Delhi District Court
State vs . Mritunjay Jha on 1 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Mritunjay Jha
FIR NO: 218/01
P. S. Dwarka
Case ID No.: 02405R1321312005
Date of institution of case :22.09.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment :01.05.2015
Date of judgment :01.05.2015
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Ms. Vandna Chauhan, Ld. APP for State.
Sh. I.C. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused .
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 09.06.1993 onwards
b) Offence complained of : U/S 498-A/406 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Laxmi Jha
d/o Sh. R.K. Jha
r/o RZF 760A/11,Raj
Nagar-II, Gali No.3, Palam
Colony, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Mritunjay Jha
and address s/o Sh. Vivekanand Jha
r/o village Govindpur, P.S.
Lehriya Sarai, Distt.
Darbhanga, Bihar.
e) Plea of accused : Accused is falsely
implicated.
f) Final order : Accused is acquitted.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 1/13
St vs. Mritunjay Jha
1. In the present case, accused Mritunjay Jha has been
charged for the offences u/s 498-A/406 IPC on the ground that from the date of his marriage with complainant Smt. Laxmi Jha , he subjected the complainant to cruelty in-connection-with demand of dowry and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of stridhan articles of complainant. Accused Ramdai Jha had been discharged vide detailed order on charge dated 20.12.2012.
2. The prosecution has examined four witnesses on its behalf to prove its case against accused.
3. PW1 is IO/ retired SI Jugu Ram Birua who stated in his examination-in-chief dated 05.06.2013 that in year 2001, he was posted at P.S. Dwarka and the investigation of the present case was assigned to him after registration of FIR and he collected the photo of complainant and her husband which is mark A1 and copy of marriage card which is mark A2 and he formally arrested accused Ramdai Jha(mother-in-law of complainant) and after recording statement of witnesses, he prepared chargesheet.
4. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he investigated the case only in Delhi and recorded statement of complainant and her mother in Delhi. He admitted that he never investigated about place of marriage and he had not investigated anything regarding dowry as alleged in the complaint. He further FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 2/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha stated that he has no knowledge whether complainant Laxmi had filed any complaint against accused from year 1996 till year 2000. He stated that he did not get any evidence whether accused Mritunjay Jha was residing at Palam colony with complainant or not. He admitted that he never investigated about the alleged incidents from matrimonial house of complainant at village Gobindpur, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar. He denied the suggestion that he had arrested accused persons under the influence of complainant.
5. Pw2 is complainant Smt. Laxmi Jha who stated in her examination-in-chief dated 08.09.2014 that she got married to accused Mritunjay Jha s/o Sh. Vivekanad Jha on 09.06.1993 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Sapta, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar and she was taken to her matrimonial house at village Gobindpur, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar after her Gauna ceremony on 21.06.1993. She stated that at that time, her husband, mother-in-law and devar Santosh were residing in matrimonial house and her father-in-law was residing at village Tamboria since he was employed as Teacher there.
6. PW2 further stated that her father had already expired prior to her marriage and her mother had given cash amount of Rs. 80,000/- to accused in her marriage and further cash amount of Rs. 65,000/- for furniture and also given gold jewelery of about 25 FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 3/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha tolas to her in marriage but still her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the articles. She further stated that her husband and mother-in-law used to demand more money which she was not capable of giving and due to this fact, they used to beat her. She stated that she gave birth to a son on 21.06.1994 at her matrimonial house but accused persons did not take her proper care and still kept on demanding more cash. She further stated that after two and half years of her marriage, her husband and mother-in-law demanded cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- and on her inability to pay the amount, her husband and mother-in-law threw her and her son out of the matrimonial house in November 1996, when her son was about one and a half years old. She stated that she returned to Delhi to her mother's house alongwith her son and after 2-3 months, her father-in-law and mother-in-law came to her mother's house at Delhi and told that they cannot keep the complainant in matrimonial house in Bihar but she can reside with her husband in Delhi.
7. PW2 further stated that after about one month of the said talk, her husband Mritunjay Jha came to Delhi and started residing with her and her child in her mother's house and remained there for about one year but kept on taking excessive liquor and kept on harassing her under the influence of liquor. She further stated that her husband started demanding Rs. 25,000/- from her to start his FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 4/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha business and on her inability to pay the amount, he quarreled with her and beat her and thereafter, he left the house on the pretext that he will not reside with complainant unless she fulfills his demand.
