Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalu Singh on 24 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:MM/MAHILA COURT-01
(SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. LALU SINGH
FIR No: 526/2007
New Case NO. 86270/2016
U/s : 498A/406 IPC
P.S : Sangam Vihar
Date of Institution : 31.10.2008
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 23.06.2017
Date of judgment : 24.06.2017
JUDGMENT
1. FIR No. of the case : 526/2007
2. Date of the Commission : That on and after 25.11.2003
of the offence
3. Name of the accused : Lalu Singh
S/o Sh. Fateh Singh
R/o H. No. B-13,
Deepawali Colony, Gali No.2,
Badarpur, New Delhi
4. Offence complained of : 498A/406 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 1/10
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on and after 25.11.2013 at any time during the subsistence of the marriage between the complainant Smt. Sarita Devi and accused Lalu Singh, he subjected the complainant to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and also did not return her stridhen articles and hence an FIR was registered U/s 498A/406 IPC at PS Sangam Vihar. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the Court on 31.10.2008.
2. On the basis of the chargesheet, charge of offences U/s 498A/406 IPC was framed against accused namely Lalu Singh and the charge was duly explained to accused person in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 14.05.2013. Thus, the matter was put to trial.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In Order to prove the above said allegations against the accused person, the prosecution has cited 9 witnesses out of which 8 were examined.
4. PW-1 Ms. Sarita was examined on 17.05.2014 wherein she deposed that on 25.11.2003, she got married with accused Lalu @ Lal Singh as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage she went to her matrimonial house. In her marriage, her parents had gifted jewellery clothes, furnitures, utensils including other articles. After one month of marriage her husband demanded Rs.31,000/- to purchase a house. She was harassed and tortured at the matrimonial home and sometimes, her husband demanded a Bullet Motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- on which she replied that she was not in a position to fulfill their demands and on her reply, her husband, mother in law, her sister-in-laws namely Saroj and Rajni gave beatings to her. Her brother-in-law Kallu Singh also gave her beatings. She further FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 2/10 deposed that she does not remember date month year of said incident and due to her harassment, she came back to her parental house and again went back to her matrimonial house on her own wish.
On 07.12.2006, at about 12.00 (Noon) when, she was present at her house, her husband, mother-in-law, her sister-in-law Saroj and Rajni, her brother-in-law Kallu have demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her on which she replied that she was not having money and on her reply the accused persons gave beatings to her. Her husband and mother in law gave beatings to her by fist blow and slapping. Thereafter she called police on 100 number and police reached at the spot. She also informed to her parental house and they also arrived at her matrimonial house. Thereafter she alongwith police officials went to the police station Faridabad where she filed a complaint and her medical examination was done. Then, she went to her parental house from the police station. Later on she filed the complaint in CAW Cell which is Ex-PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. All of her stridhan was handed over to her husband and in-laws at the time of marriage and the same were in the possession of his husband and in-laws. She has demanded her stridhan from her husband and in-laws after filing her complaint in CAW Cell Amar Colony and submitted her list of sridhan with her complaint, the same is Ex PW1/B bearing her signature at point A. On her demand the accused persons handed over her some of my stridhan in a CAW Cell and same was taking into possession vide memo ExPW1/C bearing her signature at point A. She further deposed that all of her stridhan including jewellery and clothes and furniture are still in the possession of accused persons and did not return to her. She has also submitted her list of remaining stridhan articles vide memo Ex-PW1/D bearing her signature at point A. During the investigation she handed over marriage invitation card and receipt/cash memo of stidhan to the IO. (Accused is correctly identified by the witness).
FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 3/10
5. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for accused however the same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
6. PW-2 ASI Daya Nand was examined on 27.11.2014 wherein he deposed that on 08.06.2007 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as Duty Officer from 05.00PM to 1.00AM and at about 7.30 PM, he received complaint by reader of SHO which is marked by SHO to him and case handed over to ASI Karambir for registration of FIR and after receiving rukka he registered the present FIR U/s 498A /406/34 IPC and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Constable M. M. Khan to be handed over to ASI Karambir. He also signed the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A and he also made endorsement on the rukka which is already Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel he deposed that he does not remember whether complainant came to the police station or not.
8. PW-3 HC Santosh was examined on 04.04.2015 wherein he deposed that on 23.07.2007 he was working as a constable at PS Sangam Vihar and on that day he alongwith ASI Karambir Singh went at Mangal Bazar Road Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. ASI Karambir Singh stopped accused Lalu Singh and told about the FIR/Case which is pending against him. After inquired the matter and identification of the accused Lalu Singh, ASI Karambir arrested him vide arrest memo is Ex. PW3/A and conducted his personal search vide memos are Ex-PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. (Accused is correctly identified by the witness).
9. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given.
10. PW-4 SI Karam Veer Singh was examined on 22.02.2016 wherein he deposed that on 08.06.2007 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as ASI and FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 4/10 on that day the present case had been registered by the DO after getting the complaint from CAW Cell Amar Colony. Thereafter the present case had been handed over to him. During investigation he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and during the investigation he also apprehended accused Lalu and after interrogated with him he arrested accused Lalu Singh vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point B and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter he produced the accused Lalu Singh in the court and took his custody on J/C by the order of Hon'ble Court. Thereafter he had been transfered from PS Sangam Vihar and deposit the present file to MHC(R).
11. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given.
12. PW-5 Ms.Kamlesh was examined on 22.02.2016 wherein she deposed that she was a house wife and residing at H. No. B-1302/02, Sangam Vihar, Gali No.2, New Delhi from last 11-12 years. She got married her daughter Sarita with accused Lalu on 25.09.2003. After about one month of her daughter's marriage, accused demanded more dowry from Kamlesh through her daughter and when she denied for the same, he used to beat her daughter. Once accused, Jitender (fufa of accused Lalu Singh) and Subhash (mediator) came at Kamlesh's house and told her daughter that she should give divorce to her husband. She further deposed that accused used to beat her daughter, harassed her physically and orally. (Accused is correctly identified by the witness).
13. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein she stated that the accused demanded money from her daughter for purchase a plot, however on her refusal she was beaten.
14. PW-6 W.SI Birma Devi was examined on 24.05.2016 wherein she FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 5/10 deposed that on 15.02.2007 she was posted at CAW Cell South-East as W.ASI and on that day she received a complaint No. C-67 dated 15.02.2007 from the complainant Sarita and after receiving the complaint she called both the parties and tried our level best to reconcile the matter but no result is made out. Complainant want her Stridhen back and want a legal action against the accused. After that WSI Birma Devi prepared final report and sent the said report to the concerned PS for registration of FIR. The said final report is Ex.PW6/A which bearing her signature at point A.
15. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel where she admitted that the complainant did not want to live with the accused and all efforts of reconciliation failed.
16. PW-7 Sh. Changa Singh was examined on 06.12.2016 wherein he deposed that on 25.11.2003 he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Sarita with accused Lalu Singh according to Hindu Rituals and Ceremonies at Dipawali Enclave, Meethapur, Faridabad. In the marriage complainant's parents gave lots of gifts more than their capacity to the family members of accused at the time of marriage. After one month of marriage, the accused Lalu Singh started beating his daughter, demanded dowry and also demanded Rs.50,000/- cash from his daughter to which he denied to paid the abovesaid demand of cash as he had already borrowed money on loan. Thereafter he took back his daughter from her matrimonial house. Firstly they filed a case in CAW Cell, Amar Colony against the accused which is Ex.PW6/A. Thereafter they filed a complaint of dowry and cruelty against the accused at police station Sangam Vihar. Witness correctly identified the marriage card of his daughter and one photograph Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. (Accused is correctly identified by the witness).
17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he admitted that the accused did not make any demand in his presence.
FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 6/10
18. PW-8 IO/SI Suresh Sharma was examined on 17.03.2017 wherein he deposed that on 17.06.2008 he was posted as a Sub Inspector at police station Sangam Vihar. On that day by the order of concerned SHO the investigation of this case was marked to him. Thereafter the record mohrar of the PS and case file of this case handed over to him. On 20.08.2008 he prepared the chargesheet of this case and filed before the concerned court.
19. As all witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 17.03.2017. Statement of accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 15.04.2017 in which he stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
20. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Counsel for accused. Heard. Considered.
REASONS FOR DECISION
21. Before appreciating the evidence as stated above in brief, it is necessary to state the law/ essential ingredients of Section 498A/406 IPC which are as follows :
Section 498A IPC is reproduced here for ready reference:
"Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: 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 FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 7/10 [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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
22. A bare perusal of section 498A IPC shows that, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated U/s. 498A are of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage. In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by section 498 A IPC, the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful' that is intentional. So to invoke provisions of section 498 A IPC, the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much graver nature than that causing grave injury or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic, persistent and willful acts perpetrated with a view to make the life of the woman so burdensome or in-supportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life.
23. Now coming to allegations in respect of offence u/s 406 IPC. The FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 8/10 essential ingredients of Section 406 IPC which stipulates the punishment for commission of offence are as follows: -
(1) Entrustment of any person with property or with any dominion over property. (2) That person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly uses or disposes of that property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or (ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
In light of the above mentioned ingredients, it is necessary to examine whether from the material on record, the offence U/s 498A/406 IPC against the accused are made out or not.
24. The main witness in the present matter is the complainant who has merely deposed that the accused made certain demands for money and also took away her stridhen articles. She has nowhere stated the date or time of the said demand except on one instance. Most allegations are vague and unspecific and do not fulfill the essential ingredients required for bringing home the guilt of the accused U/s 498A/406 IPC except of documents of the proceedings undertaken in the CAW Cell. The said documents also are mere photocopies and there is no proof of the fact that any stridhen articles of the complainant were entrusted to the accused or that the accused made any demand of dowry which would have driven the complainant to commit FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 9/10 suicide or to cause any grave injury to her life limb or health. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property by the accused.
25. Even the other witnesses who are the family members of the complainant have deposed vaguely about demand of Rs.50,000/-. But a mere demand on one occasion does not fall within ambit of section 498A IPC.
26. Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned discussion that the prosecution has not been able to prove commission of offence U/s 498A/406 IPC by the accused namely Lalu Singh and hence the accused Lalu Singh is acquitted of the offences U/s 498A/406 IPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court on 24.06.2017 (Chetna Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court-01/SED/Saket New Delhi/ 24.06.2017 FIR No. 526/2007 State Vs Lalu Singh 10/10