Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/17/1999 on 14 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 17/99
PS : Saraswati Vihar
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02404R0171552000
State v. Arjun Singh etc.
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No of the case : 57/2/15
b)Date of commission of offence : 20.04.1998 till 16.12.2000
c)Name of the complainant : Identity withheld.
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : 1. Hemlata W/o Sh. Praveen
Kumar Gupta R/o RZC7,
Om Vihar, Ram Nagar, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi.
2. Kamla Arya W/o Late Shri
Arjun Singh Arya R/o 9164,
Sector 3, Rajender Nagar,
Ghaziabad (UP).
3. Narender Arya S/o Late Shri
Arjun Singh Arya R/o I30,
Karampura, First Floor, Delhi.
4. Madhu W/o Sh. P.A Gurung
R/o 173C, Pocket, J&K,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
5. Surender Singh S/o Late Sh.
Arjun Singh Arya R/o 9/164,
FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 1 of 43
Sector 3, Rajender Nagar,
Shaibabad, Ghaziabad (UP).
e) Offence complaint of : 498A/406/34 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 11.01.2016
h)Final Order : Acquitted
i)Date of decision : 14.01.2016
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1. The allegations of the complainant are that her marriage was solemnized with the accused Surender Arya on 20.04.1998. It was a love marriage. But the accused husband and the other inlaws subjected the complainant to cruelties. They also did not return the stridhan articles of the complainant. The allegations have been made against the accused husband Surender Singh, father in law Arjun Singh (proceedings abated during the pendency of trial), mother in law Kamla Arya, sister in law (Nanad) Hemlata, brother in law (jeth) Narinder Singh and sister in law (jethani) Madhu. On the allegations of the complainant, the FIR was got registered. After investigation, the present charge sheet has been filed for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. On appearance of accused persons, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 2 of 43 offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was made out against all the accused persons and the charge was accordingly framed by the Ld. Predecessor to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses.
PW1, Complainant has stated that her marriage was solemnized on 20.04.1998. After marriage, her father in law Arjun Singh (proceedings abated), mother in law Kamla, sister in law Madhu, brother in law Narinder and sister in law Hemlata @ Dimple @ Dolly and husband Surender Singh started torturing her as less dowry was given. They started beating her for dowry demand. They tortured her mentally and physically. All her articles / stridhan was kept by them which has not been returned to her despite repeated demands. She stated that on 9.03.1998 the family members of both the families with one neighbor namely Mr. Mandal filled up a form with the SDM Court, Seema Puri for their marriage, wherein the witnesses i.e. the father of the complainant, accused Arjun and Mr. Mandal signed the form Mark X and deposited in the SDM Court. After filing the application in the Court, the family members also organized a roka ceremony wherein sweets, fruits, cash etc. was given and some FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 3 of 43 photographs Mark X1 to X9 were clicked. Then on 20.04.1998, family members of both the families with the neighbor went to SDM Court. They got married in the presence of the then SDM, Shri Binay Bhushan. The accused husband exchanged Jaimala and gold rings which was videographed and some photographs Mark X10 to X17 were clicked. After the Court marriage, they went to the nearby temple and performed some Hindu rituals and ceremonies. Her mother and sister gave gold jewellery etc which is shown in photographs Mark X18 to X31. They went to the hotel booked by her parents, where food was organized as shown in three photographs Mark X32 to X34. She stated that other articles were given before the marriage, at the time of marriage and after the marriage, the detailed stridhan list is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures. She stated to have mentioned in the list the gifts, sagan etc. given by her relatives. She stated that after her marriage, she bought a fridge and a CD system with her provident fund amount in her name on her matrimonial house address, bills of which are Ex. P1 and P2. She stated that all these articles are still in the possession of her inlaws which have not been returned to her despite repeated demands. She is having the video album of her marriage and photographs of her phera ceremony with negatives FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 4 of 43 which she can produce in the Court. On 21.04.1998, her parents invited all the guests to the parental house at Rani Bagh and again served food and gave sweets, fruits, clothes with cash etc. At that time, her father in law demanded money for Milni ceremony saying that it is an important sagan. Her parents gave money, the photographs of which is Mark X35 to X42. She produced negatives of the photographs as Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX43. She relied on 112 photographs which were clicked on 20.04.1998 and 21.04.1998. She described the photographs in detail to allege that gold rings were exchanged at the time of Jaimala and marriage certificate was given by then SDM. She stated that father in law Arjun has a house bearing no. 173C, Pocket J&K Dilshad Garden, Delhi and another house bearing no. 9/164, Sector 3, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. She stated that her parents have given more than their capacity but she found her inlaws to be very greedy. After few months of marriage, her mother in law and sister in law, who is married, and lives in the house of accused Arjun Arya came to Delhi. Both of them raised demands to the complainant to bring Color TV, Sofa set, Washing Machine from her parents. The complainant stated that her parents will not be able to fulfill the demands as they have to get FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 5 of 43 married the other daughter. Then her mother in law and sister in law gave beatings to the complainant. Her mother in law pulled her hair, threw her on the ground and hit her with a stick. Her sister in law also took the side of her mother in law. The complainant cried and tolerated the pain but her condition deteriorated. She vomited two to three times. Her husband had gone outside at that time. After he came back, she told the entire incident to her husband. He asked the complainant to keep quiet saying that he will speak to his mother and sister that they will not do any such things but they did not change.
