Delhi District Court
Govind Ram vs State on 29 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDERS.RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
ID NO: 02401R0427642010
CA NO: 26/10
GOVIND RAM vs STATE
U/s 498 A IPC
IN THE MATTER OF
Govind Ram
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o D84, Ganesh Nagar
Delhi and also at H.No.163,
D12, Sector 8, Rohini
Delhi .....Appellant / convict
vs
State .....Respondent
Appeal under Section 374 (3) against the impugned judgment
dated 10.08.2010 and order on sentence dated 06.09.2010
Date of Institution : 20.09.2010
Date of final hearing : 29.08.2011
Date of final order : 29.08.2011
JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
1. By this order I shall dispose off an Appeal, preferred against the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.8.10 and order on
sentence dated 6.9.2010 whereby appellant was convicted and
sentenced to undergo SI of one year apart from fine of Rs.5000/
U/s 498 A IPC .
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel Sh. Parmod Jalan
advocate for appellant / convict and Ld. Addl. PP Sh.
page 1/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
2
G.S.Guraya for State . I have also carefully perused the entire
appeal file as well as Trial Court Record.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that
complainant Smt. Vijay Laxmi filed a written complaint dated
16.3.1999 with the police to the effect that she and accused Govind
Ram got married on 24.4.1980 as per Hindu Rites. They were
blessed with two daughters and a son and the children are in her
care and custody. Since after her marriage, she was harassed ,
maltreated , tortured and beaten by her in laws for demand of
dowry. She continued to tolerate the atrocities with a hope that
everything would be fine with passage of time. However, behaviour
of her husband became more and more aggressive. She was
constrained to move complaint with Crime against Women Cell in
1982 & 1985 but she was pressurised to compromise and withdraw
the complaint each time. Her husband Govind Ram is working as
Executive Engineer with DDA and is indulging in large scale
corruption and has accumulated huge assets. He even purchased
page 2/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
3
and constructed plot no.163, Pocket 12 B, Sector VIII, Rohini in the
joint name without her knowledge by fabricating her signature. She
also alleged that he had illicit relations with other women and one of
such women was kept by him in the aforesaid house on the pretext
of being a tenant. She complained that her husband has opened
various bank accounts in different names so as to conceal his
illgotten money under acquired names of Govind Ram, Govind Ram
Siromani, G.R.Siromani, Govind Ram Masta, G.R.Masta and
Gopal Rao. Many a times , her husband tried to strangulate her
and created circumstances so as to compel her to commit suicide in
order to get rid of her.
4. On the morning of 14.4.1997 while she was sleeping , her husband
Govind Ram packed all the valuable clothes and huge jewelery and
other articles and left house and her company and deserted three
children as well. He did so in order to maintain relation with other
woman. All this had distressed her as well as her children. He
also threatened her and her children that in case any complaint is
page 3/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
4
made against him, she would be eliminated . On this complaint
Ex.PW1/I the FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered U/s 498A/506 IPC at
PS Karol Bagh. Accused was granted anticipatory bail by Ld.
Sessions Court. As per charge sheet , no additional witness or
document was produced by the complainant. Accused was charge
sheeted U/s 498A/506 IPC.
5. During the course of trial , Ld. Magistrate framed charge on
31.5.2000 U/s 498A/406/506 IPC. Thereafter prosecution
examined five witnesses in all including PW1 Duty Officer HC
nd
Darshna. 2 Witness is PW1 (PW1A) complainant Vijay Laxmi,
PW2 IO of this case SI Deep Chand, PW3 Jyotsana, daughter of
the convict and PW4 Uttam Singh, brother of complainant. Last
two witnesses were summoned on complainant's application U/s
311 Cr.P.C. A revision preferred by convict against the order of Ld.
Magistrate was dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2006. Upon
conclusion of PE , statement of convict was recorded U/s 313
Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence. Convict / appellant also
page 4/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
5
examined two witnesses namely DW1 Ram Kishan and DW2
R.C.Mehandiratta, his colleagues.
