Delhi District Court
Fir No: 549/96 1 State vs . Vinod on 18 April, 2012
FIR No: 549/96 1 State vs. Vinod
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 549/96
PS - Narela
U/s. 498A/406 IPC
ID No. 02404R0062561997
18.04.2012
STATE VS. VINOD
Date of institution : 09.05.1997
Date of Commission of Offence : Not mentioned.
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Pramod Kumari
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : 1) Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
2) Vedo Devi
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
3) Om Prakash,
S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh
4) Kamlesh
D/o Sh. Om Prakash
All are R/o
Village - Khevda,
Distt. Sonepat (Haryana)
Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406 IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order : 07.03.2012
Date of announcing of order : 18.04.2012
FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 1 of 12
FIR No: 549/96 2 State vs. Vinod
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS - Narela against accused persons namely Vinod, Vedo Devi, Om Prakash and Kamlesh for the offences u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC. The present case was registered upon the complaint made by the complainant Smt. Pramod whereupon the IO had made an endorsement and the Duty Officer had subsequently recorded the FIR. Gist of the complaint is as under:
2. In brief case of the complainant is that she got married to accused Vinod Kumar on 29.11.1992 and gave birth to a girl child on 17.07.93. She had alleged in her original complaint that since after marriage accused persons used to torture her. Again and again, all the accused person used to taunt that accused Vinod was the only son and complainant's father did not gave anything to them. It has been further alleged that accused persons have demanded Maruti Car or Rs. 2 lacs and have threatened that if she did not bring the same, they will kill her or they will not take her alongwith them. They have called the neighbour also over telephone and inquired about the arrangement of money or car. She further alleged that once accused Kamlesh gave her tablets of poison which the complainant did not consume. Accused Kamlesh used to beats her for demand of car or Rs. 2 lacs and threatened her to kill her by burning.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was made. Arguments on charge were heard and charge U/s. 498A/406 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they opted to the face trial.
FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 2 of 12
FIR No: 549/96 3 State vs. Vinod
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses.
a) PW1 is Smt. Pramod Kumari, who is complainant herself.
b) PW2 is W/HC Anita, who recorded the FIR.
c) PW3 is Sh. Sardar Singh , who is father of complainant.
d) PW4 is HC Ram Karan posted at CAW Cell went alongwith
complainant to accused house for search.
e) PW5 is HC Jagbir Singh, who was posted at CAW Cell and
seized the list of dowry articles.
f) PW6 is SI Indu Rani, who was IO of the case at CAW Cell.
5. Statement of all the accused persons have been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the allegations made against them and had stated that they have never demanded any dowry from the complainant and never gave beatings to her. Moreover, complainant is remarried in the year 1999 itself and she deposed falsely against them.
6. Final arguments were heard on behalf of accused persons as well as on behalf of the State and record has been meticulously perused.
7. The charges against the accused persons are of two fold first U/s. 498A IPC and second U/s. 406 IPC. Before proceeding further to prove and analyze various testimonies, I shall deem it appropriate to enumerate the essentials of offence which the prosecution is under a mandate to prove. I shall deal with them one by one.
For better appreciation of facts Section 498A IPC is FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 3 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 4 State vs. Vinod reproduced as under: "Section 498A IPC provides as under;
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:
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 - For the purpose of this section, "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 heath (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 her such demand."
The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such tormentation is done with a view to coerce any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 4 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 5 State vs. Vinod amounts to "harassment" as contemplated by S.498A. Word 'Coercion' means persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute offence following ingredients/tests are essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.
(ii) Such act should be with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security.