4. PW1 stated that both her mother in law and sister in law stated that they will not allow her to enter the house until she fulfills their demands. It is also alleged that the father in law kept abusing her and her parents. Her father in law used to abuse and taunt her saying what her parents have given. She kept quiet as her husband asked her to be quiet. The torture increased. She could not fulfill the dowry demands. Her mother in law, sister in law and brother in law packed her articles and threatened her that she will be thrown out of the house. Her sister in law gave beatings to her. Her brother in law held both her hands. She was not allowed to call her parents. Somehow she made a call to her parents at Delhi to inform them. She got recorded FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 6 of 43 her complaint in police station Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. Then her inlaws promised that no such thing will happen again and the case was filed as per report of IO Mark A1. But again, the inlaws threatened that they will not allow her to live in the matrimonial house till she fulfills their demands. It is stated that the accused Narinder, also demanded dowry from his first wife Saroj who filed a dowry case against accused Narinder, her father in law and sister in law at Bhiwani, Haryana. The accused persons are on bail in that case. The accused Narinder also has one son from his first marriage who resides with the father in law Arjun. The divorce case between Narinder and his first wife is still pending despite which he has entered into a second marriage with Archana and having a son Siddharth from second marriage.
5. It is stated that father in law took away keys of the scooter and refused to give keys to the accused husband despite demands and hit him with a stick. She stated that they used to travel by train, bus or auto. Accused Narender used to say that she will be able to do nothing against them. He instigated the husband of the complainant to leave her at Rani Bagh. After marriage, accused husband and the complainant got their provident fund (PF) money. The accused FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 7 of 43 husband gave his PF money to his father. The complainant purchased philips CD system and one Whirlpool washing machine from that money in her name. The receipts of the above mentioned articles are on record which have not been returned till date. It is stated that the in laws used to put a lock on the kitchen. Whenever they wanted to cook for themselves, they used to open lock. Both the accused husband and the complainant were forced to have food in a hotel despite being without any job. The complainant joined the job after marriage but due to the beatings she could not continue with her job.
6. On 15.08.1998, both accused husband and the complainant went to the terrace to watch kites flying. Her father in law asked them to come down and put a lock on the stairs. She asked her husband to get the kitchen lock opened but her husband did not ask his father to do the same. Later, her husband told her that even though family members are torturing her but he is with her. He mentioned the same in the pages of his diary Mark A2 and showed to the complainant. Thereafter, the father in law asked her to bring One lacs from her parents so that he could get opened a motor driving school for the accused husband. He also made a telephonic call to the father of the complainant and threatened that in case same is not given, he FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 8 of 43 will throw the complainant out and get his son remarried. He further threatened that in case, they come to Sahibabad, he will kill them.
7. Complainant stated that in the meanwhile, she got pregnant, the medical report of which is Ex.PW1/B1. Her father in law was angry with it. The sister in law started fighting for dowry and gave kick blows to her stomach 3 - 4 times due to which bleeding and pain started. Her sister in law Madhu pulled her out of the house but when she felt that the neighbors will come she asked the accused husband to save them. Her husband took her to the hospital at 1.30 am and got medical treatment, the report of which is Ex.PW1/B2 and the prescription slip Ex.PW1/B3. The doctor stated that enough bleeding has taken place and they will not be able to save the child. He asked them to get the ultrasound done. Her husband did not get the ultrasound done and only provided her with medicines and brought her home. Then on 27.09.1998, both husband and wife came to Delhi. Then they reached late at night to their house at Rajinder Nagar, Sahibabad. The main gate was locked from inside. They rang the bell many times but the inlaws did not open the main gate. They tried many times but the main gate was not opened. They made a call from the neighbor's house to their house. But the father in law did not pick FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 9 of 43 up the phone because it was late at night. At that time, her husband took her to his friend's house where both of them spent their night.
8. On 28.09.1998 both reached their house but again the in laws did not open the gate. The father in law told her husband that he can come inside and the complainant will herself go to Rani Bagh or he should leave her to Rani Bagh. They did not open the gate and police was called. The complainant alleged that they were in possession of the said house and all her articles were inside the house. In the presence of police, father in law refused to open the gate. Due to which at late night her husband took her to the barber's shop where they spent their night. Next day they went to Sahibabad police station where her husband gave report Ex. PW1/C, to the police informing how his family members have locked the gate and their articles have been kept by in - laws and how they have to spend night in the barber shop. Then on 30.09.1998, the accused husband and the complainant came to Delhi and stayed at Joy Guest house, the receipt of which is Mark PW1/Z1. On 30.09.1998 in the evening at about 7.30 pm, she made a telephonic call to her father. On 01.10.1998, her husband made a call to his father and then he started beating her. She went to Paharganj police station but the Duty Officer got the matter FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 10 of 43 compromised orally and sent them back to the guest house. She informed her father about the quarrel but her husband disconnected the phone call again and again. She again went to the police station from where she made a call to her father and came back. When she came back, her parents were standing outside and asked her the details. The accused husband started beating her. The complainant took her parents to the room. In the guest house, her husband again gave beatings to her. Her parents tried to stop the quarrel but the accused stated what those old persons can do. Then the accused husband tried to run away from guest house. The father in law made a call to the police by dialing 100 number. The complainant gave her complaint to SI Ram Niwas. The SI asked her husband to write complaint and her husband also gave complaint as Mark PW1/Z2. The police got the matters compromised. Her parents took them to their house at Rani Bagh. After coming to Rani Bagh, the accused husband made many calls to the father in law to get the locks opened but her father in law refused again and again. He did not even returned their articles. On 4.10.1998, her husband gave complaint Ex.PW1/C2 to DIG, Meerut praying that locks be got opened. On 7.10.1998, again a complaint was given by her husband describing incident of 27.09.1998 FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 11 of 43 to the SHO concerned to get the locks opened Ex. PW1/C3 and allow them to have their articles but her father in law did not return their stridhan articles. Then, the accused husband made a telephonic call to his brother in law and sister in law, Hemlata and spoke to them. Both of them stated that the father in law will open the locks in case the complainant brings Rupees one lacs for TV, Sofa and Washing Machine and pressurized her to bring these articles. Then the accused husband also asked the complainant to ask her parents for the same. Accused husband also gave notarized affidavit Ex.PW1/C4 dated 9.10.1998 to her saying that all her stridhan articles are in the possession of accused Arjun and her inlaws at Rani Bagh which the inlaws have refused to give and they have deliberately taken the stridhan in their possession.
