Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/428739/2016 on 4 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM (MAHILA COURT02)
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: NEHA, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State v. Shyam Kumar
FIR No. 58/10
PS Palam Village
Date of Institution : 30.07.2012
Date of reserving of order : 20.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 04.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 428739/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Jyoti
3. Date of complaint : 31.07.2009
4. Name of accused person : Shyam Kumar
S/o Sh. Parbhu Dayal
R/o RZ114115 Jain Colony,
Uttam Nagar New Delhi.
5. Offence charged : U/s. 498A/406 IPC.
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 1 of 25
PS Palam Village
Counsels for the parties.
Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Dheeraj Gautam, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Accused Shyam Kumar has been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 498A/406, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). It has been alleged by the prosecution that after marriage of complainant with accused Shyam Kumar, the accused had treated the complainant with cruelty and harassed her in relation to demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the accused was entrusted with the istridhan of the complainant which he did not return even on demand and converted the same to his own use.
2. Complaint was made and an FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet has been filed for offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC against accused Shyam Kumar.
3. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused Shyam Kumar was summoned to face trial. The copies were supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C.FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 2 of 25
PS Palam Village
4. Vide order dated 09.01.2013, charge for offences punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC was framed against accused Shyam Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution Witnesses have been summoned for evidence and total 15 prosecutions witnesses have been examined to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.
6. PW1 Jyoti is the complainant. She has deposed that her marriage was solemnized on 04.12.2006 with Shyam Kumar. In her marriage her father gave sufficient dowry as per his capacity. Her list of istridhan article is Ex. PW1/A. After her marriage, she was kept normally for around 45 months at matrimonial home. Thereafter, husband and inlaws started taunting her over insufficient dowry. Her husband also stated that her parents had not given bike to him and he wanted the same. Her husband started beating her after taking liquor. Accused used to beat her severally by bolting the door from inside. He also used to drag her on terrace in the midnight at around 23 a.m. and used to beat her by slaps and threatened to push her from the terrace. All his family members never tried to intervene or save her from the assault of accused. Accused used to do brutal acts upon her because he had demanded Rs. 1 lacs from her and she expressed inability of her parents FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 3 of 25 PS Palam Village to fulfill demand.
7. PW1 has further deposed that accused took all her istridhan and other articles and gave the same to her motherinlaw on the pretext of safe custody. The atrocities had started after fourfive months of marriage. Accused asked her to leave her at her parental house in order to have conversation with her father pertaining to Rs. 1 lacs. During her stay at parental home, she requested her father to arrange money as the same was required in order to secure a seat in Railway's Job. In the meanwhile, her sister also came at her parental home. Her father somehow managed Rs. 35,000/ and took both sisters to the matrimonial home. In the presence of motherinlaw and jeth, cash of Rs. 35,000/ was handed over to her husband namely Shyam Kumar. Accused replied that he did not need Rs. 35,000/ instead he needed Rs. 1.50 lacs. Upon hearing demand of her husband, her father folded his hands in front of her husband and other persons. After her father left, her husband put lock on her room and left the house. He came under intoxicated condition in night and forcefully dragged her to terrace and gave severe beatings to her. She was three months pregnant at that time and due to this assault, miscarriage was caused. Although her health condition was very bad but none of the family members or husband took her to hospital in the night. Next day she was taken to hospital by her FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 4 of 25 PS Palam Village father, brother, motherinlaw and husband. In hospital, she came to know about the miscarriage. By that time, she did not disclose about atrocities of her husband to her father. Before leaving, her father instructed her sister namely Sarita, who was also married to younger brother of her husband, to take care of her. Her sister used to provide food and other help to her. Sarita was also pregnant and her due date was near. After two days, her sister was blessed with one baby boy and delivery took place in the house. She was not physically well because of the miscarriage but her motherinlaw instructed her to take care of her sister and new born baby. She again conceived in the meantime.
