Delhi District Court
Fir No.215/2002 Id ... vs . Prem Pal on 20 February, 2013
FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : MAHILA COURT: DELHI.
FIR No.215/2002
PS Rohini
U/s.498A/406 IPC
ID No. 02404R6296082004
State Vs. Prem Pal etc.
1. Date of institution of the Case : 17.02.2004
2. Date of Commission of Offence : since 25.05.1994 & till 2002
3. Name & Add. Of the Complainant : Smt. Suman
D/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o H.No. A27, Sector 2,
Rohini, Delhi.
4. Name & Add. Of the Accused : 1. Prem Pal s/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
r/o 488/34, Onkar Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
2. Harpal (expired)
3. Mahender Pal (expired)
4. Smt. Chameli Devi (expired)
5. Offence complained of : U/s 498A IPC
6. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date for reserve of Order : 14.01.2013
9. Date of announcing of order : 20.02.2013
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Rohini against accused FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 1/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal persons namely Prem Pal, Harpal, Mahender Pal, Smt. Chameli Devi for the offences u/s. 498-A/406 IPC. In the present case accused Harpal, Mahender Pal and Smt. Chameli Devi had already expired and proceedings against them have already been abated. The case was registered after the complaint was made to CAW Cell, North West, Delhi by the complainant Smt. Suman. After conducting proceedings, the CAW Cell referred the complaint to the Duty Officer, PS Rohini for registration of the case whereupon the IO had made an endorsement and the Duty Officer had subsequently recorded the FIR. Gist of the complaint is as under:-
2. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Mahender Pal on 23.05.1994 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After two days of marriage, when the parents of the complainant went to the matrimonial house of the complainant, the husband, mother in law and sisters in law of the complainant started threatening the complainant that the family members of the complainant will not be able to cross the river as they had not given even a scooter in the marriage. Thereafter the complainant resided at her parental home for some days and when she returned to her matrimonial home, the husband and in laws of the complainant again started harassing her. She told about the said facts to her parents also. On 08.01.1995, the father in law of the complainant fell into the toilet and died due to head injury, upon which the mother in law of the complainant started humiliating and blaming the complainant for the death of the father in law FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 2/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal and also also demanded scooter from her. At that time the complainant was pregnant and her condition was not good. Seeing the condition of the complainant, the parents of the complainant got her treated at St. Stephen's hospital and she gave birth to a girl child. Thereafter she was taken by her in laws at her matrimonial house. In April, 1996, the daughter of the complainant died due to illness and the husband and in laws of the complainant again started blaming her for the same. They all subjected her to cruelty and she was beaten many a times by them. She has not been taken care of by her husband and other accused persons. Thereafter, in her complaint, she narrated various incidents of harassment and cruelties by her husband and in laws. On 29.06.1997, at the assurance of her brother in law (Dewar), parents of the complainant send her to her matrimonial house and the husband and in laws of the complainant also apologized before the "Panchs" and further assured that they will never demand scooter and will never harass the complainant. But after few days, the husband and in laws of the complainant again adopted the same things and started demanding Rs.50,000/- and also gave threats to the complainant. The husband and in laws of the complainant used to threaten the complainant for dowry. Thereafter, she reported the matter to CAW Cell.
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. 498-A/34 IPC was framed on 24.05.2010 against accused Prem FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 3/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal Pal only as the other accused persons had already expired, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses.
a) PW-1 is Smt. Suman, who is the complainant herself.
b) PW-2 is Sh. Banwari Lal, who is the father of the complainant.
c) PW-3 ASI Jagbir Singh is the duty officer and upon receiving rukka
registered the FIR.
d) PW-4 is SI Virendra Kumar, is the IO of the case to whom the
investigation of the case was handed over after registration of FIR and he recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses and formally arrested the accused persons and prepared the draft charge sheet.
5. Statement of accused Prem Pal has been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the allegations made against him in toto and alleged that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and that at the time of marriage of complainant, they all were residing separately having their separate kitchen. He further deposed that the husband of the complainant was murdered and his house was sealed by the police. After investigation was completed, the keys of the house were handed over to his mother. He wanted to lead defence evidence and examined Ms. Nisha and Ram Prasad as DW1 and DW2 in his defence.
6. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the accused as well as on FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 4/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal behalf of the State and record has been meticulously perused.
7. In the instant case, ignoring the inconsequential witnesses, I will deal with the testimonies of public witnesses in detail. In the present case, initially the complaint was filed against four accused persons. However, during the trial of the case, all the accused persons got expired except accused Prem Pal, who is the Jeth of the complainant. Therefore, I will not discuss the testimony of the complainant with regard to the allegations against other accused persons who have already expired. I will now deal with the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses in detail, against accused Prem Pal.
