Delhi District Court
State vs Parmod Gupta & Ors on 10 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANKITA LAL: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01:
MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
STATE V. PARMOD GUPTA & ORS.
FIR NO. : 597/06
U/S : 498A/406/34 OF IPC
PS : KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
CASE ID : 02403R0506592007
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 5/475
b)Date of commission of offence : Since 09.12.04 to 02.09.06
c)Date of institution of the case : 31.07.2007
d)Name of the Complainant : Ms. Seema Gupta W/o Sh. Parmod Gupta
R/o H. No. 1400/2, Gali NO.7, 2nd Floor,
Flat no. 6, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
e)Name & address of the
accused persons. : i. Pramod Gupta, S/o Sh. G.L. Gupta,
H. No.16/116, Street No.5, Phez Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
ii. Brahmanand S/o Late Sh.Radha Krishan,
H. No.16/116, Street, No.5, Phez Road,
Karol, Bagh, New Delhi.
iii. Kanta Gupta, W/o Sh. Brahmanand,
R/o H. No.16/116, Street,No.5,
Phez Road, Karol, Bagh, New Delhi.
iv. Ajay Gupta, S/o Sh. Sant Parkash,
R/o G5, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
v. Suman Gupta, W/o Sh. Ajay Gupta,
R/o G5, Krishna, Nagar, Delhi.
vi. Manju Gupta @ Munni W/o Sh. Indervir
Gupta, R/o A84, Sector12, Noida, UP
f) Offence complained of : 498A /406/34 of IPC
g) Offence charged for : 498A/34 IPC
FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 1 OF 10
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
i) Arguments heard on : 19.01.2015
j) Date of Judgment : 10.02.2015
k) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 498A/34 IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. Present charge sheet was filed on the basis of an FIR No.597/2006 dated 02/09/2006 lodged by complainant Smt. Seema Gupta, W/o Parmod Gupta against her husband, Pramod Gupta, her brotherinlaws and Ajay, Bharamanand Gupta, her sisterinlaws, Kanta Devi, Suman and Munni.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant, namely, Seema Gupta (since deceased) was married to the accused Parmod Gupta according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 09.12.2004 and her parents had spent in marriage beyond their capacity. Immediately after her marriage, her husband, motherinlaw, jeth and jethani, namely Brahmanand and Kanta Devi, sistersinlaw and brothers of the husband snatched all her jewellery articles and taunted her for not bringing insufficient dowry and threw out all the articles given by her parents. It is alleged that they further raised a demand of Maruti Zen from the complainant. Not only this, accused Suman and Ajay also raised the demand of jewellery articles. It is alleged that complainant tolerated the said insult with the hope that with passage of time the accused persons would accept her and improve their behaviour. It is alleged that after few days of her marriage, her husband came at night in late hours after consuming liquor and starting beating her mercilessly and when she asked him the reason FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 2 OF 10 for such maltreatment, he said that she has to face such a situation regularly unless she meets the demands raised by them. It is alleged that when she tried to save herself, the accused Brahmanand and Kanta Devi caught hold of her by hair and gave her severe beatings in the presence of her husband. It is alleged that on the next day, she telephonically informed her parents and narrated them the entire incident. Thereafter, in order to pacify the accused persons, her parents sent a sum of Rs.50,000/ which was kept by her husband. It is alleged that as her parents were not able to fulfil all the demands of the accused persons, her husband started giving beatings to her and also forced to have unnatural sex with her. It is alleged that when she objected to the same, her husband openly stated that 'tu aise hi manegi, or tere sath isse bhi jyada ganda sex karuga'. It is alleged that after some days of the said incident, on 14.01.2005, the accused Brahmanand entered her room and tried to put off her clothes and when she objected, he stated that 'mere sath agar ek raat bitayegi toh khush rahegi'. It is alleged that the cruelties of her husband increased day by day and he used to burn her with cigarette butts and also started indulging in unnatural sex.