8. PW1 has further deposed that on15.02.2008 around 5 a.m. husband of Sarita snatched the child and handed over to his elder sister and gave severe beatings to Sarita. After giving beatings, her husband dragged Sarita and dropped her unattended and alone at Railway Phatak. Her cousin brother took her to her parental home. After around 12 hours, her uncle, aunt, father and brother came to her matrimonial home alongwith Sarita to have conversation with the inlaws. Her motherinlaw instructed her family members not to enter the house. Accused and husband of Sarita were not present in the house. Her motherinlaw asked her father to take Sarita back. She also told that Ram Kumar would come to take Sarita. By that time her jeth Anil and FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 5 of 25 PS Palam Village her fatherinlaw Prabhu Dayal came there and started using abusive language for her father and other family members. Her father requested to hand over infant child of her sister Sarita. But they were not ready to give the child. Her father got an FIR registered at PS Bindapur and with the intervention of police, child of her sister was given back to her. Her motherinlaw dragged her (complainant) towards her father and asked him to take her back to the parental home. Both sisters were taken to parental home. Neither husband nor inlaws came to take them. She made several calls to her husband to take her back but on each occasion her husband extended threats.
9. PW1 has further deposed that during ninth month of her pregnancy, she went to her maternal grand mother house situated at Campus, AIIMS. On 23.07.2008 she was blessed with a baby girl. When she called her husband and told him about the birth of baby girl, her husband replied that he did not need any girl. Her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw also refused to take her and the child back. She and her family members tried to resolve the matter but the husband and inlaws did not show any concern. Her complaint to CAW Cell is Ex. PW1/B. Her entire istridhan articles including jewellery were in custody and possession of accused. Although he was asked to produce the same but none of her valuable article was produced. Only few of furniture FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 6 of 25 PS Palam Village articles were produced by her husband which were seized by the IO. Since the same were in broken condition, she did not take the same. Her marriage photographs and marriage card were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. She proved marriage card as Ex. P1, marriage photographs as Ex. P2 to Ex. P6 and photographs of istridhan articles as Mark X1 to X10 and original bills of the purchase of dowry articles as Ex.PW1/D.
10. PW 2 Sh. Bal Krishan Atwal is father of complainant. He has deposed that on 04.12.2006, the marriages of his two daughters namely Jyoti and Sarita were solemnized with accused Shyam Kumar and his brother Ram Kumar respectively. The matrimonial life of his daughters was normal for initial six months. After six months, the accused alongwith his family members started harassing his daughters with a view to coerce them to bring more dowry. One day his daughter Jyoti visited his house and told him that the accused and his family members were demanding bike and some more dowry. He somehow managed Rs. 35000/ and gave the said amount to the father of the accused in June 2007. Thereafter, for sometime his daughters were kept well but again they started harassing and putting pressure on them for bringing more dowry. One day his daughter Jyoti informed him that her mother inlaw was pressurizing her for bringing Rs. 1.5 lacs as they were under FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 7 of 25 PS Palam Village debts. He failed to satisfy the said demand. The accused and his family members started harassing and beating his daughters due to non fulfillment of their aforesaid demand. The accused used to drag his daughter Jyoti in the staircase and made her stand on the roof early in the morning at around 03:00 a.m. to 04:00 a.m. in the cold. On 15.02.2008 Ram Kumar, husband of Sarita left her at Palam Phatak. Upon which he alongwith his daughter and other family members went to the house of Ram Kumar to inquire about the reasons as to why he left his daughter in the way. Upon this, Ram Kumar, accused Shaym Kumar and their parents started quarreling with him. They also thrown out her elder daughter / complainant Jyoti from the house. He brought both daughters to his home. Sine then, his daughters are residing with him. Jyoti gave birth to a female child in Safdarjang Hospital. One day accused Shyam came at his residence and abused Jyoti upon birth of female child. He requested many times to accused Shyam Kumar to take his daughter back to her matrimonial house but he never paid any heed to his request. Lastly, complainant Jyoti filed a complaint to CAW Cell. Accused also did not return gold jewellery of his daughter.