8. PW1, the complainant has deposed before the court that after her marriage, she was brought to house at Tri Nagar and after two days of marriage, accused Prem Pal along with her sister in law, mother in law, Jethani, husband and one other person, who was the friend of the husband, put her in a room and threatened her that they will kill all the family members of the complainant and her family members will not be able to cross the river as they had not given them even a scooter. At that time, her maternal cousin Jyoti was also present. She remained silent. The cousin of the complainant narrated the incident to her parents in Dharamshala. Then, her father and maternal uncle came to her matrimonial house and the complainant told them that nothing had happened as she wanted to finish the matter but her father in law told the father and maternal uncle of the complainant that he cannot do anything and his sons will do whatever FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 5/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal they want to do. Thereafter, accused persons left her at her parental house for one month.
9. If I compare her testimony with her statement in her original complaint Ex.PW1/A, then I find that, there she mentioned that after two days of her marriage, her parents had come to matrimonial house for the purpose of "Vidai" and on that day, accused Mahender Pal, Smt. Chameli Devi and other sisters in law threatened that the parents of the complainant will not be able to cross the canal as the complainant's father had not given even a scooter. This incident was narrated to her parents by her cousin who were sitting outside in the house and upon inquiry, the complainant did not disclose anything and thereafter she went to her parental home.
10. The prosecution case was that after two days of her marriage, she was threatened by the in laws as she had not brought sufficient dowry but there are major contradictions regarding truthfulness of this incident. Firstly, because of the reason that complainant before this court deposed that her parents were at Dharamshala and not at the house, as stated in the original complaint. Secondly, in the original complaint, she did not allege any allegation at all against accused Prem Pal.
11. Thirdly, in her original complaint, she did not allege that she was left at her parental house by the accused persons for one month because of non fulfillment of demand. On the other hand, in her original complaint, she stated FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 6/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal that after the incident she resided at her parental house as it was as a custom for which her parents had come. She herself had stated in the complaint that her parents had come for the purpose of "Vidai". This implies that as a normal custom, she went to her parental house and she was not left by accused persons for non fulfillment of demand, as alleged.
12. Before the court, complainant alleged this allegation against accused Prem Pal whereas there was no allegation against accused Prem Pal in the original complaint. It seems that as the other accused persons have expired, then just to implicate the accused Prem Pal, complainant has alleged this allegation at this belated stage just to improve her case.
13. Thereafter, the complainant before the court deposed that she stayed at her parental house for one month and thereafter she came back to her matrimonial house. Accused persons kept her for 6 or 7 months peacefully. Whereas in her original complaint, she stated that thereafter she stayed for few days at her parental house and for 2-3 days everything was Okay but after 2-3 days, in laws of the complainant started giving her taunts.
14. Before the court, she deposed that she came back after one month whereas in the original complaint she stated that she came back after few days.
15. Before the court, complainant deposed that she was kept well for 6-7 months and in her original complaint, she stated that after 2-3 days, taunts were started. Complainant has not given any explanation as to if she was sent back by FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 7/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal her in laws for not meeting the demand of scooter, then why they again, on their own, accepted the complainant and she was kept peacefully for 6-7 months if no such demand was met. The complainant has not given any explanation regarding this sudden change of behaviour of accused persons, if no dowry demand was met by the parents of the complainant. She has not deposed that demand of scooter was fulfilled and thereafter she was welcomed at her matrimonial house. Therefore, this demand of scooter after two days of marriage or threat by the accused Prem Pal or other deceased accused persons is not being proved beyond reasonable doubt and suffer from various contradictions which are making the version of the complainant doubtful and improbable.
16. Thereafter, it is the case of the complainant that on 08.01.1995, her father in law got expired and all the accused persons started harassing and humiliating the complainant and blamed her for the death of her father in law. Thereafter she has narrated the version that she has not been taken care of by her husband or accused persons. She gave birth to a girl child. Thereafter she gave birth to a boy child also and in between there were taunts by the accused persons. They used to curse her for the death of a person in the family of accused persons. These all allegations do not prove the case of cruelty against accused Prem Pal, as nothing has been specifically alleged against accused Prem Pal which attract the applicability of Section 498A IPC.
