Delhi District Court
State vs Sameer Lathar & Ors. on 12 May, 2016
STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
IN THE COURT OF Ms. BHAVNA KALIA,
METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT 01, (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Sameer Lathar & Ors.
FIR No. 531/98
P.S. Vasant Kunj
U/S 498A/406/34 IPC & section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act
CASE ID : 02403R0014501999
J U D G M E N T
1 Serial No. of the case : 457/2/08
2 Date of commission : 03.01.1998 till registration of FIR. 3 Date of institution of the case : 12.03.1999 4 Name of complainant : Ms. Jayanti D/o Sh. Jagat Singh Maan R/o H.No. 512, Sector23, Gurgaon Road, Haryana.
5 Name of accused persons : (I) Sameer Lathar S/o Sh. Mahender Singh Lathar
(ii) Kamal Lathar W/o Sh. Mahender Singh Lathar Both R/o Flat No. 4061BIV, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406 IPC & section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8 Arguments heard on : 08.04.2016.
9 Final order : Acquittal.
10 Date of judgment : 12.05.2016.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 1 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE PROSECUTION:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that SI Nirmal Sharma investigated the case on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant Jayanti. Complainant stated that she got legally married with the accused on 03.01.1998 at Claridges Hotel, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. Her husband and motherinlaw were unhappy with the dowry given in the marriage. On the wedding night, her motherinlaw came into her room at the hotel and asked her to remove all her jewellery which she took with her. Her husband was also told not to talk to her. On the next day, when she went to her matrimonial home, her motherinlaw did not behave with her properly and in a taunting way told her that her family had given very less dowry because of which they had lost their respect. Slowly they started harassing her for dowry. Her parents had spent almost Rs. 22 lakhs on the marriage out of which Rs. 1 lakh was spent on the engagement ceremony, money was spent on buying an Opal Astra car, Rs. 5 lakhs were spent on gold and diamond jewellery and Rs. 6 lakhs were given in cash. Amount of Rs. 1,65,000/ was also spent on marriage ceremony in Claridges Hotel. Complainant stated that she was mentally and physically tortured on small things. She did not say anything keeping the reputation of her parents in her mind. When she could not take it anymore, she called her parents on the phone and told them everything. Her brother and sisterinlaw brought some gifts on Holi and accused persons demanded Rs.20,00,000/ from them. Brother of complainant told them to keep Rs. 21,000/ which he had with himself and told them that their demand would be pondered over. After waiting for a few days, when no reply came from the parents of the complainant, on 18.03.1998 complainant was left at FIR No. 531/98 Page 2 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
her parental house by saying that till the demand was met, she should stay there only. She stayed at her parental house for almost two months. Her parents had no choice so they decided to gift a flat at P522, Sector30, Jalvayu Vihar Gurgaon and one agricultural land, value of which was Rs.10 lakh each. Her parents took her to her matrimonial home. After that, on the occasion of Teej, her in laws again demanded Rs. 51,000/ which they asked her to get from her parents. Her brother came and gave Rs. 11,000/. After that, as it was decided, the Power of Attorney of flat and land was given to the complainant and the papers were sent to her matrimonial home. After some time, she was told that the Power of Attorney should be given in the name of her husband. She was again and again told do so and was subjected to physical and mental torture. She was also not allowed to call her parents. She wrote letters and also called her parents and relatives to tell them about her condition. On 13.09.1998, her father called at her matrimonial house and told everyone not to trouble his daughter and that he would meet them on 14.09.1998. On 14.09.1998 as her father did not come, she was beaten and thrown out of the house in her bathroom slippers. She begged with the accused persons to let her stay as it was late at night and she could not go to her parental house alone at that time. She told them that she would ask her father to come the next day and they should let her spend the night there, but they did not listen to her and pushed her out of the house and closed the door behind her. She called her parents from an STD booth and they came to take her. She filed a complaint that legal action should be taken against accused Sameer Lathar and Kamal Lathar. She also filed complaint that accused Kamal Lathar may be directed to give her back Rs. 6 lakhs and her jewellery and accused persons may be directed not to use the Opal Astra Car and return the same to them. She further stated that all her istridhan may also be FIR No. 531/98 Page 3 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
directed to be returned. During investigation statement of witnesses were recorded, proof of marriage was obtained, the house of the accused was searched from where some articles were recovered and seized. Accused persons were arrested. Locker of motherinlaw of the complainant was also searched. Some articles and jewelery were recovered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Cognizance of the offence was taken.