6. After hearing both the sides , Ld. Magistrate passed the impugned
judgment of conviction and impugned order on sentence. Other
than the litigation in hand, convict herein has also filed a Divorce
Petition but the same was dismissed on merits by the order of Ld.
ADJ dated 5.9.07 Ex.PW4/A. Appeal thereof is said to be pending
before Hon'ble High Court. Other than this an Injunction Suit of
complainant against convict restraining him from selling of the
jointly held Rohini property was disposed off on convict's statement
to that effect.
7. While opening his submissions, First plea taken by Ld. Counsel for
appellant / convict is that all the allegations leveled against his
clients are general in nature and no specific incident has been
referred to or mentioned. Perusal of FIR Ex.PW1/A lodged on
2.2.99 reveals that entire text contains only two dates. The first
being 24.4.1980 , date of the marriage and 14.4.97, the date when
page 5/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
6
the convict is said to have left the company of complainant and
their three children. Other than these two dates, no specific
allegations have been leveled. General allegations have been
made of maltreatment and harassment during the year 1980 and
1985. Allegations of amassing money by corrupt practices, forgery
of signature and allegations of having illicit relations with other
women have been made .
8. As far as allegations qua indulging in corruption on having illicit
relations or forgery of signatures are concerned, admittedly no oral
or documentary evidence was led on this score. Perusal of record
shows that charge sheet in the matter is of only one page.
Absolutely nothing was done and no evidence was collected during
the investigation. As per text of the charge sheet the complainant
Smt. Vijay Laxmi flately refused to either produce any witness or
share any document with the IO.
9. The allegations in the FIR qua claimed threat to the complainant
and the children were not even mentioned in the deposition and
page 6/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
7
despite framing of charge U/s 506 apart from 406 IPC, no judgment
of conviction was passed under these two offences.
10.Ld. Counsel for convict has relied on case title , " Dharam Pal vs.
State" 1997 (3) CCC Page 1 wherein Hon'ble High Court ruled,
" To attract the provisions of Section 498A and
304B IPC , it must be shown that the husband or
the relatives of the husband of the woman has
been subjected to cruelty. For purposes of this
Section, cruelty has been defined to mean any
willful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health of the woman or 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 any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such
demand.................... To attract the provisions of
page 7/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
8
Section 498A of the IPC, the allegations made
should be specific and not vague."
11.In another case titled , " Ravindra
Pyarelal Bidlan & Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra" 1993 Cr. L.J. 3019 it was held :
" Section 498 A provides that when a husband or a
relative of the husband of a woman subjects such
woman to cruelty he shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. The term
cruelty has been defined in the explanation in S.
498A. Hence, it is not any and every cruelty that it is
made punishable but only the cruelty as defined
under the explanation."
12.In another case titled , " Ram Singh Vs. State " 2008 (4) SCC 70
while dealing with a 498 A IPC matter Hon'ble Supreme Court
ruled:
" High Court has fallen in a grave error in
appreciating evidence. It is well settled that facts
are to be proved and no fact can be said to be
proved merely by surmise or conjucture"
page 8/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
9
13. In case titled "Asokan Vs. State (200) 4 SCC 68", Hon'ble
Supreme Court ruled that it is not every harassment or every
type of cruelty that would attract Section 498 A IPC. It is also
ruled that it must be established that beating and harassment
was with a view to force the wife to commit suicide or to fulfill
illegal demands of husband and in laws.
14.It is well settled that facts are to be proved and no fact can sought
to be proved merely by surmise and conjecture. In the matter in
hand the prime focus of complainant was that the willful desertion
by the convict and his family tantamount to cruelty. Close reading
of offence U/s. 498 A and in the light of aforesaid case law
concludes that such act of desertion might only tantamount to
hardship and harassment of the complaint and the minors but it
does not ipso facto led to commission of offence punishable U/s
498 A IPC .
15.The allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, beating and
maltreatment during the early year of their marriage between 1982
page 9/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011
10
to 1995 and or any time close by thereafter would be time barred in
so far as 498 A IPC has not been ruled to be a continuing offence
in a stricter sense.