11. PW 3 Sh. Rajesh Kumar is the neighbour who was residing near parental house of complainant. He has deposed that father of Jyoti and Sarita namely Sh. Bal Krishan is his neighbour. Marriage of Jyoti FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 8 of 25 PS Palam Village and Sarita was solemnized and their father gave all the items except car in the marriage. After 56 months, he saw Jyoti and Sarita at their parental house and asked the reason of living there. He came to know through their father that his daughters had been harassed and tortured in their matrimonial house. Once, husband of the Jyoti came at Palam Colony and quarreled with the family of Jyoti and Sarita.
12. PW4 Smt. Nirmala is aunt of complainant. She has deposed that mother of the Jyoti and Sarita had expired in their childhood. She had brought up Sarita and Jyoti. Marriage of Jyoti and Sarita was solemnized in year 2006. Except bike, they had given all the items to inlaws of Jyoti and Sarita. Both sisters were married in same house. After marriage, the inlaws started quarreling on issue of dowry. After 24 months, Jyoti and Sarita informed her that her in laws were harassing and torturing on issue of dowry. The delivery of Jyoti was done at their house and all expenses were borne by them. Within a year of marriage, Jyoti and Sarita returned to their parental house from matrimonial house due to cruel behaviour of their inlaws and accused. Once accused Shyam came to their house and quarreled with Jyoti.
13. PW5 Sh. Bedi Pihal is also neighbour who lived near parental house of complainant. He has deposed that he attended the engagement FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 9 of 25 PS Palam Village and marriage ceremony of Sarita and Jyoti. When Sarita and Jyoti came to their parental house, they told that they were not provided with sufficient food and were also beaten by accused. On the occasion of Holi, the accused came to the house and quarreled with them.
14. PW6 Smt. Sarita is the sister of complainant. She has deposed that her sister Jyoti got married on 04.12.2006. Shyam Kumar and other inlaws started harassing her and her sister for bringing insufficient dowry. Shyam Kumar used to take her sister to their parent's place and used to ask her to talk to the father to give a sum of Rs. 1 lac so that they could get a Government job and he wanted to purchase a bike. When her sister was pregnant, Shyam Kumar used to beat her mercilessly. Her father had given a sum of Rs. 35,000/ to her mother inlaw in the presence of all family members. After 34 days, Shyam Kumar again started beating her sister and due to cruelty and harassment, her sister had got miscarriage and she was in lot of pain. Her inlaws took her sister to Safdarjung Hospital where her father came. The doctor at Safdarjung hospital refused to give treatment as the condition of her sister was very severe. Thereafter, she was taken to a nearby private clinic where the child was aborted. After few days, accused Shyam Kumar again started demanding money of Rs. 1.5 lacs. He also left her sister to parent's place for about one month. Thereafter, FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 10 of 25 PS Palam Village Shyam Kumar brought her sister back. When she was brought back to matrimonial house, she was again taunted by sister in laws. On 15.02.2008, the inlaws had thrown her and her sister out of the house. When a daughter was born to her sister, the inlaws were intimated but neither accused Shyam nor any of his family member came to hospital to see her sister or the child. All jewellery and other valuable articles were lying with the motherinlaw. Thereafter, her sister and she made separate complaints to the CAW Cell.
15. PW 7 Prince Arora is the Director of Sachdeva Electronics. He proved retail invoice no. 4640 in the name of Jyoti Atwal as Ex. PW7/A.
16. PW8 Sh. Subhash Mittal is the owner of Radhika Saree Palace. He proved bill of his shop as Mark 4.
17. PW9 Sh. Jagmohan Singh is the owner of Rekhi Fancy Furniture shop. He proved the bill dated 02.12.2006 in the name of Sarita Atwal as Ex.PW9/A.
18. PW10 SI Asha Rani is the IO of the case, who made DD entry in respect of list of articles produced by the accused. She also seized the same vide memo Ex. PW10/B. The DD entry is Ex. PW10/A. FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 11 of 25 PS Palam Village
19. PW11 HC Rattan Singh is the Duty Officer, who registered the present FIR. The FIR is Ex. PW11/A.
20. PW12 Ct. Rakesh is the official, who joined investigation with IO at the time of arrest of accused. He proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW12/A.