8. PW2 alleged that her husband kept on residing somewhere in Delhi and used to harass her and threaten her on her way, due to which she lodged complaint in CAW Cell and also filed divorce petition in Tis Hazari Court and she was granted divorce on 01.02.2003. She further stated that she demanded her istridhan and jewelery articles back from her husband and in-laws for the first time in CAW Cell when settlement proceedings had failed and there was no hope of rejoining the matrimonial house. She exhibited the complaint given before CAW Cell as Ex. PW2/A and the list of istridhan articles as Ex. PW2/B. She stated that all her jewelery and other articles were still lying with her husband and in- laws at matrimonial house in Bihar and they have not returned a single article and police had not recovered anything during investigation. She exhibited the seizure memo of photographs of marriage and copy of marriage card as Ex. PW2/C. She stated that she cannot produce the bills of jewelery or bills of istridhan articles since this is a very old case and bills are not traceable.
9. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW2 stated that her relation with her husband Mritunjay Jha was not FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 5/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha normal since the date of marriage. She admitted that her nana i.e. maternal grandfather Sh. Manpuran Jha was headmaster in government school where her father-in-law was also working as science Teacher and they both had decided about her marriage with her husband. She denied the suggestion that the marriage was performed without any dowry. She stated that Rs. 80,000/- was given by her nana to her father-in-law at the time of her marriage. She stated that she had told this fact to the IO but she does not know whether IO had investigated regarding these facts from her nana or not.
10. PW2 further stated in her cross-examination that she came back to Delhi from her maternal house in year 1996. She admitted that she had taken admission in B.A(1st Year) in Nagendra Jha Mahila College, Leheria Sarai, Darbhanga but she did not pursue her education. She admitted that since year 1996 upto 2000, she had not lodged any complaint to the police or any authority in Delhi. She admitted that she had filed divorce petition in year 1998-99 in Tis Hazari court and she got exparte divorce decree in year 2003. She denied the suggestion that when she had come to Delhi, her father-in-law had been sending her money for pursuing her fashion designing course.
11. The Ld. Defence counsel showed one statement of complainant written in Hindi in CAW cell proceedings dated FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 6/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha 06.09.2001 and it was exhibited as Ex. PW2/DA and the complainant admitted her handwriting and signatures on the said document. Thereafter, Ld. Defence counsel showed one letter dated 24.12.1997 purportedly written by PW2 to her mother-in-law and it was exhibited as Ex. PW2/DB but PW2 denied that she had written any letter in Maithili language and she also denied her signatures at point X on the letter. Thereafter, another letter written in English dated 26.01.1999 to her father-in-law was marked as mark PW2/DC but the witness again denied having written any such letter and denied her signatures at point X on the said letter.
12. PW2 denied the suggestion that both the letters were written by herself in her own handwriting to her in-laws. She stated that she is residing in rented accommodation at Flat no. 92, sector-12, pocket-5, Dwarka, New Delhi alongwith her mother and sister and her sister is paying the rent of the house. She denied the suggestion that she had remarried and the said house was in name of her second husband. She admitted that there is no public witness to the effect that accused had demanded cash amount from her or her mother. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the accused in order to extract money from her father-in-law. She voluntarily stated that accused had not even paid any maintenance to herself or her son till date. She denied the suggestion that she had thrown her husband out of the house FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 7/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha in Delhi after beating him when she came to know about his illness. She voluntarily stated that accused had never suffered any serious illness till the time he resided with her. She stated that her nana and nani have expired and she cannot bring any witness of the fact that her nana had given Rs. 80,000/- in cash and Rs. 65,000/- for purchase of furniture at the time of her marriage.
13. PW3 is Enquiry Officer/SI Rajinder Kaur who stated in her examination-in-chief dated 23.01.2015 that complaint of complainant was assigned to her for inquiry and she tried to reconcile the matter between complainant and accused but accused appeared only once during CAW Cell proceedings and reconciliation efforts failed, due to which she forwarded the final report for lodging of FIR. Photocopy of FIR dated 01.06.2001 was marked as mark A. PW3 stated that original file of CAW Cell proceedings was weeded out vide order no. 3727-50/HAR/SWD, New Delhi dated 02.06.2014 of ACP/HQ and copy of said order was placed on record as mark B.
14. PW4 is IO/Inspector Harendra Singh who stated in his examination-in-chief dated 26.02.2015 that on 07.05.2003, he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Dwarka and further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that during investigation, he made efforts to search accused Mritunjay Jha and came to know about the residential address of accused at FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 8/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha Delhi and on 26.08.2003, he apprehended accused Mritunjay Jha and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW4/B.
15. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW4 stated that he did not record the statement of complainant or her mother Smt. Shiv Kumari or any other family members. He stated that he had arrested accused as it was requirement of investigation and he had not arrested him on his whim and fancy. Pw4 denied the suggestion that there was no other evidence against accused except the statement of complainant. He further stated that complainant had not given any bills to him regarding her istridhan articles mentioned in list Ex. PW2/B and he had not verified any fact regarding giving or taking of the articles mentioned in list Ex. PW2/B.