16.In another case titled, Smt. Veena Kapoor Vs. The State of NCT
of Delhi" 2007 (4) CCC (HC) 209 Hon'ble High Court ruled,
" Needless to State, for an offence under Section 498 A
IPC, limitation is 3 years."
17.Same view was taken by Hon'ble High Court in 2003 (1) CCC
(HC) 6 in case titled Smt
.
Basant Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
18.In another case titled , V. Radhamanohri Vs. V. Venktareddy 1993 SCC Crl. 571 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, " Dealing with 498 A IPC matter Courts can invoke 473 IPC to overcome the power of 468 IPC as per the facts and circumstances of the case".
19.In the case in hand even though the allegations were around two decades old, cognizance was taken by Ld. Magistrate in a stereotype printed format and there was absolutely no discussion that court is exercising power U/s 473 Cr.P.C and in the absence page 10/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011 11 thereof the time barred allegations does not tantamount to be condoned. Even qua the earlier allegations admittedly a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Perusal of oral statement of the witnesses and belatedly filed documents show that primarily the reason of failure of marriage with the complainant was temperamental non adjustment and not cruelty in its legal sense. Convict is working as Executive Chief Engineer with DDA while the complainant is working as Education Officer in MCD. Both are fruitfully and comfortably settled in life. They were blessed with three children but owning to their failure to co habit and live as a family led to their falling apart after around two decades of matrimony. The text of the allegations contained in FIR are pre se result of a longer drawn anguish and not that of cruelty as enshrined U/s 498 A IPC.
20.Another objection taken on behalf of convict is that even though not even a single document was filed alongwith charge sheet, prosecution Exhibited several photocopy documents on record page 11/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011 12 which were produced during the course of recording of statement with the complainant. Even the originals thereof were not produced in the court barring one or two documents. Although these documents are per se inadmissible in evidence but even the text thereof shows that cause of matrimony discord between the couple was temperamental differences and not demand of dowry etc. Even though no statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded during the investigation, request of complainant was allowed U/s 311 Cr.P.C and she was allowed to examine the daughter PW3 Jyotsana and her brother PW4 Uttam Singh. As per the certified copy of cross examination of PW4 in the divorce petition Ex. PW4/D2 he conceded that the demands of Rs. 500/, Rs. 1000/ and Rs.5,000/ by the convict from him and his family member was only short term loans. Having said this prosecution cannot make out a case of demand of dowry out of it . More so when these allegations have been brought on the record for the first time during the course of trial and were not part of the charge sheet at any page 12/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011 13 point of time.
21.Allegations by PW3 Jyotsana that convict used to beat her and entire family in are of around 1995 and is a bald statement without any specifications. All this is due to emotional mal adjustment which is not covered under cruelty U/s 498 IPC. Even during the course of pendency of this appeal the complainant was called in the court before hearing of the matter. She conceded that the convict is still her legally wedded husband but they have no emotional and financial bondage with each other. They are still the joint owner of the house in Rohini.
22.For the forgoing reasons I have no hesitation in concluding that out of the entire material available on record no case of commission of offence U/s 498 A IPC is made out. The finding of Ld. Magistrate in the judgment that appellant is guilty of offence U/s 498 A IPC cannot be sustained on facts. The conclusions of cruelty arrived therein by Ld. Magistrate appears to be based not on concrete evidence but on surmise that the desertion of the family by page 13/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011 14 convict tantamount to cruelty.
23.The appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment dated 10.08.2010 and order on sentence dated 06.09.2010 are hereby set aside. The bail bond of applicant be deemed canceled after appeal period. File be consigned to RR. TCR be sent back with a copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON: 29.8.11 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi page 14/13 of Judgment on Appeal Govind Ram vs State dated 29.8.2011