Delhi District Court
State vs . Trilok Singh & Ors. on 18 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT):
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Trilok Singh & ors.
FIR NO. : 410/ 1999
PS : Tilak Nagar
Date of Institution of case : 11.03.2000
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 13.11.2013
Date of judgment : 18.01.2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a)Date of offence : since marriage on 15.03.1996
b)Offence complained of : U/s. 498A/406 IPC
c)Name of accused, his parentage :(1) Trilok Singh S/o Sh.Mahender Singh
R/o WZ-50, Gali No.7, Ramgarh
Colony, Delhi.
(2) Mahinder Singh S/o Sh. Teja Singh
R/o T-229, Arya Pur, Subzi Mandi,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
(3) Smt.Avinash Kaur W/o Sh.Mahinder
Singh R/o T-229, Arya Pur, Subzi
Mandi Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
(4) Kulwant Singh S/o Sh.Kartar Singh
R/o WZ-2 A/3, New Shahpura, Tilak
Nagar, Delhi.
d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e)Final Order : Accused Trilok Singh and
Smt.Avinash Kaur are convicted U/s
498/406 IPC.
Accused Mohinder Singh and
Kulwant Singh are acquitted for the
offence U/s 498A/406 IPC.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present charge sheet has been filed on the complaint of Ms. Manjeet Kaur w/o Trilok Singh made to the Crime Against Women Cell dated 03.03.1999. In her complaint she has stated that she was married to the accused Trilok Singh on 15.03.1996 according to Sikh rites and customs. While her parents had given sufficient dowry to her in laws, they were not satisfied. Her mother in law took away all her jewellery and the same has not been returned to her despite her demands. She has alleged that the brother in law has tried to outrage her modesty and when she complained about it she was beaten by all the accused persons arraigned herein. She also alleged that they kept her hungry during her pregnancy and when the child was born the husband accused denied it to be his child. The expenses of the delivery were also borne by her parents. As per her complaint there was a clear and unambiguous demand of Rs.50,000/-. As there were allegations of both physical and mental abuse the FIR was registered.
2. After the completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against all the four persons. The accused persons were summoned. As prima facie offence under section 498A/406 IPC was made out against them, charges were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution evidence was led and 13 witnesses were examined in all. The first witness to be examined was the complainant wife Manjeet Kaur.
4. In her examination in chief the witness has completely supported the prosecution and reiterated her complaint against the accused persons stating that a demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by the in laws and that the accused persons taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. She has alleged that she was beaten and kept hungry by them. That she was beaten even during her pregnancy and all the expenses of her delivery were borne by her parents. She has specifically stated that her jewellery was taken away by her mother in law who has not returned it even after her persistent demands. She goes on to state that her parents were abused by the in- laws and the articles/gifts brought by them along with the invitation to the marriage of her younger brother was thrown away. She has further alleged that her mother in law tried to strangle her and was boxed and kicked by her husband and father in law.
5. The complainant has stated in her complaint that her brother in law made passes at her and when she complained about it to the parents in law she was beaten again for the same. She continues to state that her husband dispossessed her from the matrimonial house on 16.05.1997 and also made a demand of Rs.50,000/- asking for a divorce so that he could remarry. He even threatened to kidnap the child and to throw acid on her in case the demand was not fulfilled. He has not returned the stridhan articles or the child's clothes. She further informs that her parents had given her in laws Rs.30,000/- at their demand.
6. During her cross examination it was brought out that no receipt of the utensils had been filed by her and that the complaint was not written by her but was dictated to the typist by her lawyer. She has reiterated that dowry was demanded from her by all the accused persons after her 'phera' even in the cross. It was also brought out that her father is an architect, earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. She has also stated that they are three brothers and three sisters and that she is the youngest of them all. She denied the suggestion that Trilok Singh was unemployed and therefore cannot pay maintenance to her. She has informed that her husband /accused works with 'Dymo' which is situated at WZ-50, Ramgarh Colony which is his father's factory. She denied the suggestion that the family members do not support him. She has further denied the suggestion that she is residing with her parents and not in the matrimonial home of her own will. She denied the suggestion that she has filed a false case against the accused persons in connivance with the police.
7. The second witness to be called for evidence was H Ct. Suresh Kumar. The witness was posted as Duty Officer on 07.05.99 and had received the tehrir for getting the case registered. He had registered the FIR which is Ex. PW2/A.