9. On 10.10.1998, accused husband took her in fit condition from Rani Bagh house stating that they will directly go to their inlaws house as mentioned in Ex.PW1/C5. But after reaching Sahibabad, accused husband did not take her to the matrimonial house but took her to police station Sahibabad. They went with the police to their house. Her father in law did not open the lock. They came back to the police station where her father in law arrived. The father in law, in the FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 12 of 43 presence of all the police officials refused to open the locks and give back their articles. The accused husband also refused to give any statement. As it was late at night, her husband took her to his friend's house at Lajpat Nagar, Sahibabad where they stayed. On 12.10.1998, her husband took her back to Delhi. They reached her parental house in the evening. Her husband left her there and ran away. On 13.10.1998, she filed a complaint in the CAW Cell, Anand Vihar Ex.PW1/C7 about harassment and dowry demand. She stated that she has disclosed in her complaint that she was kicked in the stomach while she was pregnant and proper medical aid was not provided to her. On 14.10.1998, she got her ultrasound done vide report Ex.PW1/8 and form Ex.PW1/Z2. She alleged that the child was found to be dead. On 29.10.1998, she was admitted in emergency in Lady Harding Hospital, medical aid was provided to her and the discharge slip is Ex.PW1/C9 and Ex.PW1/C11. She stated that the statement of the IO is false that she did not inform about her bring admitted. IO recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Her husband absconded.
10. PW2 Retd. SI Om Prakash stated that on 18.01.1999 at about 05.50 pm, he received a rukka through Ct. Budh Singh and on the basis of which he registered FIR Ex. PW2/A. He handed over the FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 13 of 43 copy of FIR to IO WASI Praveen and made an endorsement Ex. PW2/B on the rukka.
11. PW3 SI Rajesh Kumar stated that on 28.02.1999, he was posted as SI as IC PP Shakti Vihar, PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day he received case file on the present case for further investigation. During investigation he recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 164 Cr.PC and also obtained the photographs and certificate of marriage Mark PW3/A. He formally arrested the accused Narender Singh on 04.04.1999 and released on him on bail vide bond Ex. PW3/B1. Other accused persons who were also on anticipatory bail were formally arrested and released on bail vide bonds Ex. PW3/B2, Ex. PW3/B3, Ex.PW3/B4 and Ex.PW3/B5. He recorded the statement of the complainant, her father and mother. Accused Surender Singh could not be arrested so NBWs were obtained and thereafter proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr.PC got issued and he was declared proclaimed offender (PO). He did not remember whether he was declared PO before or after filing of charge sheet. Later on 17.05.2000 accused Surender Singh surrendered before the Court. Accused Surender was interrogated, arrested and personal searched vide memo Ex. PW3/C. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completing FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 14 of 43 the investigation supplementary charge was prepared and filed in the Court.
12. PW4 SI Praveen Arora stated that on 08.01.1999, he was posted at CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar as ASI. On that day, the complaint was marked to him by the concerned inspector for necessary action. He called both the parties for counseling but no compromise took place between them and his efforts went into vain. He forwarded the present complaint to the concerned police station for registration of FIR by the order of Senior Officers.
13. PW5 Binay Bhushan, Special Director in Education Department Govt. of Delhi stated that on 20.04.1998 he was posted as SDM, Shahdara. On that day marriage between complainant and accused Surender Singh Arya was performed in his presence. He issued one marriage certificate Ex. PW3/A and affidavit of complainant and accused Surender Singh are Ex. PW1/DX A & Ex. PW1/DX B respectively. Some photographs of the marriage of the complainant with accused were shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness correctly identified them which are Ex. PW1/X52, Ex. PW1/X48, Ex. PW1/X47, Ex. PW1/X46, Ex. PW1/X14, Ex. PW1/X49, Ex. PW1/X45. He could not say whether complainant FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 15 of 43 entrusted any jewellery to the accused or not at the time of marriage.