16. After closure of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent but preferred not to lead Defence Evidence.
17. Thereafter, case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard today and case was fixed for order for today itself .
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
18. During final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 9/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha accused has not committed any offence against complainant and complainant has falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
19. On the other hand, Ld. APP argued that the complainant has withstood the test of cross-examination and duly supported the case of prosecution, therefore it is a fit case for conviction of accused .
20. Perusal of entire evidence of prosecution reveals that there is only one public witness i.e. complainant PW2 Smt. Laxmi Jha herself. She has not been able to bring any other witness in support of her case. Perusal of evidence of PW2 Laxmi Jha reveals that she has leveled very vague and general allegations against the accused. She has nowhere stated in her examination- in-chief that accused demanded any dowry or cash amount at the time of marriage or before marriage.
21. Moreover, PW2 just leveled a vague allegation that her husband and mother-in-law were not satisfied with the articles given in marriage and used to demand more money. She has further stated that after 2 ½ years of marriage, her husband and mother-in-law demanded cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her and on her inability to fulfill the demand, her husband and mother- in-law threw her son and herself out of the house, but she did not remember any date or time of incident. That is the only one FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 10/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha incident alleged by complainant which allegedly occurred in her matrimonial house in Bihar. She has herself stated in her examination-in-chief that after her return to Delhi alongwith her child, her mother-in-law and father-in-law told her that they will not keep her in matrimonial house but their son can go to Delhi and reside with her. The complainant herself stated that her husband Mritunjay Jha came to Delhi and started residing with her and her child in her mother's house.
22. Complainant has also alleged that her husband started demanding Rs. 25,000/- after 9-10 months of his stay with her and on her inability to pay the amount, he quarreled with her and beat her and left the house and thereafter he never returned back to join her company. However, she has not mentioned any date, time or year of the quarrel or beating and she did not lodge any complaint regarding beating or demand of dowry at that time.
23. Rather PW2 has herself admitted that she had filed divorce petition in Tis Hazari court against her husband in year 1998-99 and the divorce was finalized on 01.02.2003. Thus it seems that she had initiated divorce proceedings against her husband much prior to the lodging of the present criminal complaint and it seems that it was after long deliberations and afterthought that this complaint Ex. PW2/A was lodged against the accused by her. Thus it seems that real cause of lodging of complaint was not FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 11/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha demand of dowry or cruelty or harassment caused by accused upon complainant and rather it was an afterthought to lodge the complaint much after the filing of divorce petition.
24. In her cross-examination, PW2 has stated that her Nana i.e. maternal grandfather had given Rs. 80,000/- to her father-in-law at the time of marriage but she stated that she does know whether IO had investigated this fact from her Nana or not. No proof of payment of said amount was filed on record by the complainant.
25. The complainant further admitted in her cross-examination that from year 1996 when she left matrimonial house, till year 2000, she had not lodged any complaint to the police or any authority against the accused. She also admitted that there is no public witness to prove that accused had demanded any cash amount from her or her mother and she cannot bring any other witness regarding proof of giving Rs. 80,000/- in cash or Rs. 65,000/- towards furniture to accused at the time of marriage.
26. Thus perusal of entire evidence reveals that the allegations leveled by complainant against the accused are so vague and general in nature that they cannot be covered under definition of cruelty or harassment in-connection-with demand of dowry as defined u/s 498-A IPC. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Mritunjay Jha for the offence u/s 498-A IPC.
FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 12/13 St vs. Mritunjay Jha
Hence, accused Mritunjay Jha stands acquitted for the offence u/s 498-A IPC.
27. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, though complainant has exhibited list of istridhan articles as Ex. PW2/B but she has not exhibited any bills on record and she has nowhere mentioned in the said complaint the time, date or place where and when she had entrusted her istridhan articles to her husband and when she had raised demand for return of istridhan articles which were not returned to her on her demand.
28. To prove offence of "criminal breach of trust" punishable u/s 406 IPC, the factum of entrustment, demand and refusal to return the property on demand, are the conditions "sine-qua-non"(pre- requisite) to be proved by the prosecution but in the present case, prosecution has failed to prove any of the said pre-requisite conditions. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case for offence of criminal breach of trust against accused. Hence, accused Amit Kumar is acquitted from the offence u/s 406 IPC also. Personal bond and surety bond of accused stand discharged. Original documents, if any, be released to the authorised person on proper receipt and endorsement, if any, be cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
st
TODAY ON 1 May 2015. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
FIR no.218/01 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 13/13
St vs. Mritunjay Jha