8. Fauje Singh was the third witness to be examined by the prosecution. He has also supported the prosecution case. He has stated in his examination in chief that the marriage of his sister/complainant was solemnized on 15.03.1996 and on 16.03.1996 his sister Manjeet Kaur had visited the house on phera and had informed them that the in laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in marriage. He has specifically stated that his sister was turned out from the matrimonial home on 16.05.1997after insulting her and making a demand of Rs.50,000/-. He states that it was told by his sister that the demand was made by her husband, mother in law, father in law and brother in law. He categorically states that he had gone to the matrimonial home of the complainant/ sister to make the payment of Rs.30,000/- on 24.05.97 which was handed to Sardar Mahender Singh in the presence of the mother in law. Since the balance amount could not be arranged by them she was again thrown out of the matrimonial home. He goes on to state that the complainant has been residing with them for the past six years now and the articles have also been kept by the accused persons.
9. On cross examination the witness was unable to remember the date, month and the year when the police had recorded the statement. It was admitted that no complaint was lodged by them o 16.05.1997. It was further brought out in the cross examination that the money to be given to the in laws was not withdrawn from the bank but was arranged from other sources. He states that he has a publication business and is also a union leader. He denied the suggestion that he did not arrange for the marriage of the sister as he was not working at the time. He also denied the suggestion that the sister was not beaten by the accused persons or that he being a union leader had instigated her into filing the present complaint. He denied the suggestion that he had beaten Mahender Singh on 30.05.95 but added voluntarily that accused gave beatings to his father on that day and FIR was registered and medical examination was also conducted.
10.PW 4 Bachhan Kaur was examined next. She is the mother of the complainant and was informed by the complainant about the dissatisfaction of her in laws over the dowry given to them. She has deposed stating that the complainant had been advised and sent back to her matrimonial home. She has stated about an incident when Trilok had driven the complainant out from the matrimonial home asking for Rs.50,000/-. According to her she along with her husband and sons handed aver Rs. 30,000/- to the in laws of the complainant seeking time to arrange the amount. That the entire expenses of the delivery and the nursing home were borne by them. During cross examination it was brought out that her husband/ father of the complainant was a building contractor with a monthly income of Rs. 12- 15,000/- and that she could not remember the date when her daughter had returned for the 'phera'. She has reiterated that the accused Trilok had physically assaulted her daughter and ousted her from the matrimonial home. She has denied the suggestion that the accused Trilok had come to the nursing home to take her to the matrimonial home but he was turned away.
11. The next witness to be examined by the prosecution was ASI Hawa Singh as PW5 who had joined the investigation with SI Sube Singh. On the identification of the complainant the dowry articles were recovered from House No. WZ50, Gali no.7, Moti Nagar. The IO seized the articles vide a memo Ex PW1/C. The articles were later released on superdari. On cross examination he affirms that a few neighbors had been asked t join the investigation but they refused. He however denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected and that all the articles were planted.
12. As per PW6 Balbir Singh also the complainant had identified the articles which were then taken into possession by the police from her matrimonial home. On being cross examined he further states that the lock of the house was broken open and articles were seized. Police did not record his statement. The witness was thereafter re examined by the State APP wherein he stated that the accused persons are known to him and that it would be wrong to suggest that the lock of the house was not broken open.
13. As per PW7 HC Kesar Singh, the parties were called to the police station but no compromise took place. The case was registered at the instance of the complainant.
14. PW8 Const. Mukesh stated that on 29.05.99, he had joined the investigation of the present case. He reiterated what has been stated by PW6 and 7.
15.PW9 Sher Singh is the brother of the complainant. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution when he deposes that the marriage function was arranged in a decent manner and amount more than their capacity was put in it. He had been informed by the complainant on the next day that is during 'phera ceremony' that her in laws were not happy with the dowry. He was again informed after two months of the marriage via telephone by the complainant that a demand of Rs.50,000/- was being made by her in laws. Time and again such demands were being raised by the accused persons. The witness has specifically stated that he arranged a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was handed to them in the month of May 1997. again when the complainant delivered a baby a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid as chuchak . Several efforts were made by him and other family members to mediate and reconcile the matter with the in laws of the complainant. Many times the complainant was consoled and sent back to the matrimonial home with the hope that the in laws would treat her well and she should adjust but nothing came out it. The witness has categorically denied the suggestion that no demand was made to the accused or that his sister purposely did not want to stay with the family.
16. PW 10 SI Sube Singh has deposed stating that, ' I along with complainant, HC Hawa Singh, Ct Mukesh and father and brother of complainant went to matrimonial home of the complainant at Moti Nagar. Thereafter making 2-3 independent public witnesses to join the investigation, on the instance of the complainant Manjeet kaur and on her identification conducted the search of her matrimonial house and on her instance prepared recovery memo of stridhan articles.' The deposition of the witness is in support of the other prosecution witnesses. According to this witness also the stridhan was handed over to the malkhana PS Tilak Nagar. The statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by him. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to SI Rajvir Singh for further investigation.