14. PW6 Naresh Chopra failed to appear for his cross examination and hence, his testimony is not to be read.
15. PW7 Ct. Ashok Kumar stated that on 17.05.2000 he was posted at PP Shakti Vihar, PS Saraswati Vihar. On that day he joined the investigation alongwith SI Rajesh Sharma and went the Tis Hazari Court where accused Surender Singh present before the Court, was formally arrested.
16. PW8 Shri Pooran Mal, Medical Record Officer from Lady Harding Medical College and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital (examined on application u/s 311 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of complainant) stated that he was posted at the above said hospital since the year 1996 as a medical record officer. He produced copy of his ID card Ex. PW8/A1. He brought the admission register of patients. On 29.10.1998, one patient i.e. complainant was admitted in the above said hospital vide CR no. 37354 Ex. PW8/A. On 08.05.2015 he received RTI application from the complainant upon which he replied on 22.05.2015. The application and reply of the RTI are Ex. PW6/D and Ex. PW6/E. The medical record pertaining to the above said patient has been destroyed by the order of the Chief Medical Officer, Director FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 16 of 43 General of Health Services dated 10.02.2014 is Mark P.
17. After cross examination of the witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed.
18. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
19. In reply to the incriminating evidence, accused Kamla Arya, accused Narender Arya, accused Madhu Bala, accused Hemlata Gupta and accused Surender Singh Arya stated that it was a false complaint and compromise could not took place due to the adamant nature of the complainant. This is false case against them and they have falsely implicated by the complainant. They are innocent. They have not committed any wrong with the complainant at any point of time. The case has been registered on the basis of the false statement of the complainant. The photographs and documents on record are false and fabricated just to create incriminating evidence by the complainant. The said documents have been filed after long time during the course of trial by the complainant without any cogent explanation for the dealing. The complainant wishes to grab their property that is why she has falsely implicated them. The witnesses are interested witnesses. They chose not to lead any evidence in FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 17 of 43 defence. Matter was listed for final arguments.
20. I have heard Ms. Yogita Kaushik, Ld. APP for State and the complainant at her request at length and Sh. Pradeep Rana, Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the Court record. Ld. APP for the State argued that marriage is not disputed. The demand of Rs. 1.00 lacs has been raised by the accused persons which has been mentioned in the complaint dated 26.07.1998 Mark A. Out of the provident fund the complainant purchased washing machine. No food was given to the complainant which amount to cruelty. Locking of the kitchen is also cruelty. The same is also mentioned in the daily dairy of the accused husband which is mark A2 and Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. The father in law locked the roof which has admitted the husband in his daily dairy which also amount to cruelty. The father in law said that he will get his son married for the second time. The Medical report Ex. PW1/B1 shows that the complainant was taken to hospital at night 1.30 am Ex. PW1/B2 which is in the prescription slip. It is argued that the complainant was pregnant at that time. Accused husband has already admitted the said fact that he was not allowed to enter the house by the accused father in law. They had put locks on the main gate. They have kept all the istridhan articles. They had spent night in FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 18 of 43 the barbar shop. Thereafter on 30.09.1998 they had spent night at Joy Guest House Delhi, the receipt of which is Ex. PW1/Z1. The accused husband disconnected the phone calls when the complainant tried to call her parents. Complainant was also beaten infront of her parents and she made a complaint Mark PW1/Z2 at police station Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The father in law refused to open the door. The accused husband gave the report Ex.PW1/C2 to DIG and asked him to get the locks opened. Accused herself admitted that despite police reaching gates were not opened.
21. The complainant has argued that an application for marriage was filed with the SDM Court on 09.03.1998 and her marriage was solemnized in the Court. During the investigation her documents were not taken by the IO. She moved an application and then she filed original documents on record. She stated that in admission denial u/s 294 Cr.PC accused persons denied all the documents. Whereas in Ghaziabad Court in divorce matter they have filed written statements in which they have admitted the documents and annexure A, the certified copy of which is on record. They have admitted that the said documents which were earlier denied by them. Ring ceremony took place and the rings were exchange which has FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 19 of 43 been admitted in the cross examination. They have alleged that it was a artificial jewelery. It is argued that in the replication before the Ld. Family Court in Ghaziabad Court her husband has admitted to have written that her istridhan were not returned. She further argued that they have demanded of colour TV, Washing Machine, Sofaset Ex. PW1/A2. Medical prescription Ex. PW1/B2 is being questioned by accused persons but verified by PW8 that it was her medical prescription. They never took her for ultrasound. Due to kicks and leg blows, she suffered bleeding and blood transfusion had to be done. She submitted that she told the date on which she was beaten by the sister in law accused Madhu. She further submitted that IO disclosed the name of the hospital in the complaint to DCP Ex. PW1/C10 & C11, but the IO stated that she did not tell the name of the hospital to him. The discharge slip of the concerned hospital is on record. She argued that the exhibits have not been objected by the Counsel for the accused, hence, they are deemed admitted. The putting of locks on the main gate amounts to mental cruelty. On 12.10.1998 her husband left her. He has admitted the same to be correct. The accused husband stated that he also gave jewelery at the time of marriage. She submits that the ingredients of offence under Section 313 IPC and proclaimed FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 20 of 43 offender is made out but the charge has not been framed under the said sections. She stated that she never asked for property in her name. They are only two sisters. The property would be devolved on her from her father.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that it is love marriage between the parties. As per affidavit before the SDM concerned, it is dowry less marriage. Ex.PW1/DXA is admitted by the complainant the record of which is maintained by the government. The marriage lasted for only 56 months. The jurisdiction of Delhi Court is not made out, as till date not even a single instance has occurred within the jurisdiction of police station Rani Bagh. They stayed at Ghaziabad in the house of deceased father in law against whom proceedings have already been abated. He had three houses. Accused brother in law had been given one house by the father in law. The complainant also asked for one house in the name of her husband but the father in law refused to do so. Then she raised allegations of dowry demands. The complainant purchased washing machine, fridge and CD player for her own use. There is no specific date disclosed in the cross examination when demand for dowry was raised. All the allegations are vague in nature. There is no entrustment of the CD FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 21 of 43 player or the fridge to any of the family members. There is no demand nor any refusal of entrusted articles. The complainant is not able to tell how much amount, if any, was given in her marriage. She does not remember the name of the articles which she alleged was given which was above Rs. 20000/ in value. It is alleged only family members were present at the time of marriage with one neighbour. The brother in law and father in law were residing separately at the time of their marriage. There is no date specified on which any alleged article was entrusted or any demand was raised and no date of refusal to return any entrusted article is mentioned. The basic ingredients for the offence u/s 406 IPC are missing.