Charge:
3. Charge was framed against accused Sameer Lathar and Kamla Lathar for offence u/s 498A/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 for subjecting the complainant to cruelty by harassing her to meet unlawful demand for dowry. Both accused persons were further charged for offence u/s 406/34 IPC for being entrusted with istridhan articles of the complainant and for not returning the same to her despite her demand.
Prosecution evidence:
4. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses to prove its case.
(a) PW 1 Complainant was examined on 16.04.2008. She stated that she had settled the matter with the accused persons and to save her matrimonial life, she did not want to depose anything against the accused persons. However, an application was filed u/s 311 Cr.P.C and complainant was recalled for her evidence. She then stated that She got legally married with the accused on 03.01.1998. Her parents had spent approximately Rs. 22 lakhs on the marriage. They had gifted one Opal Astra, Rs. 6 lakhs in cash for clothes etc, Rs.1 lakh for furniture items and gold costing Rs. 5 lakhs approximately at the time FIR No. 531/98 Page 4 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
of marriage. List of dowry articles was filed with the complaint vide Ex.PW1/B. List of dowry items prepared at the time of marriage is Ex.PW1/C. Complainant stated that her inlaws did not gift her anything at the time of marriage. On 04.01.1998, she joined her matrimonial home at Vasant Kunj and started residing there with her motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and husband. On the first night, her motherinlaw took away all the gold jewelery that she was wearing and she seemed a bit angry at that time. Next day when PW1 asked for her jewelery the same was not returned to her as she was told by her motherinlaw that her parents had not given expected dowry. Her motherinlaw asked her about her FD and Insurance papers and said that they had married her son to PW1 for money. She was further told by her motherinlaw that she was rural, illiterate and did not belong to a good family and if she did not get the requisite amount what would they do with her. Her husband told her to telephone her parents and ask them as to why they had given such less dowry. She telephoned her father and told him about the demand of FD and Insurance papers. Her father told her that there was no FD and the Insurance papers would be given to accused. On saying of accused, she called her brother to come on 09.01.1998 to talk to him. Her brother persuaded the accused not to harass and maltreat her. She was sent back to her parental house with her brother. On 10th when she came back to her matrimonial house, her husband asked her as to how much money she has brought. She told him that her parents were not financially capable to give more. Her husband was not satisfied. On his saying, she again telephoned her father on 12th. Her brother came to her matrimonial house as it was her birthday and on demand of accused, he gave Rs. 25,000/ to accused Sameer FIR No. 531/98 Page 5 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
and one gold chain to her. She said that she was mentally and physically harassed for dowry. Her husband and motherinlaw used to give her beatings and also abused her by saying that she was illiterate and rural. On the occasion of Holi, her brother gave Rs. 21,000/ to accused Kamal, though the demand was of Rs. 50,000/. Thereafter, there was a demand of Rs. 20 lakhs made by both the accused. On 13.03.1998 when the amount of Rs. 21,000/ was given, her brother had told the accused persons that he would go home and discuss about the further demand with his parents. On that night, at about 10pm when she was sitting in her room, both accused came into her room. Accused Kamal was drunk at that time and started abusing her. Her husband told her to leave the house. Her motherinlaw tried to beat her. She asked them to let her stay for the night. Next day, she tried to call her father, but she could not telephone him. When she took the dog outside as per routine, she made a call from