17. PW11 Mahender Singh Tyagi has affirmed that the seizure memo Ex PW1/C was signed by him. PW's 7,8,10, 11 have not been cross examined by the defence.
18. PW12 SI Ram Kishan has deposed that he had registered the present case as it was handed over to him by the SHO Tilak Nagar on 06.05.1999 and then handed it over to IC Police Post, Khyala for further investigation. The letter sent to the SHO is Ex PW 12/A.
19. As per PW13 Insp. Raj Veer Singh supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded by him on 16.08.1999. The witness has deposed in favour of the prosecution case and has affirmed that the three accused persons were formally arrested and released on 22.08.1999 vide Ex.PW13/A, B and C respectively. Accused Trilok Singh was arrested on 24.08.1999 vide Ex PW13/D, his personal search was conducted vide Ex PW13/E, the inspection memo of the accused Trilok Singh is Ex PW13/F. The present witness had filed the chargesheet in the court. The witness also correctly identified the accused persons Trilok Singh and Kulwant Singh. The witness was cross examined by the defence counsel wherein the witness has categorically denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant or that he had not conducted the investigation of the present matter.
20. As no further witnesses were to be examined by the prosecution the PE was closed and the statement of the accused as per 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons which was denied by them. It was submitted by the accused persons that the allegations are false and that it had never been the case that they were not satisfied with the dowry articles. It was submitted by accused persons that the complainant had wanted to go back to the parental house as she felt/understood that she will not be taken care of in the matrimonial house. Contrary to the allegations the accused persons also submit that in the birth of the child they had gone to the hospital and had stayed there for one whole day. The accused persons have stated again that the complainant had left the matrimonial home of her own free will. Accused Trilok Singh has explained that what appears to be cruelty on his part when he could not attend the marriage of her brother was only because he was unwell. It is also submitted that all the stridhan articles have been retained by the complainant. The accused Trilok Singh goes on to state that the complainant was having an affair with another person and has falsely implicated them in the present case. Also that he was willing to take back the complainant to the matrimonial home but all efforts at reconciliation with the complainant have failed.
21. As per accused Avinash Kaur and Mohinder Singh the dispute was between the husband and wife and she was residing separately from the accused no.1 and the complainant. As per accused Kulwant Singh who is the cousin of the main accused Trilok Singh, he had never resided alongwith the complainant and that he did not know anything about the present case or that there was any dispute with respect to dowry.
22.The accused persons preferred to lead evidence therefore one opportunity was granted to them to lead defence evidence. As no defence witness was produced by them the opportunity for leading defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
23. During the final arguments the defence counsel has argued that there is no evidence on record to indict the accused persons for the offence under section 498A/406/34 IPC. The complainant has not given a specific complaint and all hr allegations are general and vague in nature. There are no specific dates of the incidents. The complainant has stated about the demand of Rs.50,000/- generally not naming any of the accused persons and the said allegation is not even supported in the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses. The complainant has not made any complaint prior to the complaint before the CAW in the year 1999 even though the marriage was solemnized in the year 1996. It is also argued that the husband used to visit the parental home of the complainant therefore there is no substance in the allegations made by her. The accused has not been able to produce any document/ receipt to show the articles were purchased/received by her as stridhan. She has also stated that the complaint was typed by a typist and not hand written by her. The nature of allegations against the accused persons are such that they cannot be substantiated for instance the allegation against the brother in law for having an evil eye on her, is vague so also the allegation that a certain amount was given by the complainant's relative during the birth of the child which is not specific.
24. It is argued that PW3 has specifically stated in his cross examination that the money was not withdrawn from the bank. The witness was also unable to specify the date, month and year when his statement was recorded by the police. As the witness was earning only Rs.10,000/- at the time and did not have a savings bank account it is argued that no money was spent on the marriage of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he was not working / earning at the time. It is argued that the accused was given a beating by him. The PW4 also was unable to state the date on which the demand was made by the accused persons which shows that no demand was made by the accused persons. It is further argued that there were no public witnesses at the time of the seizure of the stridhan articles. The locks of the matrimonial home were also already broken. Further the articles were returned to the complainant which has been denied by her. As such neither offence under section 498A or 406 IPC is made out. The contents of the evidence do not reflect any specific allegations any of the accused persons therefore they are liable to be acquitted for the above said offences.