21. PW13 Sh Anil Kumar is proprietor of Sanjay Jewellers. He proved receipt dated 04.12.2006 as Ex. PW13/A.
22. PW14 SI Ranvir Singh is the IO of the case, who seized marriage photographs and marriage card from the complainant. He also arrested the accused and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He seized the details of expenditure incurred in the marriage of the complainant vide memo Ex. PW14/B.
23. PW15 SI Kamlesh is also one of the IO, who filed an application before ACP for permission to arrest the accused. The application is Ex. PW15/A.
24. All witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 07.04.2018. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence was put to him separately. Accused denied all the FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 12 of 25 PS Palam Village incriminating evidence and has stated that he has been falsely implicated.
25. The accused has examined two witnesses in defence.
26. DW1 Sh. Shyam Kumar is the accused himself. He has deposed that there was some quarrel between his younger brother Ram Kumar and his wife Sarita. On this quarrel, Sarita left the matrimonial house. One day, he and his brother Ram were not in the house. Sarita, his wife Jyoti and their family members quarreled with his mother and two sisters. The police had also come on that day. When police came, compromise took place. However, the family members of his wife took Sarita and Jyoti with them. He had gone to her house to bring her after one month but he was abused and thrown out of the house. He had never abused or harassed the complainant or treated her with cruelty to fulfill any demand or for any other reason. He proved the copy of medical documents as Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B, copy of rent agreement as Ex.DW1/C, copy of judgments passed in petition under DV Act with copy of evidence of complainant and other witnesses recorded in other proceedings as Ex. Ex.DW1/D to Ex.DW1/Q, copy of T.B. template as Ex.DW1/R and copy of medical documents of nephew Pratham @ Master Sonu as Ex.DW1/S. FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 13 of 25 PS Palam Village
27. DW2 Ms. Mamta is the bhabhi of the accused. She has deposed that whatever Gudiya @ Sarita and Jyoti alleged was false. Her parents inlaw and brotherinlaws (devar) were very nice persons. All the allegations of cruelties and harassment leveled by the complainants were false. The complainants did not want to live in the matrimonial house.
28. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 05.06.2018. The matter was fixed for final arguments. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the accused.
29. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused. The complainant and other prosecution witnesses have proved that accused used to harass the complainant for dowry and he used to demand money from the complainant and did not keep her properly in the matrimonial house due to nonfulfillment of demand. The complainant has also proved that accused has not returned the istridhan to her. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 14 of 25PS Palam Village
30. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It has been argued that the accused has been falsely implicated. The complainant had filed petition under D.V. Act which has also been dismissed. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused had ever beaten the complainant or demanded dowry or that he was ever entrusted with the istridhan of the complainant which he converted to his own use. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
31. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. Written arguments filed on behalf of the accused is also perused.
32. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
33. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406 IPC.
34. This Court shall examine whether the prosecution has been able FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 15 of 25 PS Palam Village to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had subjected the complainant to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A IPC or that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the istridhan articles entrusted to him.
35. Perusal of testimony of complainant and other prosecution witnesses would show that they have made general allegations without any specific date or time that complainant was harassed physically and mentally at matrimonial house by accused. The only specific allegations of demand made against accused are that demand of Rs.1 Lac was made for bike and another demand of Rs. 1.5 Lac was made.
36. The complainant has deposed that husband used to beat her to fulfill demand of Rs. 1 lac and her father had arranged Rs. 35000/ and gave it to the husband in the presence of motherin law and jeth.
37. The complainant has not mentioned any specific date when the demand was made for the first time or month of demand. She has also not mentioned any specific date / month when she was harassed by accused for dowry of Rs. 1 Lac. The complainant has also not mentioned any specific date when the amount of Rs. 35000 was given by her father.
FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 16 of 25PS Palam Village
38. Further the testimony of complainant and other prosecution witnesses would show that there are contradictions in their statements as regards the amount demanded, when the demand was made and to whom the amount of Rs. 35,000 was given.
39. In examination, the complainant has deposed that accused Shyam had demanded Rs. 1 Lac and bike. In the crossexamination, she has stated that demand of Rs. 1 lac was made from her as well as from her sister by the inlaws. PW6 /sister of the complainant has deposed that Shyam Kumar used to take complainant to parental house to ask her to talk about demand of Rs. 1 Lac for government job and to purchase a bike.
40. The father of complainant /PW2, in his evidence, has stated that one day Jyoti came and informed that accused and his family members were demanding more dowry and a bike. The father of the complainant has not stated that any amount of Rs. 1 Lac was demanded from complainant or that complainant informed about demand of Rs. 1 Lac.
41. The complainant has stated in examination that in pursuance of demand of Rs. 1 Lac, her father had given Rs. 35,000 to accused Shyam in presence of motherinlaw and jeth. During crossexamination, she has stated that amount of Rs. 35,000 was given to fatherinlaw and FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 17 of 25 PS Palam Village husband/ accused Shyam Kumar in presence of other family members.
42. PW2 father of complainant has deposed that he had given amount of Rs. 35,000 to father of accused namely Prabhu Dayal. However, the sister of complainant has deposed that amount of Rs. 35,000 was given to motherinlaw in presence of all family members at the matrimonial house. There are material contradictions in statements of witnesses as regards the person to whom amount of Rs. 35,000 was given.
43. The complainant has also alleged that on the day amount of Rs. 35,000 was given by her father to accused, accused said that he did not need Rs. 35,000 and he needed Rs. 1.5 Lac on which his father folded hands in front of accused and other family members.
44. As per the complainant, accused had demanded Rs. 1.5 Lac from her father on the same day when Rs. 35,000 was given. However, the father of the complainant has not deposed that any amount of Rs. 1.5 Lacs was demanded from him on that day or that any demand was ever made directly from him. As per the testimony of the father, the demands were made from complainant Jyoti and she used to inform about the demand.
FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 18 of 25PS Palam Village
45. The father of complainant has stated in examination that one day complainant came and informed that motherinlaw was pressurizing her to bring Rs. 1.5 lac and he stated that he was not in possession to fulfill the demand. The father has not stated that any demand was ever made from him directly at any point of time. The father has stated that Jyoti informed about demand of Rs. 1.5 Lacs being made by motherin law. However, the complainant has not stated that the motherinlaw ever demanded any amount from her.
46. The sister of complainant has also not stated that any demand of Rs. 1.5 Lac was made by accused on the day of handing over Rs. 35000 by her father. She has stated in examination that after few days handing over an amount of Rs. 35000, the accused had demanded Rs. 1.5 Lac.
47. All these contradictions in the statements of witnesses are material and it creates over doubt over the allegations that any demand of money was ever raised or that any amount was ever given to accused or any of his family members or that the complainant was harassed to fulfill the said demands.
48. The complainant has also alleged that she was mercilessly beaten on several days by accused due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and she was also left at the parental house. There is no medical FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 19 of 25 PS Palam Village document of the complainant to show that she was ever beaten or she got herself medically examined at government or private hospital for any injuries. In the crossexamination, the complainant has stated that she did not have any medical document regarding beatings. She has voluntarily stated that the documents were with the accused and the accused himself used to take her to hospital after beatings.
49. PW6/sister of complainant has stated, during crossexamination, that she did not have medical record with respect to beatings given to her and the complainant. She has voluntarily stated that she never made any complaint at that time and they used to be kept in house after beating.
50. There is contradiction in the statements of complainant and her sister as regards medical examination after alleged beatings. The complainant has stated that she was taken for medical examination by accused after alleged beating. However sister of complainant has stated that they used to be kept in the house. The contradiction is material in nature and there is nothing to show that due to alleged beating, complainant sustained any injury which was likely to cause grave injury to her body or mind.