8. In the present case, prosecution case mainly relied upon two witnesses i.e PW1 and PW3. PW1 is the complainant herself and PW3 is the father of the complainant. I will analyse the testimonies of these witnesses in detail. The main allegations of the complainant is that there is demand of Rs. 2 lacs or Maruti Car. There was threats of killing her or not taking her to her matrimonial home. There was threat by accused Kamlesh to kill her by burning. PW1 in her testimony before the court deposed that after her marriage accused persons harassed her and demanded Rs. 2 lacs or one Maruti Car otherwise they will kill her or leave her. She has not deposed that how the accused persons used to harass her, what was their ways and means to harass her and torture her, what was the specific role of accused persons in harassing and torturing. She has deposed that she FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 5 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 6 State vs. Vinod had stated in her original complaint that accused persons again and again taunt that accused Vinod was their only son and nothing has been given in dowry considering this fact. It is well established that mere taunts do not amount to cruelty U/s 498A IPC. She has not deposed as to on which date or occasion this demand of Rs. 2 lacs or Maruti Car was made and by whom this specific demand was made. In her original complaint she stated that accused persons asked the complainant to bring Maruti Car or they will not take her back to matrimonial home or kill her. It implies that she was not at the matrimonial home when this demand was made because the question of not taking back the complainant would arise only in the situation when she was not in the matrimonial home. She further clarified that accused persons had called on the telephone of her neighbour and inquired about arrangement of Car or money, so that they may come to take her, if the arrangement has been done. These allegations again go on to show that this demand was made when she was not at the matrimonial home. But, PW1 has nowhere testified as to who was that neighbour, what was this neighbour's phone no. and on which date or occasion which specified accused called on this neighbour's phone. Hence, the version of complainant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Furthermore, if I go to the testimony of PW3 to prove this demand, PW3 has deposed before the court that demand of one Maruti Car or Rs. 2 lacs was made. He had also not testified on which date or occasion this demand was made by whom and to whom this demand was made. PW3 has deposed that after marriage her daughter was not FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 6 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 7 State vs. Vinod kept well by the accused persons and accused persons harassed her on the pretext of bringing insufficient dowry. He has deposed that his daughter was not given food. She was tortured in such a manner that she reached to death bed. However in statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. he did not stated that his daughter was not being given food and she had reached to deathbed. No medical records concerning the plea regarding health of complainant have been filed on record. Not only this, the complainant who herself was the victim had not deposed that she was not being given food because of which she reached to death bed. She had merely stated that accused persons used to taunt for bringing insufficient dowry but she did not depose anything about the ways and means of torturing except the fact that accused persons gave threats to kill her or leave her, if the demand of Rs. 2 lacs or Maruti Car is not met.
10. If, I go by version of PW1, the sequence of events emerges like, that first she used to be given taunts by her in laws and when she came to her parental home demand was raised over phone of her neighbour. If that is so, no such demand is being proved because of the reason that no phone number has been proved, neighbour has not been called as a witness. No specific date, time or occasion has been proved. If, I go by the version of PW3 that signifies that demand was made at matrimonial home and she was not given food because of which she reached to death bed. If that is so, again it is not being proved that when and by whom this demand was made. The victim herself has not deposed anything that she was deprived of any food and because of this reason she reached to this condition. No medical FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 7 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 8 State vs. Vinod records have been filed.
11. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I am of the view that offence is not being proved reason being that neither version is being proved because of above discussed major contradictions.
12. Furthermore, PW1 has alleged an incident that accused Kamlesh gave her a tablet which was poison. She came to know about this when her father showed this tablet to a doctor. Again, this version does not seems to be probable at all because of the reason that had it been so, then what was the reason which compelled the complainant to keep this matter with her only. No such complaint has been filed in this regard. No such tablet has been seized, no report of any such doctor has been filed. No specific date or occasion of giving of tablet has been specified.