23. He submits that other allegations of the complainant are that she was in family way in these five months of marriage but she was beaten by the mother in law and sister in law are false and frivolous. It is argued by the Counsel for the accused that the name of the sister of the complainant (name withheld in typing) is similar to the name of the complainant. There is material alteration in the medical documents by changing name of her sister to her name as they are same age group. It is argued that the complainant was never pregnant. During cross examination the complainant refused to FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 22 of 43 disclose the name of her sister and whether her sister was married prior to her marriage or not. The complainant never called the concerned doctor as witness in this matter despite her moving various applications for recalling other persons. She submits that it is highly improbable for a female to get pregnant within ten days after the LMP (Last Menstrual Period). He further argued that no lady can carry a dead child for two months and hence, the medical documents submitted by the complainant are false and frivolous. Counsel submits that the documents regarding miscarriage are of sister of the complainant which has been filed with altercation in the name and the cutting in the name is visible. He submits that no name of the hospital is mentioned on the medical documents. He submits that medical documents placed on record do not support any pregnancy.
24. Complainant on her own without any question has stated that her sister never got examined in Lady Harding Hospital. She got herself examined in Sanjivani Hospital and the documents of the said hospital have been relied. No doctor has been examined in the matter. No abortion ever took place. Complainant was never pregnant. In case of pregnant lady, the doctor always asks for her husband name. Why no such name is mentioned in any documents is only to fabricate FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 23 of 43 documents. The medical documents mentioned the age of complainant as 21 years where as the complainant date of birth is 20.04.1975. She was 23 years old at that time. Her sister was 21 years of age.
25. It is stated that the complainant has not produced any documents to show that she is cancer patient on the basis of which she sought various adjournments and wishes to gain undue sympathy. The complainant has moved 26 exemption applications and 15 times last and final opportunity has been given her to be examined. She has been convicted u/s 350 Cr.PC. The Hon'ble High Court ordered for expeditious trial of the present case, then only the case gained momentum. There are two complaints dated 26.07.1998 and 11.10.1998 relied by the complainants. But no authorized person has been examined to show any such complaint was even filed before them. It is on the complaint before CAW Cell Ex. PW1/C7 that the present FIR has been registered.
26. The Charge sheet has been filed against accused persons on 09.09.2000. The father in law has already expired and the remaining accused are facing trial since the year 2000. Eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW1 complainant, PW3 IO and PW5 SDM concerned. At the time of charge sheet only two FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 24 of 43 photographs and a few documents were filed. PW3 IO said that no documents were provided by the complainant. The documents were not handed over to the IO by the complainant. It is only a second thought that she brought the documents to support whatever improvements have been made by her in examination in chief. Not even a single word was stated to the IO as mentioned in the examination in chief.
27. No date on which cruelty was inflicted is mentioned. It is alleged that for the purpose of setting up of business of motor driving school of accused husband that the demand was made. Even if it is presumed to be correct, the same is covered in the case law 'Appa Saheb v. State of Maharasthra 2007 (I) JCC 147'.
28. The complainant alleged to have left the job due to harassment of the accused. This information was not provided to the IO. In May 1998 she had Rs. 35000/ in her provident fund account. She purchased articles for herself. Ld. Counsel for accused has objected to the photographs relied by the complainant regarding the mode of proof as no photographer has been examined. Counsel for the accused submits that mere putting exhibit mark on a document does not tantamount to proof of it. The said documents need to be proved in FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 25 of 43 the Court. No specific date has been mentioned on which beatings were given. Even if presumed that beatings were given, those must have been given on 20.09.1998 or 25.09.1998. It it was so why treatment had not been taken by the complainant. On 20.09.1998 she had taken alprax as prescribed by some other doctor. The ultrasound is dated 14.10.1998 on which no husband's name is mentioned. The medical documents disclosed that there is 'blighted ovum' which give false pregnancy positive test even when no embryo is found.