the house of a friend and told her father about the incident. Her father told her that he would discuss about the demand of Rs.20 lakhs and then call her. On 18.03.1998, the accused persons took her to her parental house and told her that only once the demand is fulfilled, they would take her back. Her husband telephoned her to ask her as to what had happened about the demand and whether she wanted to return to her matrimonial home. After discussion, her parents gave one flat at Jalvayu Vihar, Gurgaon and 1.5 acres farm to accused. Power of Attorney (POA) was made in her name to which her husband said that since the land and flat were not in his name what would he do with the same. Her father told accused Sameer that he could do no more. In June 1998, her husband took her to her matrimonial home on the condition that Rs. 10 FIR No. 531/98 Page 6 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
lakhs will be given later and POA would be handed over to him. For 56 days, she was Ok at her matrimonial home, but thereafter, she was again harassed both mentally and physically by both the accused. When her husband used to go in the morning, her motherinlaw would taunt her and when he would come back, he would join his mother to harass PW1. On the festival of Teej, sometimes in August 1998, there was further demand of Rs. 51,000/ made by her motherinlaw, but her brother could give only Rs. 11,000/. Accused persons were not satisfied. She was continuously tortured like this. Though she wanted to study further and do course of fashion designing, her husband and motherinlaw refused. Her brother got her enrolled in fashion designing course. Sometimes she used to write and post letters secretly to her parents and uncle about the maltreatment and two such letters are Ex.PW1/D dated 18.02.1998 and Ex. PW1/E dated 18.07.1998. On 13.09.1998 her motherinlaw and husband gave her beatings, abused her in filthy language and told her that they did not wish to keep her as she was not bringing sufficient money. On 14.09.1998, in the evening, her husband slapped her and gave her hand and fist blows and turned her out of the matrimonial house in the clothes and bathroom slippers, she was wearing. She called her brother from a public booth and sat at the gate of the market. Her mother and brother came to take her. Thereafter, she did not return to her matrimonial home and started staying with her parents. She approached CAW Cell and filed complaint Ex.PW1/A. All her istridhan remained at her matrimonial house. After registration of FIR, some of her istridhan had been recovered by the police at her instance vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. The locker of bank had been seized vide memo Ex.PW1/G. She said FIR No. 531/98 Page 7 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
that jewelery of Rs. 5 lakh was purchased on the choice of accused Kamal. On 14.09.1998, when she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, her dowry articles and FD of 1 lakh remained in the possession of accused persons. She had brought jewelery articles seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/6 and they were exhibited as Ex.PW1 to PW10 in court. She stated that these were the articles which were with her when she entered the matrimonial house and they were taken by accused Kamal on the night of the marriage and the same were recovered from the locker by the police. She had stated that she had recorded certain conversations of both accused persons (however the same are not exhibited). She stated that she had brought acknowledgment given by her fatherinlaw in respect of expenses incurred by them on ring ceremony and bill of Claridges Hotel and also brought cassette and its transcription (however, the same were not exhibited). She stated that jewelery of Rs. 5 lakhs was purchased by her, her brother and both accused from the South Delhi, but she did not remember the shops from where the said jewelery was purchased. On 14.09.1998 when she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, all her dowry articles and FD of Rs. 1 lakh remained in possession of accused persons.