25. The Ld APP for state on the other hand has argued that 13 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and that all have deposed in favour of the complainant's case. The complainant's case has been supported by her brothers PW3 and 9 as well as her mother PW4. The rest of the procedural aspect f the case has been affirmed by the police witnesses. The statement of the complainant and the allegations therein is supported by the witnesses. The allegations reflect that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and that the commission of the offence under section 498A IPC is complete. As for 406IPC the complainant had brought to her matrimonial home a number of household articles and other items which have not been returned by the accused persons. There is specific allegation that the jewellery was taken away by the mother in law. The articles being in the possession of the accused persons there is entrustment and since the same were recovered from their possession, the ingredients of the offence under section 406 IPC are fulfilled. Further the accused persons have also forgone the opportunity to bring defence evidence on their behalf. As such all the accused persons be convicted for the above said offences.
26. Perusal of the evidence brought by the prosecution shows that the complainant was subjected to cruelty in that the accused Trilok Singh denied his child to be his, dispossessed her of the matrimonial home on 16.05.97 with a demand of Rs.50,000/-, asked her for divorce so that he could remarry, threatened to kidnap the child and to burn her with acid, on 4.08.1997 he took her back to the matrimonial home for two days and left her back on 10.08.97, did not return the dowry, stridhan articles or the child's clothes while all the accused persons taunted her for insufficient dowry, beat her up, kept her hungry during pregnancy, made a demand of Rs.50,000/-.
27. The complainant has specifically alleged that the mother in law accused Avinash Kaur took away all her jewellery and kept it with her, tried to strangle her and boxed and kicked her on another occasion and also abused her parents and threw away the articles brought by them with the invitation to her younger brother's marriage. As for the brother in law Kulwant Singh she has alleged that he made passes at her. Even against accused Mohinder Singh she states that he along with the mother in law abused her parents and threw away the articles brought by them with the invitation to her younger brother's marriage.
28. The allegations have been supported in the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses. It is by corroboration proved that her parents gave Rs.30,000/- at the demand of the accused persons, all the expenses of the delivery was borne by the parents of the complainant and the stridhan articles were recovered after complaint lodged with CAW from the possession of the accused persons.
29. It has been suggested by the defence counsel that no receipt of the utensils could be shown by the complainant shows that there is actually no proof of the items brought by her to the matrimonial home. Also the fact that the complaint was not written by her but was dictated to the typist under the advice of her counsel shows that the entire complaint has been manipulated and no such incidents have occurred. The counsel has also tried to show from the deposition of the witnesses that the allegation that dowry was demanded from her by all the accused persons after her 'phera' is falsified by the fact that her father was an architect,earning about Rs.10,000/- per month and that they were 3 brothers and 3 sisters therefore it would be impossible for her father and brothers to arrange the amount as told by her in her complaint. There arguments do not hold any ground as it is a fact that in our society the burden for arrangement of the marriage is on the parents including brothers and other relatives of the woman. The amount was arranged by the complainant's relatives, as per the statement of the brother of the complainant, by borrowing and not entirely from their bank accounts which they did not have at the time. The witnesses have explained the circumstances under which the child was born and the expenses borne by them. The witnesses have also corroborated each other's statement regarding the demands raised by the accused persons. The witness no.9 has specifically stated that he had arranged a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was handed to them in the month of May 1997. And again when the complainant delivered a baby a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid as chuchak . The witness has also deposed stating that several efforts were made by him and other family members to mediate and reconcile the matter with the in laws of the complainant before filing of the present complaint with the CAW therefore no formal complaint was filed asserting the incidents during the three years before the complaint. He has stated that many times the complainant was consoled and sent back to the matrimonial home with the hope that the in laws would treat her well and she should adjust but nothing came out it.
30. The provision of 498A was laid down to curb the menace of cruelty meted out to the brides widely prevalent in the country by the husband and his relatives. The assumption that the provision is being misused cannot be a ground for disbelieving the complaint or for dismissing the same. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC, the following essentials are to be completed :
(i) the women must be married;
(ii) she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
(iii) such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband;
31.Meaning of 'cruelty' has been defined under the provision as harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to need any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to need such demand.
32. The apex court in Banhisikha Roy v. Somnath Roy, [2006 A.I.R. (SC) 685] held that the allegation that the wife was mercilessly assaulted for dowry on several occasions and was forced to go to her uncle' and never taken back - Such an allegations make out a prima facie case under Section 498A - Proceedings not liable to be quashed for want of cause of action or being vague. In the present case there are equally serious allegations of throwing acid and of kidnapping the child after first denying it to be his by the accused husband. The complainant has made allegations specifically against the her husband and the mother in law however there are no specific allegations against the father in law and the brother in law which do not relate to demand of dowry.
33. In view of above discussion, accused Trilok Singh and Smt.Avinash Kaur have been convicted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC and accused Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court today (COLETTE RASHMI KUJUR)
i.e 18th of January, 2014). Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila Court)/West/THC
18.01.2014.