29. It is argued that the sister in law of the complainant has also filed divorce case against her husband. She residing in Aram Bagh near Lady Harding Hospital. It is alleged that her documents used by the complainant. Complainant never informed the doctor that it is due to legs blows she has suffered spotting. In case she would have informed, the doctor would have got MLC made. She did not file any such complaint with the IO. Counsel for the accused submits that even if it is presumed that the diary is written by the accused husband has been admitted in the Family Court, it no where mentions that any dowry demand was raised. All allegations are vague in nature. On 10.10.1998 she was taken by her husband in fit conditions as per her own version. Accused father in law refused both accused and FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 26 of 43 complainant to live in his house. Mere stopping to talk to the complainant by accused Hemlata does not amount to cruelty. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments "Rani v. State NCT of Delhi 2011(1) JCC 668; Pashaura Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. AIR 2010 SC 922; Ran Singh and anr. v. State of Haryana and anr. AIR 2008 SC1294; State v. Udaya Kumar and ors. 2004 CRLJ 2758; Sharad Bhai Jivan Lal Vaniya v. State of Gujarat 2012 CriLJ 1575 ; Hansraj Sharma v. State of NCT 2010 CriLJ 4664; Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra AIR2007 SC763; Raj Kumar Khanna v. State NCT of Delhi 95(2002) DLT 147; Raj Rani v. State AIR 2000SC 3559; Anil Kumar Jain v. State of M.P 1996(41) MPLJ 594". He has also relied upon internet generated documents regarding blighted ovum to submit that it is usually a result of choromosomal problems.
30. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for commission of offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients : a. The complainant was subjected to cruelty or harassment; b. The cruelty or harassment was caused by her husband or his relatives;
FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 27 of 43 c. The cruelty was (a) with a view to drive her to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mental or physical;
d. The harassment of the complainant was (a) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (b) On account of failure of the complainant or her relation to meet such unlawful demand.
e. There must be entrustment of the property, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use. f. That accused demanded dowry from the parents or the relatives or guardian of the wife.
It is cardinal principle of law that the accused persons are presumed to be innocent till they are proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favor of the accused.
31. In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, the complainant has stated herself to be a cancer patient but has not FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 28 of 43 produced any documentary proof of the same, only oral assertions are made by her. She stated that after 10 days of marriage she was harassed for dowry.
32. She did not know how much was spent on her marriage. She could not tell from which bank, money was taken out which was spent on her marriage. She stated that her father was a government employee and he retired from Class - I post. She admitted to have signed the affidavit wherein it is stated that marriage is without any dowry and she has signed affidavit after reading and acknowledging the same. She voluntarily stated that articles were given by her parents. She could not tell how much gold was given to her in her marriage. She could not tell the amount of money spent for purchase of the jewelery. She stated that her mother could have known but she has expired. But later stated that about 11 tola gold jewellery was given. She relied upon the rough estimate receipts for Rs.15,000/. She stated that some article was given which was for an amount more than Rs.20,000/ but she did not remember what was that article.
33. The above submissions are vague as the complainant has failed to produce any documentary proof or receipt of the same. Moreover, the affidavit of the complainant filed Ex.PW1/DXA as well FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 29 of 43 as that of the accused PW1/DXB before the concerned SDM is on record which shows that the marriage is a dowry less marriage. The list of articles Mark A (Ex.PW1/A1) mentions the personal belongings including the clothes and other articles of the complainant which are alleged by the complainant to be given in dowry. However no receipts have been produced by the complainant to show that any such articles were given in dowry or demanded by the accused persons as dowry. She has nowhere stated that she entrusted those articles to any of her inlaws i.e the accused persons.
34. During her cross examination PW1 first stated that some incident happened immediately before she lodged her first complaint. Then she stated that on 25.07.1998, her sister in law (nanad) Hemlata, her mother in law Kamla Arya and her brother in law (jeth) Narender Singh gave beatings to her on account of dowry and packed her all istridhan articles and threatened her if she did not fulfill their demand they will throw her out of her matrimonial house. On the next day of said incident, some incident happened with her and then she lodged the said complaint on 26.07.1998 Mark A1 (Ex.PW1/A2). No such complaint was handed over to the investigating officer nor any competent person from the PS Sahibabad has been examined or made FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 30 of 43 a witness in this matter to prove the said complaint. Moreover in the said complaint Mark A1, it is nowhere mentioned that any dowry demand was made from her. No MLC is on record. The complainant has alleged that she was taken to Sanjeevani hospital on 25.08.1998 and has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/B2. She stated to have been taken to the hospital at night at about 1.30 am. Even at that time, she did not disclose about any such beatings to the doctor as well.
35. Another allegation of the complainant is that after marriage she worked for sometime at Raj Jeweller, Karol Bagh at a salary which was much lesser than she used to get from P.P. Jewellers. She had to leave the said job because the accused husband and her in laws used to harass her due to which she had to take leave almost everyday. No documentary proof has been produced by the complainant in support of her above statement. Hence, the same has also remained a vague averment.
36. She stated that on the assurance of the inlaws and due to the intervention of the police, a compromise took place but it was not in writing. She stated that her father had reached at her matrimonial house after she made telephone call to him on 26.07.1998. She and her father went to the police station Sahibabad and then lodged a FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 31 of 43 complaint against her in laws Mark A1. The presence of her father is nowhere recorded in the said document Mark A1.