During cross examination, PW1 stated that she did not know prior to her marriage that accused Sameer was selected for Civil Services. She said that during her meetings with her husband prior to marriage, accused Sameer told to get whatever she could from her parental house as once her father expired, she would not be given anything. She said that she told her family about the same, but could not FIR No. 531/98 Page 8 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
remember exactly to whom she said the same. She said that she told the police, but on confrontation with Ex.PW1/A, she said that the same was not mentioned. When statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was shown and read to the witness, the same was not mentioned there also. She said that she did not remember whether her husband joined civil services prior to marriage, but she again said that her husband was already working in civil services. She said that she did not remember whether her brother accompanied accused to Jaipur on 01.09.1997. She denied the suggestion that accused Sameer told her that before marriage that during probation, he would be undergoing training at various offices all over the country. The same was told to her after marriage. She said that she was not told by accused Sameer that during probation, he would not get leave. She voluntarily stated that she was informed by accused Sameer that he would visit his home at weekends as he was posted in Faridabad. She said that accused Sameer had not taken her for honeymoon. She denied the suggestion that after her marriage, she started putting pressure on accused Sameer for going on honeymoon and when he explained that he could not get leave, she quarreled with him and became disrespectful towards both accused. She admitted that the probation period of accused Sameer started from 05.01.1998 and at that time, the training was fulltime and residential. She denied the suggestion that her husband used to visit her over the weekend to make her feel loved and settled. She said that he used to visit on the advice of his mother. She denied the suggestion that on 18.03.1998 she left her matrimonial home with her brother on her free will without informing the accused persons. She denied that on 18.03.1998 accused Sameer was at Faridabad. She said that she was at Vasant FIR No. 531/98 Page 9 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
Kunj. She denied the suggestion that she left the house by taking her jewelery and other articles with her. She denied the suggestion that when her husband called her over the weekend, she used abusive language on the telephone and told him that she was not interested to remain with him. She admitted that after 18.03.1998, she joined her matrimonial home for about 2 months, but she denied the suggestion that she used to leave the same with her brother on and off. She denied the suggestion that on 28.06.1998, when accused Sameer tried to make her understand, she became so agitated that she went to the kitchen and pulled out the gas pipe and threatened to kill herself. She denied the suggestion that her husband used to apologize to her when she used to be in a fit of temper. She said that on 14.09.1998, she came to her parental house after she was thrown out after beatings by accused persons. She said that she did not remember whether she got herself medically examined or whether she made complaint to the police. She denied the suggestion that on 15.09.1998, when the accused persons visited her uncle/Chacha at Gurgaon, they were insulted and humiliated by her Chacha, brother and other family members. She admitted that a complaint was also made to the police. She denied the suggestion that her main objective for registration of case was to spoil the career of accused Sameer. She said that she did not remember that on 19.09.1998, one Opal Astra Car and other articles were recovered from the accused persons. She said that gold articles were recovered from the locker of accused Kamal. She denied the suggestion that the said jewelery belonged to accused Kamal. She said that she did not remember whether Opal Astra car was in the name of her father. She denied the suggestion that accused persons FIR No. 531/98 Page 10 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
had never demanded anything before or after marriage. She said that she made efforts to compromise the matter, but after 14.09.1998 she did not remain with accused Sameer. Witness was shown certain photographs Ex.P1 to P11 and P13 and P14, but she denied the suggestion that the photographs were taken after the compromise was effected. On Ex.P14, date is 12.02.1999, but PW 1 stated that she was unable to see the date. Photograph Ex.P15 dated 04.10.1998 was shown to the witness, which she admitted. She denied the suggestion that she resided at her matrimonial home till 03.03.1999 and after that she left the house without informing anyone. She said that she could not admit or deny whether any missing report was lodged at PS Vasant Kunj by accused Sameer vide DD no. 19A dated 03.03.1999. She denied the suggestion that after compromise on 26.09.1998, the Opal Astra car was taken on superdari and was again handed over to accused persons and in this car she alongwith accused Sameer visited Shimla. She said that she did not know whether the said car was got serviced by the accused in Regent Automobile on 24.10.2000 and the bill was paid by him through Credit Card. She said that she had knowledge about the stealing of the car, but she was not aware of the registration of FIR. She said that she did not know the source of Rs. 22 lakhs spent by her father on her marriage. She denied that hotel bill of Claridges of Rs.1,65,000/ was equally borne by the parties. She admitted that accused Sameer used to write letters to her from Faridabad and she also wrote letters to him once or twice. She did not remember whether accused Sameer was posted to Delhi in September 1999. She denied the suggestion that she had not mentioned specific date about her cruelty in complaint Ex.PW1/A. She admitted that she FIR No. 531/98 Page 11 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
