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-18- 2026:HHC:20999
53. In the absence of proof of solemnization of marriage
High Court of H.P.
between Kamal Kishore and Rinki @ Jyoti, respondent No.1-Kamal
Kishore cannot be held guilty for the offences under Sections 493, 494
and 495 IPC.
54. Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) is 21 years old adult lady, who in her
cross-examination initially denied that she used to commute in the bus
of Kamal Kishore and expressed her ignorance regarding the
ownership of Kashyap Bus Service by Kamal Kishore. Later on, she
admitted that it was correct that Kamal Kishore used to take her on his
motorcycle to the college for examination prior to the marriage, though
she self-stated that he had taken her only once. She also stated in her
examination-in-chief that she had conversations with Kamal Kishore
and had asked him about his willingness to marry her.
55. DW-1 Ms. Poonam Bala, a cousin of the complainant, was
working as a Staff Nurse in Gujarat, but was residing in the same
village. Earlier, they were residing in the same house. She stated that
everyone in the village had knowledge about the marriage of Rinki @
Jyoti with accused-Kamal Kishore and that prior to the marriage, Kamal
Kishore usually used to visit the house of the complainant. This witness
further stated that she had knowledge of the previous marriage of
Kamal Kishore from the relatives of his earlier wife, who were their
neighbours, and she had also talked about this fact with the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-19- 2026:HHC:20999
complainant. According to her, the complainant had replied that she
High Court of H.P.
knew Kamal Kishore and would solemnize marriage with him despite
knowing the said fact.
56. DW-3 Surjeet Singh is a taxi driver, who deposed that the
complainant used to accompany Kamal Kishore in his taxi while going
to MIT Bani, and during that period, the daughter of Kamal Kishore also
used to accompany them. In his cross-examination, he admitted having
knowledge of the fact of previous marriage of Kamal Kishore with PW-
2 Shalini Devi and their daughter born out of the wedlock. His testimony
remained unimpeached in cross-examination.
57. PW-2 Shalini Devi was examined to prove the factum of
her marriage with Kamal Kishore and birth of their daughter. She also
deposed that she had come to know about the second marriage
allegedly solemnized by Kamal Kishore with Rinki @ Jyoti, but her
knowledge was only based upon what she had heard from other
persons.
58. It is also apt to record that DW-2 Naresh Kumari, Junior
Assistant, Tehsil Office, Dehra, was examined to prove copies of
affidavits (Exhibits DW-2/A and DW-2/B), attested vide entries No.2363
and 2364 dated 10.12.2012, as per the affidavit attestation register
produced by her. In her cross-examination, there was no suggestion
that these affidavits had not been sworn by Rinki @ Jyoti (complainant)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-20- 2026:HHC:20999
and Vinod Kumar. The only questions put to this witness were that she
High Court of H.P.
did not know Rinki @ Jyoti and Vinod Kumar personally and that these
affidavits did not bear their photographs. However, execution and
attestation of the affidavits were not disputed. In affidavit (Exhibit DW-
2/A) dated 10.12.2012, Rinki @ Jyoti had deposed on oath that she
was solemnizing her first marriage with Vinod Kumar, whereas copy of
affidavit of Vinod Kumar admitting the said marriage is Exhibit DW-2/B.
59. It has also come on record that the house of Meena Kumari
was situated at a distance of 50 metres from the parental home of the
complainant. Houses of PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi were
also located at a distance of about 200 metres from the house of Urmila
Devi, mother of the complainant. All of them were residents of the same
village and PW-5 Kamla Devi admitted that villagers used to meet each
other frequently.
60. House of Meena Kumari, situated at a distance of 50
metres from the house of Urmila Devi, even if located on the opposite
side, would, at the most, be at a distance of about 250 metres from the
houses of PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi.
61. It is the case of Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) that after the
marriage, she used to wear apparels like a newly wedded bride along
with light make-up . In such circumstances, it appears unbelievable that
the villagers of Samoh, including PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-21- 2026:HHC:20999
Devi, had no knowledge about the marriage. Therefore, either the
High Court of H.P.
statement of the complainant is false, or PW-4 and PW-5 are not
speaking the truth, or all of them, in order to implicate the respondents
in the case, are making statements accordingly so as to justify the claim
of Rinki @ Jyoti that no one except Meena Kumari was aware about
the marriage.
62. Though Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) claimed that Meena Kumari
had asked her not to disclose her marriage to her mother, yet from her
deposition in cross-examination, it has come on record that prior to the
marriage, she used to visit her mother frequently. Marriage in the life of
an Indian girl is not a small event, rather it changes everything in life,
and withholding information regarding such an important event that too
from her mother, despite meeting her frequently prior to the marriage
and even thereafter, appears unbelievable. Even if it is presumed that
she had not been visiting or residing in the house of her mother, still,
when they were residing in the same vicinity at a distance of about 50
metres, it is beyond imagination to presume that her family, including
her mother, was not aware about the same. Therefore, either no
marriage had taken place or there is something else which has not
brought on record.
63. Another possibility may also be that no marriage had taken
place at all and there existed intimacy between Rinki @ Jyoti and
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-22- 2026:HHC:20999
Kamal Kishore on account of acquaintance developed during the period
High Court of H.P.
when Rinki @ Jyoti was attending ITI/MIT at Bani for pursuing her
courses.
64. Statement of DW-1 Poonam also remained unimpeached
and the facts narrated by her also creates doubt about truthfulness
about the complainant’s version.
65. It is apt to notice that after solemnization of marriage, if the
marriage was at all solemnized, Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) neither insisted
upon nor intended to go with Kamal Kishore to the matrimonial house,
rather she opted to stay with Meena Kumari. She visited Kullu and
Manikaran with Kamal Kishore, but did not visit her matrimonial home
even for a single day, despite her claim that the marriage was
solemnized at the request of Harbanshi Devi, wife of Arjun Thakur, with
whom Kamal Kishore had been residing, as they had adopted him.
Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) neither visited Loharili, the village of Harbanshi
Devi, nor the paternal house of Kamal Kishore. This circumstance also
creates doubt as to whether any marriage was ever solemnized or not.
66. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the veracity
of the material witnesses is doubtful and there is no cogent, reliable and
convincing evidence to establish the prosecution case. The
respondents also have the benefit of acquittal recorded by the Trial
Court, which further fortifies the presumption of innocence in their
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS

-23- 2026:HHC:20999
favour. Learned Deputy Advocate General could not make out any
High Court of H.P.
ground warranting interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court.
67. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Record be sent back. Bail and surety bonds furnished by or on behalf
of respondent(s) are discharged.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge



(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
nd
2 June, 2026
(Pardeep)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2026 14:32:08 :::CIS