37. She could not tell any date on which she was tortured or beaten by the accused persons. She stated that she does not remember the exact date when the accused persons started torturing and beating her after the compromise but stated that they started harassing and torturing her on daily basis. She admitted that at the time of her marriage, her jeth accused Narinder was residing separately at Karam Pura and her father in law was residing along with other family members at Dilshad Garden and Sahibabad. After the marriage when she went to her matrimonial house at Sahibabad, she was residing with her mother in law, father in law, her husband, herself and her nanad Hemlata @Dimple @ Dolly and child of her jeth namely Ishu @ Mehul. In case, the complainant was not residing with accused Narinder and Madhu, it is highly improbable for them to torture her on daily basis as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the version of the complainant appears doubtful.
38. The complainant has mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW1/C7 filed before the CAW cell that her in laws used to demand of Rs. One lac, color TV, sofa set and washing machine. FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 32 of 43 Perusal of her complaint Ex.PW1/C7 shows that the alleged demand of Rupees One Lacs was made by her father in law to set up a business of motor driving school for the accused husband. The said amount of Rupees One Lac was never demanded as dowry from the complainant or her father. The complainant could not tell any particular date on which such demand was made. But later she stated that it was in the end of May 1998 when her father in law demanded the said amount for the purpose of business of her husband as he was unemployed at that time. She had not mentioned about the month i.e. May 1998 in her complaint filed before CAW Cell. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention here the observation made in Appasaheb v. State of Mahrashtra 2007 (1) JCC 147 wherein it was observed as under: "that demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry."
Even though the complainant has mentioned that her father in law demanded Rs One lac but she had not given the details / dates on which the demand was raised by father in law. Moreover, no demands by the accused husband, mother in law, sister in law or the FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 33 of 43 brother in law is mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW1/C7 before the CAW Cell. The complainant herself has admitted that she had not mentioned her version as recorded in her examination in chief at the time of complaint before CAW Cell. Hence, admittedly it is an improvement made by the complainant at the time of her statement in the Court.
39. Merely being unhappy / taunting by the sister in law or the other inlaws for insufficient articles given in marriage does not amount to cruelty. In AIR 1996 SC 67 it has been held that some taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry. Though taunting for insufficient dowry is also uncivilized act but does not come in the purview of Section 498A IPC and hence not sufficient to constitute offence u/s 498A IPC.
40. The defence of the accused persons is that the deceased father in law was not interested to keep the complainant and her husband in his property at Sahibabad. He had asked both of them to reside somewhere else. It is the defence of the accused persons that the complainant used to extend threats to her inlaws that she will commit suicide or will falsely implicate them by creating a false scene. She was demanding that one of the property of her father in law should be FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 34 of 43 registered in her name or in the name of her husband. Due to this reason her father in law had asked her and her husband to stay away from the remaining family members and to arrange some other accommodation for themselves to reside. The deceased father in law had disowned her husband.
41. On the one hand, the complainant denied to have made an individual complaint to the police that her father in law is not interested to keep her or her husband in his property or that she made a complaint to the police praying therein that she along with her husband be allowed to enter in the said property. On the other hand, she is relying on a joint complaint dated 29.09.1998, made to the police by her and her husband that on 27.09.1998 when they returned back to their house they were denied access by her father in law despite the fact that her entire articles were still in the house. She is relying on the diary which used to be written by her husband to show that she was subjected to harassment and torture. She is also relying on the complaint given by her husband to the DIG at Sahibabad that they be allowed access in their father's house. The complainant is relying on the certified copy of the cross examination of the accused husband which is recorded in the family Court at Ghaziabad stating FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 35 of 43 that the accused husband has admitted to have written in his diary about the harassment to the complainant at the hands of her inlaws. The accused husband has admitted to have given a notarized affidavit to the complainant and the complainant is relying on the same. The accused husband has argued that it was given under pressure as he has stated that he was residing at the parental house of the complainant at that time. They were both in need of an accommodation and wanted the accused father in law to allow them to reside in the matrimonial house. The said fact of residing at the parental house of the complainant is also admitted by her when she herself relies on the information given to the police on 10.10.1998 Ex.PW1/C6 that she is going to her matrimonial house with her husband in fit condition from her parental house. The complainant was in fit condition at that time as admitted by her in Ex.PW1/6. Till that time, she had not mentioned about her pregnancy in any of the complaints.
42. It is clear that there was quarrel between the parties with the accused husband and complainant on one side and the father in law did not allow both of them to reside in his house as the accused husband was jobless. The accused father in law did not allow both of them to reside in the matrimonial house. It is not the case that any FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 36 of 43 specific cruelty was done against the complainant only which can be covered in the definition of Section 498A IPC. It has been held in Manju RamKalita v. State of Assam, 2009(1) SCC 330 that it is to be established that the woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels can not be termed as cruelty to attract the provision of Section 498A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it become unbearable may be term as cruelty. In the present matter, no such incident has been proved by the complainant to show that the complainant was subjected to continuous cruelty at the hands of the accused persons. The allegations made by the complainant and the other witnesses are vague in nature and no where specific allegations are made against accused persons in particular. From the version of the complainant and the other witnesses, it is clear that the complainant stayed at her parental house at the time the allegations were made. Even her husband accused Surinder used to reside with her in her parental house when he wrote his diary.
43. Another allegation of the complainant is that she was pregnant and was given kick blows by her sister in law due to which she suffered miscarriage. The alleged kick blow as per the version of FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 37 of 43 the complainant was given either on 20.09.1998 or on 25.09.1998. The complainant submits that she had gone to Lady Harding Medical College on 29.10.1998 along with her parents and was discharged on 30.10.1998. She has relied upon discharge slip Ex.PW1/C9.