did not mention in Ex.PW1/A, as to when she informed her parents about the harassment. She admitted that she did not mention in Ex.PW1/A that her brother visited her in laws on 09.01.1998. She said that the same was mentioned in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. She admitted that she did not mention in Ex.PW1/A the incident dated 12.01.1998. She admitted that she did not mention in Ex.PW1/A that one day, prior to 18.03.1998, she was beaten by accused persons. She said that she did not know whether any GPA was made in favour of accused persons for transfer of flat and farmhouse. She said that she was a law graduate. She admitted that her husband had filed the divorce petition against her, but she could not tell the details. She said that she had not contested the same. She said that she did not know whether the said petition was proceeded exparte and judgment was pronounced on 16.07.2003 in favour of accused Sameer on the ground of cruelty. She said that she did not know whether her brother had filed complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C against Dr. M.S. Lathar and Sudhir Lathar. She admitted that a quarrel had taken place. She said that she did not know that all the cases filed by her brother against family of accused persons were dismissed by the courts. She admitted that she had taken admission in fashion designing course at South Extension, which was regular and full time and she used to leave the house at about 7/8 am and used to return back at around 2.00 pm. She denied the suggestion that she wrote letters to her parents in connivance with her parents and brother. She denied the suggestion that there was no need to write letters as there was landline telephone at her matrimonial and parental house. She said that the telephone at her matrimonial house used to be locked. She said that she did not remember as to whom she FIR No. 531/98 Page 12 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
had told about the taking away of jewelry by accused Kamal. She said that she had stated the same to police, but when confronted with Ex.PW1/A and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the same was not recorded. She said that she had mentioned about the letters in her complaint Ex.PW1/A, but on confrontation, the same was not recorded. She said that on 16.04.2003, she had stated in the court that she did not have any grievances against the accused. She denied the suggestion that the matter was never at the stage of compromise and the statement was made out of her free will and consent. She said that she did not remember whether she had written complaints to the office of accused or other agencies against accused persons. She again said that she wrote complaints. She denied the suggestion that the same were written with the motive to take revenge and to harass the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that Dr. M.S. Lathar wrote a letter to Commissioner of Police on 14.06.2001 about apprehension of his life and life of his family member. She denied the suggestion that accused persons did not misappropriate her istridhan. She denied the suggestion that she was after marriage, welcomed in her matrimonial house and she was never harassed. She denied that she was guilty of matrimonial wrongs and that her complaint is false and manipulated. She denied the suggestion that all her jewelery and other articles were already in her possession. She denied that present case was lodged without any inquiry in CAW Cell. She denied the suggestion that nothing was demanded prior to or subsequently after the marriage. She denied that no flat or land was demanded by accused persons and the same was never transferred in their name. She denied the suggestion that articles Ex.P1 to P10 belonged to accused Kamal, which were FIR No. 531/98 Page 13 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
recovered from her locker. Witness brought certain articles before the court. Receipt dated 05.02.1997 Ex.PW1/D1 of gold necklace with diamond and ruby was shown to the witness and she stated that she was not aware about the same. She denied the suggestion that the said necklace belonged to accused Kamal.
(b) PW 2 HC Jagat Singh stated that he joined the investigation on 19.09.1998 with SI Nirmal, Ct. Somlata, Ct. Vinod and complainant and her brother. They visited the house of accused, where they met accused Sameer and his mother Kamal and IO took possession of some stridhan articles and sealed the same and thereafter, the stridhan was deposited at Malkahan.
(c) PW 3 HC Surender Singh stated that on 19.09.1998 he joined the investigation with IO lady SI Nirmal and they reached the house of the accused and arrested accused Sameer and his mother Kamal. IO recovered some istridhan articles and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/F.