17. Further, it is the case of the complainant that after sometime, maternal FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 8/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal uncle of accused came to her house and on his advise accused persons took her to matrimonial home. After four years of the same, her husband left her at parental home when she was ill. She was suffering from fever. Her mother took her to the doctor who told that the complainant was in serious condition and one day, her husband came to her parental house and demanded amount of Rs. 50,000/- and said that his brother i.e. accused Prem Pal had induced him to demand the same. This whole narration of the story by the complainant does not even mention any dowry demand by any of the accused persons after the first alleged demand of scooter till the year 2000. This is not the case of the complainant herself that the accused persons used to keep on asking for meeting of the demand of scooter, as firstly alleged by her. Her whole version seems to be proceeding towards allegation of not giving proper care to her and holding her responsible for bringing bad luck to the family of the accused persons. At the end of her narration, all of a sudden, her story takes a turn, where she alleged that one day her husband came to her parental house and said that her brother i.e. accused Prem Pal, had induced him to demand Rs.50,000/-. Upon the basis of above discussed background, it is just a bald allegation which does not seem to be probable and does not inspire confidence of this court.
18. Even otherwise, it is the case of the complainant herself that accused Prem Pal had induced her husband for demanding Rs.50,000/-. It is well settled that for an offence u/s 498A IPC, cruelty should be directly perpetrated and not at FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 9/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal the instance of others. Upon inducement, no offence can be proved against accused Prem Pal.
19. It has been alleged that accused Prem Pal used to call her "Dian" but there is no specific allegation of dowry demand proved by the complainant against accused Prem Pal. It has been alleged in the later portion of her examination in chief that once accused Prem Pal demanded Rs.5,000/- but this is again only a bald allegation without giving specific period or occasion. Hence, this appears to be an afterthought just to implicate accused Prem Pal as he is the only surviving accused and all other accused persons have expired. Further, this allegation of asking Rs.5,000/- by accused Prem Pal has not been mentioned anywhere in the original complaint. Complainant has also not mentioned specific date or occasion of demand of Rs.5,000/- by accused Prem Pal. Therefore, this demand of Rs. 5,000/- is also not being proved against accused Prem Pal. She has alleged that her husband used to do whatever accused Prem Pal induced him to do. Again, it is being repeated, that upon mere inducement no case is made out against accused Prem Pal as offence should be directly perpetrated by the accused.
20. Further, after a close scrutiny of the evidence, even demand of scooter by the accused persons fell to the ground when in the cross examination, the complainant deposed that there was demand of motor cycle and there was taunt by her husband that she had not brought colour TV. Further, in her cross examination, complainant herself admitted that there were five rooms in the FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 10/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal house and they used to make food separately in their rooms. There was Parda system. Therefore, upon the examination of her own evidence, it is apparent that all the family members along with their families were residing separately although in one house but they used to even cook their food separately. So, it is highly improbable that accused Prem Pal, who is Jeth of the complainant, would ask for scooter or for Rs.50,000/- from complainant's parents or from the complainant, when he was living separately along with his family. It is highly improbable that he would be benefited by the dowry brought by the complainant.
21. Next, witness is the father of the complainant and he also deposed on similar lines as of his daughter. He also alleged allegation against accused Prem Pal that accused Mahender came to his house and asked for Rs.50,000/- and said that accused Prem Pal had induced him. Again, as discussed above, it has been held that no offence is made out upon inducement. Thereafter, this witness has generally alleged before the court that his daughter used to tell him about the demand of money by accused Prem Pal. It has not been specified as to when complainant told about the demand of money by accused Prem Pal to this witness. Upon this general and bald allegation, nothing is being proved regarding demand of dowry against accused Prem Pal. This witness also stated that accused Prem Pal was residing separately and it is correct that accused Prem Pal and Mahender were having separate ration cards also. Therefore, it is highly improbable that accused Prem Pal would ask from the complainant's father about FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 11/13 FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal scooter or TV or Rs.50,000/-. It is highly improbable that he would be benefited by the dowry when he was already residing separately with his own family. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, no specific demand of dowry against accused Prem Pal has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, no specific date of incident or harassment by accused Prem Pal is being proved upon the refusal to meet such demand by the complainant or her relatives.
22. Hence, in view of the above said discussion, offence of cruelty or harassment has not been proved against the accused Prem Pal beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Prem Pal is acquitted of the offence u/s 498A IPC.
23. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Prem Pal is acquitted of the offences u/s 498A/34 IPC. However, his surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today u/s 437A Cr.PC. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance. Announced in the open court today on 20.02.2013 (RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 12/13
FIR No.215/2002 ID No.02404R6296082004 State Vs. Prem Pal
FIR No.215/2002
PS Rohini
20.02.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Prem Pal is present with counsel.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court today, the accused Prem Pal stand acquitted for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC. However, his surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today u/s 437A Cr.PC. File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 215/2002 State Vs. Prem Pal 13/13