3. It is further alleged that on 20.02.2005, the complainant went to her parents house and narrated all the facts to her parents and her parents again arranged a sum of Rs.20,000/ but still there was no improvement in the behaviour of accused persons and their cruelties continued. It is alleged that her husband, mother in law, brother in law also tried to kill FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 3 OF 10 her by giving poison and when she was taken to hospital, she was directed to not to say anything and to state that by mistake she consumed something. It is alleged that on 29.06.2005. She was turned out of the matrimonial house after being beaten up mercilessly, in wearing clothes and accused persons retained all her istridhan articles and did not return the same. It is alleged that on one day accused Kanta Devi opened her personal box and took out all the jewellery articles and distributed the same amongst accused Munni, Suman and her mother in law.
4. After completion of the investigation, prosecution filed the challan in the court u/s 498A/406/34 of IPC against all the accused persons.
5. The court took cognizance of the offence on the same day and accused persons were consequently summoned. On appearance of the accused persons, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. As accused Pramod Gupta in the present case was also an accused in FIR No.111/08 u/s 304B IPC, and as offence u/s 304B of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, on 19.05.2011, the present file was also committed to Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, the then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge for trial alongwith FIR No.111/08. Vide an order dated 23.08.2011 of Ld. ASJ, accused Pramod Gupta was discharged for offence U/s 304B of IPC in FIR No.111/08, and it was observed that primafacie an offence u/s 498A/34 of IPC was made out against all the accused persons. The file was remanded back for trial and FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 4 OF 10 vide order dated 02.01.2013, charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A/34 of IPC was framed against four accused persons, namely, Pramod Gupta, Suman Gupta, Ajay Gupta and Brahmanand to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Manju Gupta and Kanta Devi were, however, discharged for offence u/s 498A of IPC
6. In order to prove its case, 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of 5 witnesses, 1 is the public witnesses and remaining 4 are police officials. A gist of their testimony is discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs.
Public Witnesses
7. PW2 Jaldhara, who is mother the complainant in the present case, deposed that marriage of her daughter was solemnized in a farm house with accused Pramod Kumar on 09.12.2004. Witness further deposed that after one month of marriage, her daughter was usually beaten up by the accused persons as was informed by her daughter on telephone. Witness further deposed that accused persons usually demanded vehicle as dowry from her daughter. She also stated that sufficient dowry including household articles and jewellery articles were given to her daughter. She further mentioned that one day when she went to the matrimonial house of her daughter, the accused persons told her to take back Seema as no dowry was given to the accused person. Thereafter, on the demand of the accused persons a sum of Rs.50,000/ was given by her son to the accused persons.
FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 5 OF 10
8. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel PW2 was confronted with several parts of her deposition given in the examination in chief and which were not stated by her in her statement to the police Mark PW2/A. But all the said suggestions were categorically denied by the complainant, who mentioned that she had stated all the facts to the police officials but she could not say whether the same were recorded by the police or not.
Police Witnesses
9. Four Police officials were examined by the prosecution, namely, PW1 ASI Ram Kishan, PW3 SI Mukhtiar, PW4 Inspector Sanjay and PW5 Retd. ACP Kusum Lata.
10. PW1/ASI Ram Kishan has only proved regarding registration of FIR 597/06, P.S. K.M.Pur. Ld. Defence counsel was given opportunity to cross examine the witness. He was cross examined as nil.
11. PW3 SI Mukhtiar deposed that on 27.01.2007, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that during investigation on 27.04.2007, he arrested other coaccused persons and after completion of investigation he prepared charge sheet and filed the same before the court. Ld. Defence counsel was given opportunity to cross examine the witness. He was cross examined as nil.
12. PW4 Inspector Sanjay Sharma deposed that on 02.09.2006, after registration of present FIR, he was handed over investigation of the present case. He further deposed that he received/seized relevant FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 6 OF 10 documents of the present case and had recorded statement of witnesses. Ld. Defence counsel was given opportunity to cross examine the witness. He was cross examined as nil.