(d) PW 4 Lady Ct. Santosh stated that on 17.09.1998, complainant came at CAW Cell and handed over a wedding card Mark P7, photocopy of marriage photographs Mark P1 to P4, some documents of the vehicle Mark P8 to P15 and photocopy of the two letters Mark P5 and P6 which were seized by IO SI Nirmal vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. FIR No. 531/98 Page 14 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
(e) PW 5 W/HC Som Lata stated that on 19.09.1998, she joined investigation with IO SI Nirmal Sharma and they reached at the house of the accused where at the instance of complainant, IO recovered dowry articles and seized the same. Accused Kamal was arrested.
During cross examination, she stated that as per her knowledge only accused Kamal Lather was arrested on that day, but she was not aware whether she signed the arrest memo of accused or not. She also could not tell whether any other documents except seizure memo was signed by her or not on that day.
(f) PW 6 Sh. Ram Mehar, uncle of the complainant stated that on 03.01.1998 after solemnization of marriage with accused Sameer Lather, his niece went to her matrimonial house. After marriage, he came to know that her motherinlaw and husband were demanding money, property etc. He negotiated the matter with the in laws of his niece and told them that they will fulfill their demands. After two months, he came to know through his brother that in laws of his niece had dropped her at her parental home at Mahipal Pur on 18.03.1998. His brother was told by accused persons that they had dropped PW 1 at her house as demand was not fulfilled. Thereafter, one flat and farm amounting to Rs. 22 lakhs were given, but due to harassment, PW 1 was thrown out.
During cross examination, he stated that he was told about Rs. 20 lakhs by PW 1 on 18.03.1998. He never went to the police. He stated that the possession of flat and farm were given to accused persons, but FIR No. 531/98 Page 15 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
were in possession of PW 1 presently.
(g) PW7 SI Nirmal Sharma stated that she was posted at CAW Cell as SI on 17.09.1998. Investigation was marked to her and during investigation, she seized istridhan articles of complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/F which were released to complainant on superdari. She also seized jewelery articles from locker at SBI, Mahipal Pur vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G and said jewelery articles were handed over to complainant. She filed the chargesheet.
During cross examination, she stated that she recovered stridhan articles in front of the complainant at her instance. She stated that she had not obtained any medical documents of any physical injuries caused to the complainant on account of cruelty. She stated that she inquired from PCO Booth from where the complainant had called her family on 14.09.1998, but the PCO owner had stated his unawareness.
(h) PW 8 Jitender Singh Maan, brother of complainant stated that after one or two days of marriage, PW1 returned home and told him that all her jewelery articles were taken by both the accused and kept in a locker. After some time, she went to her matrimonial home. On Makar Sakranti festival, accused persons demanded Rs. 21,000/ each, which was given by him in cash. PW1 told him that accused persons wanted more dowry. PW1 used to tell him and their father on phone that she was being harassed and beaten up for dowry. On Holi, when he and his wife visited PW1 at her matrimonial home, accused persons demanded Rs. 20 lakhs from them. Rs. 21,000/ was given to accused Kamal.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 16 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
Possession of one flat at Jalvayu Vihar was transferred in the name of PW1 and PW1 informed him that accused Sameer was pressurizing her to transfer the said flat in his name and she was tortured for the same. On 14.09.1998, he was informed by his father that PW1 was thrown out of her house and he found her near an STD booth in bathroom slippers. He brought her back at home.
During cross examination, he stated that he did not know whether his father handed over any documentary proof regarding arranging of funds for marriage. He admitted that Opal Astra car gifted to his sister was registered in the name of his father. He denied the suggestion that jewelery articles were kept in the locker for safety and the same were handed over willingly to PW1. He stated that he had given Rs. 21,000/ to accused persons on the occasions of Makar Sakranti and Holi as the same was given by his father. He said that he had no knowledge about any documentary evidence for transfer of flat in the name of PW1. He said that he did not remember whether he had filed any complaint with the police regarding conduct of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C:
5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons.