13. Furthermore, as per the version of the complainant and her father i.e. PW1 and PW3, the complainant has left the matrimonial home in August 1993 and thereafter the birth of the child i.e. after 07.09.1993, last visit was made to the matrimonial home of the complainant. If that is so, then nothing has been explained by these witnesses to file the present complaint, after a long delay of about 3 years. The present complaint was filed on 05.08.96. This delay in filing of FIR has not been explained. Time and again the object of prompt lodging of FIR has been high lighted delay in lodging FIR, more often then not results in embellishment and exaggeration which is an creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets berefits of the advantage of spontaneity but the danger of coloured version, exaggerated acts, incidents also arises in delayed FIR. There are FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 8 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 9 State vs. Vinod chances of concocted story, as a results of deliberations, consultations casting serious doubts on its veracity. Hence, delay in lodging FIR should be satisfactorily explained and in the present case it is not at all been explained as to why the FIR or the original complaint was filed after almost lapse of three years. Upon the basis of testimonies of these two witnesses, it is not being proved that on which date and occasion beatings were given by which accused person. The specific role of any accused is not being proved. Upon the general allegations for beatings offence U/s 498A cannot be established. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations of the complainant. All the other witnesses are formal witnesses who are not eye witness of the incident. Therefore the guilt of the accused persons has not been established upon the testimonies of PW1 and PW3. Prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, in view of discussion ensued above all the accused persons are acquitted U/s 498A IPC.
14. For punishment for criminal breach of trust (herein referred to as Criminal Breach of Trust) U/s.406 IPC, offence of Criminal Breach of Trust as defined under Sec.405 IPC is to be proved. Section 405 IPC is reproduced as under: Section 405 Criminal breach of trust Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 9 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 10 State vs. Vinod made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffer any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
Considering the definition as mentioned above, the basic requirements to bring home the accusation u/s. 405 IPC is to prove cojointly (1) entrustment with property or with any dominion over property.
(2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention in misappropriating it or converting it to his own use to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.
15. In view of the above discussions, it is necessary to prove prior entrustment of the property or having any dominion over the property. Complainant is PW1, she has nowhere alleged regarding any specific date or occasion of specific entrustment to specific accused. PW3 who is the father of the complainant has deposed that he had handed over all the articles of dowry to Om Prakash. PW3 has deposed that he had given Fridge, Cooler, TV, Clothes, Utensils, Jewellery, cash amounting to Rs. 30,000/ and other articles. The details of which he did not remember, however, he deposed that his daughter has given a list of the articles. Admittedly, certain articles were returned at CAW Cell. Now, first it has to be seen that whether the articles as mentioned in the list were really given to accused Om Prakash. There is no evidence of handing over those articles to accused Om Prakash. There is no photograph, bill or receipt of these articles. PW3 had deposed that a list was prepared at the time of marriage. Perused the same and FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 10 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 11 State vs. Vinod same is a photocopy. As per PW3 articles were handed over to the accused persons in presence of other persons, however this list has not been witnessed by any other witness. This is merely a list of articles. It is not being proved on the basis of this list, whether it was being prepared at the time of marriage. Furthermore, certain articles were recovered and were given in Superdari to the complainant, however list of remaining articles i.e. Ex. PW1/E shows that certain articles were not recovered or returned. But, in view of the ensued discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove that whether the articles were actually handed over to the accused Om Prakash. There is no other proof except list prepared by complainant, which is not witnessed by any of the witness present at the time of marriage.
16. Furthermore, upon the basis of testimonies of PW1 and PW3 it has not been proved that when complainant demanded back which specific articles on what specific date or occasion. There is a bald statement in the testimony of PW1, where she deposed that she demanded back her jewellery articles but accused persons refused. Specific demand is not being proved upon this statement. Furthermore, even if I take into consideration that the specific demand of return of articles was made at CAW Cell, then again offence is not being proved because the jewellery articles were returned at CAW Cell. Hence guilt U/s 406 IPC is also not established against the accused persons.
17. In view of the discussion above, the prosecution has failed to the prove that the accused persons had committed the alleged offences, U/s 406 & 498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons stand FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 11 of 12 FIR No: 549/96 12 State vs. Vinod acquitted of the offence U/s 498A/406 IPC. However, their surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today U/s 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 18.04.2012 FIR No. 549/96 State vs. Vinod 12 of 12