13. PW5 Retd. ACP Kusum Lata deposed that in the month of June, 2006 she was posted as Inspector in CAW Cell, South District, New Delhi. She further deposed that during that time, she received written complaint Ex.PW1/B of complainant Seema Gupta at CAW Cell and endorsed the same. She further deposed that later on, on 13.06.2006 complainant Seema Gupta and accused appeared in CAW Cell where she recorded statement of complainant Seema Gupta vide Ex.PW5/A. She further deposed that she also recorded statement of accused vide Ex.PW5/B. She further deposed that both the accused and the complainant attended CAW Cell proceedings on various dates and record of the same were prepared, vide Ex.PW5/C to Ex.PW5/G and later on lodging of FIR in the present case was recommended. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, witness admitted that she had not recommended registration of FIR in the present case.
14. After completion of evidence, entire incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 01.09.2014. All accused persons had denied all the circumstances and evidences, and stated that they have never demanded any dowry from complainant or her family members and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
15. No defence evidence was led by any of the accused persons. FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 7 OF 10
16. I have perused the entire material available on record and have heard the arguments of the rival parties.
17. Ld. APP for the state has argued that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated themselves in all material particulars and all the accused persons should be convicted for the alleged offence. He has also submitted that the nature of the offence itself appears to be grave and gruesome to warrant conviction of the accused persons
18. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had argued that prosecution witnesses have failed to corroborate the complaint in all material particulars. It is argued that victim Seema Gupta is herself now deceased and in fact in a separate FIR No.111/08, U/s 304B of IPC against the accused persons, they have already been discharged for the said offence by the concerned court. It is further submitted that in the entire prosecution evidence there are no specific allegations of any cruelty committed by any of the accused persons. It is further submitted that only material witness examined by the prosecution is PW2, who is mother of the complainant. However, a bare perusal of her deposition would show that she has not mentioned any specific allegations of any kind of harassment committed upon her deceased daughter in her matrimonial home at the hands of the accused persons. It is further argued that PW2 herself is also not eye witness to any of the incident. It is also submitted that all the allegations mentioned in the complaint and in the deposition of PW2 are vague in nature and, therefore, the accused FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 8 OF 10 persons should get benefit of doubt and should be acquitted for offence u/s 498A/34 of IPC.
19. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. Before I proceed to appreciate the evidence on record, I would like to quote the provision of Section 498A IPC, for which the accused persons have been charged.
20. The offence of "cruelty" is defined under section 498A of IPC as follows:
Section 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 wilful 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
21. In the entire material available on record it is clear that there are no specific allegations of any cruelty committed upon victim Seema Gupta. The deposition of PW2 mother of the complainant is vague and generic in nature. The complainant herself is now deceased and hence she could not be examined before the court to corroborate the allegations of complaint Ex.PW1/B. PW2, mother of the complainant had not mentioned any specific date of any incident of cruelty committed upon her daughter, and the only occasion she had mentioned was when one day she had gone to matrimonial home of her deceased daughter, the FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 9 OF 10 accused persons had asked her to take deceased Seema back to the parental home as no dowry was given by them in the marriage of deceased Seema with accused Parmod Gupta. She had mentioned that, thereafter, she had given a sum of Rs.50,000/ to the accused persons which was given to them by her son. It is evident from the record that son of PW2 has not been examined by the prosecution. The other witnesses are only formal in nature. None of the allegations mentioned by complainant Seema (now deceased) in her complaint Ex.PW1/B could be corroborated by PW1. As nothing incriminating could come on record from the deposition of PW2, who is only public witness examined by the prosecution, the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused persons are therefore, acquitted for offence u/s 498A/34 of IPC as none of the ingredients of the said offence could be proved in the present case.
22. Resultantly, all the four accused persons are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 498A/34 of IPC.
Pronounced in open court (ANKITA LAL)
on 10th of February, 2015 M.M01/Mahila Court/South District
New Delhi/10.02.2015
FIR NO. 597/2006 STATE V. PRAMOD & ORS PS K.M.PUR PAGE 10 OF 10