Accused persons stated that the evidence was false and given to falsely implicate them. Accused Sameer stated that younger brother of complainant had compelled her to file the case to harass him and damage his career. He said that other cases have been filed against his family members, which have all been dismissed by various courts. Accused Kamal stated that complainant FIR No. 531/98 Page 17 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
had taken all her istridhan articles and some of her jewelery also.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
6. Five witnesses have been examined in defence evidence.
(a) DW 1 stated that he was brother of accused Kamal and used to regularly visit the accused persons. He stated that he had heard about the disputes between PW1/complainant and accused Sameer. PW1 had expressed her desire to live with accused Sameer as he was undergoing training. PW1 appeared immature as accused Sameer was not allowed to bring his family during training.
There was never any demand raised by accused persons and they had never committed any cruelty upon PW1. He stated that it was due to immaturity and lack of understanding and difference in intellect between PW1 and accused persons and also a difference in their background due to which, they were not compatible. Accused Kamal had got the complainant enrolled in fashion designing course so that she could be busy.
During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused persons had demanded Rs. 22 lakhs from PW1. He denied that a flat or land were ever transferred in the name of PW1 and possession of the same was given to the accused persons. He denied that accused was admitted in fashion designing course by his brother. He denied that on 13.09.1998, accused persons gave beatings to complainant and on 14.09.1998 they threw PW 1 out of the matrimonial home. He denied that accused persons were not FIR No. 531/98 Page 18 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
supportive to PW1.
(b) DW 2 Raj Gupta said that he knew the family of accused persons since 1992. He said that he has not seen unpleasantness in the family or any demand for dowry or any sought of harassment. He said that PW1 and accused Sameer had good relation and he did not know of any major issues.
During cross examination, he denied that accused persons used to harass PW1 and used to demand dowry from her.
(c) DW 3 K.C. Sharma stated that he had family relations with accused persons and he used to visit them often as father of accused Sameer used to work in his charitable hospital as doctor. He also deposed on the same lines as DW 2. He also later came to know that a criminal case was lodged against the accused persons.
(d) DW 4 Sh. Jagdeep Singh said that he knew both accused since school days of accused Sameer. He said that both are peace loving citizens and are innocent. He said that after compromise, accused Sameer went on vacation with PW1, but later on he came to know that they had separated.
During cross examination, he stated that though he visited the accused persons 45 times after marriage, complainant never told him about any problems neither did he make any inquiry.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 19 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
(e) DW 5 Sh. Mahavir Singh said that he was maternal uncle/Mama of accused Sameer. He said that he had brought the proposal for marriage and he did not see any dispute between accused Sameer and complainant whenever he visited their house in the first 6 months of marriage. After six months, when he used to visit, PW 1 would tell him that accused Sameer was not taking her to his place of posting. Even when she was told that accused could not take her and she had to adjust for one year, she did not get convinced. He tried to sort out the dispute, but no result came out. He came to know that complaint was filed. He stated that the allegations are baseless and accused persons have been falsely implicated.
During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that accused persons harassed PW1 for dowry and that he had witnessed the harassments.
LEGAL PROVISIONS TO BE SEEN.
7. Accused persons have been charged for offence u/s 498A/406 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Section 498A IPC provides punishment for subjecting a woman to cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband. A bare perusal of the section shows that the word cruelty encompasses any of the following elements:
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or
(b) Any willful conduct which is likely to cause grave physical or mental FIR No. 531/98 Page 20 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
injury to the woman; or
(c) Any willful act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental of the woman.
(d) Any harassment of the woman with a view to meet any unlawful demand for dowry.
In order to prove the offence under this section the prosecution has to prove that;
a) The accused is the husband or the relative of the husband of the victim woman; and
b) He subjected the woman to cruelty as stated in Section 498A IPC.
Section 406 IPC punishes criminal breach of trust. Entrustment of property and its misappropriation by the accused are essential ingredients of this section.