44. During crossexamination, PW1 admitted that she had not mentioned the specific date and month in any of her previous statements on which accused Kamla and Madhu gave beatings to her and accused Madhu gave leg blow on her abdomen. She admitted that she had not mentioned the fact of her pregnancy in the complaint dt. 10.10.1998 Ex. PW1/C6 made to Incharge, PS: Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. She also admitted that she had not mentioned the fact of her pregnancy in the complaint dt. 26.07.1998 Ex. PW1/A2 made to Incharge, PS:
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. She stated to have come to know about her pregnancy in last week of August, 1998. It is not clear why she did not informed the same to her husband or the other inlaws.
45. The complainant stated to have got herself medically examined for pregnancy test in Sanjeevani Maternity Nursing Home as per Ex.PW1/B1. There is no name of husband or address mentioned in Ex.PW1/B1. Her age is mentioned as 21 years despite her admitting that at the time of visiting the said nursing home she was 23 years old.
FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 38 of 43 On the pathological report annexed with Ex.PW1/B1, there is no signature or stamp of any doctor. Moreover, no date is mentioned. The complainant did not tell the doctor about the name of her husband and other particulars. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant never informed the concerned doctor who examined her at Sanjeevani Maternity Nursing Home at the time of her examination that her sister in law, Madhu had given any leg blows on her abdomen. No MLC was prepared in this regard. Hence, the version of the complainant does not inspire sufficient confidence.
46. The date of birth of the complainant is 20.04.1975 as per which she was 23 years of age at the said time but on the discharge slip from lady harding hospital Ex.PW1/C9, the age is mentioned as 21 years. Counsel for the accused has argued that there is cutting in the name of the patient at point A. It is argued that the complainant never suffered any miscarriage and she has misused the medical documents of her sister to create a false case in her favor.
47. The complainant admitted that she had not handed over Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW1/B2 to the IO during investigation. She stated that the IO told her to give the same later on in the Court. She voluntarily stated to have given written complaints to the IO during FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 39 of 43 investigation regarding the above mentioned fact. The IO, during cross examination, as PW3 has admitted that the complainant neither disclosed the name of the hospital nor took her to any hospital in which she was allegedly got treated after the alleged miscarriage. Hence, the version of the complainant is not supported by any independent witness. The complainant did not examine any doctor to prove the documents on record. Moreover, the ultrasound document Ex.PW1/C8 relied upon by the complainant herself shows that there is no embryonic pole visualized and blighted ovum. Hence, the version of the accused persons is tenable that as it was blighted ovum with no embryonic pole visualized and as it was a chromosomal problem, the same is not a result of any alleged beatings.
48. As regards the allegations of the stridhan articles not being returned by the inlaws, the complainant has alleged that it was the deceased father in law who did not opened the locks of the house and return the stridhan articles. There are no specific allegations of retaining the articles against any of the other inlaws. Moreover, the complainant has admitted that she had not mentioned the exact date regarding the entrustment of her istridhan to the accused persons, date of demand by her or refusal by the accused persons to return the same FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 40 of 43 in her complaint at CAW Cell. She had also not mentioned the month and year in which she had entrusted, demanded and was refused her articles. She admitted that she have not mentioned in Ex. PW1/C6 the specifications of dowry demand, demand of Rs. 1 lac, entrustment of istridhan to any of the accused specifically and factum of giving leg blows by Madhu on her abdomen. The bills provided by the complainant do not match any of the articles mentioned in the list of articles filed by the complainant.
49. In Annu Gill v. State 2001 V AD (Delhi) 411 it has been held that to constitute offence U/s. 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it or domain over it, by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to its own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. In the present matter, PW1 did not uttered a single word that she entrusted her istridhan articles to the accused Hemlata, Kamla, Narender, Madhu and Surender Singh. Hence, there is no entrustment or demand raised to the accused persons proved in this matter. She did not tell any date on which she demanded her stridhan / articles from her inlaws. The allegations of FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 41 of 43 stridhan articles, if any, have been made by the accused husband without any proof what stridhan article have been retained. No original bills have been produced in order to show that such items mentioned in the list were given in the marriage by parents of complainant to her.
50. From the above discussions and the statement of the witnesses, it is nowhere established any specific date or place on which the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons. The complainant has nowhere stated to have entrusted her stridhan to the accused. She has not stated anywhere that despite demanding her articles / jewellery / istridhan was not returned by the above mentioned person. Merely demanding money on account of financial stringency for the purpose of establishing a business for husband of the complainant can not be termed as demand for dowry as held in Appa Saheb case (supra). No medical documents of any alleged beatings have been produced by the complainant and there are various improvements in the version of the complainant.
51. In totality of the facts and circumstances, the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC could not be proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Hemlata, Kamla, FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 42 of 43 Narender, Madhu and Surender Singh stands acquitted of offence charged of. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/ and to place on record recent photograph and fresh address. Counsel for accused persons seeks passover till 3.30 pm to furnish the bonds. Announced in open Court on this 14th Day of January, 2016 Susheel Bala Dagar Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02,North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No. 17/99 State v. Arjun Singh etc. Page Number 43 of 43