51. The complainant has also alleged that she was thrown out of the FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 20 of 25 PS Palam Village matrimonial house on 15.02.2008 and thereafter, accused did not come to take her back to the matrimonial house and since then she is living at her parental house. The complainant has stated that on that day, mother inlaw, jeth Anil and fatherinlaw had abused her father and other family members. She was dragged outside the house by her motherin law and she (motherinlaw) asked her father to take her back to the parental home. She has specifically stated that at that time, her husband and husband of Sarita were not present at the house and they had gone to their office.
52. PW2 / father of complainant has stated that on 15.02.2008 when he had gone to matrimonial house of complainant alongwith Sarita and other family members, Ram Kumar, accused Shyam Kumar and their parents started quarreling with them and they had thrown out the complainant from the matrimonial house.
53. As per the statement of father of complainant, accused Shyam Kumar was present in the house on 15.02.2008 when complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house and he was also involved in throwing out the complainant from the matrimonial house. On the contrary, the complainant has stated that accused was not present in the matrimonial house when she was thrown out. There is contradiction in FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 21 of 25 PS Palam Village the statement of witnesses regarding the presence of accused Shyam Kumar at the time when complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house. The contradictions in the statement of witnesses create doubt over the allegation that the accused had thrown out the complainant from the matrimonial house or that complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house by any other family member of accused.
54. The other allegations made by the complainant are that accused did not come to see the child after birth or that he did not pay for medical expenses or that accused quarreled with her after coming to her parental house.
55. It is settled that for proving the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the complainant must make allegation of harassment to the extent so as to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand of dowry, or any willful conduct on the part of the accused 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. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the alleged acts of accused were of such a nature as was likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life. The alleged acts were also not to coerce her to fulfill any illegal demand. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 22 of 25 PS Palam Village aforesaid allegations are not covered under explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498A IPC.
56. The accused has examined himself in defence as DW1 and has deposed that he never harassed the complainant or harassed her to fulfill any demand. During crossexamination by Ld. APP, no question has been put up him about his statement that he never harassed the complainant or treated her with cruelty.
57. As observed above, the contradictions in the statements of complainant, her sister and father are material and it creates doubt over the allegations that the complainant was harassed by the accused to fulfill any illegal demand or she was subjected to cruelty which caused grave injury to her body or mind. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are not eye witnesses to the demand or harassment or fulfillment of demand.
58. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, that the accused has subjected the complainant to cruelty or harassed her to fulfill any illegal demand.
59. The accused has also been charged with offence punishable u/s FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 23 of 25 PS Palam Village 406 IPC.
60. In examination, the complainant has stated that her husband had taken all her istridhan and other articles and gave the same to the motherinlaw on the pretext of safe custody. The complainant has not deposed that her articles were kept by accused. The complainant has not mentioned any specific date or month when she had given her jewelery to accused and when he handed over the same to motherinlaw.
61. On the contrary, in complaint to CAW cell, the complainant has stated that her entire jewelery was taken by motherinlaw and accused used to demand money. There is no allegation of entrustment of jewelery with the accused in complaint Ex.PW1/B. There is no allegation in CAW Cell complaint that she had given the jewelery to the accused or that accused gave the same to her motherinlaw.
62. There is material contradiction in the statement made by the complainant in her complaint and in her evidence before the Court. Further, the sister of the complainant has stated that entire jewelery and valuable articles were lying with the motherinlaw. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubts that accused was ever entrusted with the istridhan of the complainant or that he converted the same to his own use.
FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 24 of 25PS Palam Village
63. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under sections 498A/406 IPC beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted of the charges alleged.
64. Bail bond and surety bond of accused u/s 437 A Cr. P.C. has been furnished with photograph and address proof, which has been considered and accepted. by NEHA Digitally signed NEHA Date:
2018.08.04 16:25:11 Pronounced in the open Court (NEHA) +0530 th On 04 August, 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02/Dwarka New Delhi FIR No. 58/10 State v. Shyam Kumar Page 25 of 25 PS Palam Village