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides penalty for demanding dowry. Dowry is defined in the Act as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party or by their parents.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
8. It is not disputed that the parties got married on 03.01.1998. This fact is established. For other allegations, evidence has been perused On perusal of evidence, the following observations/ contradictions are seen:
FIR No. 531/98 Page 21 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
(a) The most important witness is PW1. She stated that her parents had spent almost Rs. 22 lakhs on marriage. A list of dowry items Ex. PW1/B was filed with her complaint and list of dowry articles which was prepared at the time of marriage is Ex.PW1/C. The list Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C have been perused. In list Ex.PW1/C long set (Rani Har), one gold ring, two chains, diamond Ruby set, diamond Mangalsutra, two Cartyal Kadas, four bangles and two Kadas with white platinum polish, one diamond ring, five rings + three rings have been mentioned in addition to the items mentioned in Ex. PW1/B. Some clothes including Sarees, blankets and shawls have been mentioned in both the lists. Thus, it appears that Ex.PW1/C, which was prepared at the time of marriage, includes the list of gifts and items which were given by the parents of PW1. The list Ex.PW1/B which was prepared by complainant and filed by her with her complaint includes a lot many other items. On comparison of both the lists, it appears that the complainant was either given these items by her inlaws or has included these items on her own whims in list Ex.PW1/B. Thus, her statement that her inlaws had not gifted her anything at the time of marriage is incorrect or the items taken by her on superdari included the items of her motherinlaw. Items which included certain gold jewellery brought by the witness to court were exhibited as Ex. P1 to P10. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/6. The list Ex.PW1/6 is different from the list Ex.PW1/C. Thus, it is clear that the items that were released to the complainant did not entirely belong to her. During her cross examination, suggestion was put to her that articles Ex.P1 to P10 belonged to accused Kamal, which were recovered from her locker, which PW1 denied. Receipt dated 05.02.1997 Ex.PW1/D1 of gold necklace with diamond and ruby was also shown to the witness and she stated that she was not aware about the same. She denied the suggestion that the said necklace FIR No. 531/98 Page 22 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
belonged to accused Kamal. The said denial is untrue after comparison of all the lists. PW 1 had stated that on 04.01.1998 she had asked accused Kamal for return of her jewelery, but it was refused by accused Kamal by saying that her parents had not given enough dowry. Considering the above discussion, it cannot be said that the jewelery belonged to the complainant. If she had asked anything from her motherinlaw after one day of her marriage, it shows her distrust in the accused persons which should not have been there considering that on 04.01.1998 she was married for only one day. It demolishes the credibility of the witness.
(b) Complainant stated that her parents had given one Opal Astra car, Rs. 6 lakhs for clothes, Rs.1 lakh for furniture and gold costing Rs.5 lakhs alongwith Rs. 35,000/ in cash, for watch. The same is mentioned in the list Ex.PW1/C. However, it is stated therein that the Opal Astra Car was in the name of father of PW1. PW8 had also stated the Opal Astra car which was gifted to accused, was registered in the name of his father. Thus, it becomes clear that the Opal Astra car was a gift made during marriage and the same remained registered in the name of father of the complainant. However, during cross examination of PW1, it was put to her that her brother lodged FIR regarding theft of Opal Astra car, but she stated that she did not know anything about it. She also stated that she did not know whether the said car was got serviced in Regent Automobile Ltd. on 24.10.2000 and the bill was paid by her husband through his credit card. Thus, it is established that the Opal Astra car was made as a gift to the accused, but the registration remained in the name of the father. It is further clear that since parties were aware that the Opal Astra car was in possession of the accused, an FIR was still registered against accused Sameer for stealing the car. It shows the illintent of the complainant and her FIR No. 531/98 Page 23 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
family to involve the accused in false case. Suggestion was also put to PW1 and PW8 that they had involved the accused and his family in false cases, which was denied by them. It demolishes the credibility of the witness.
(c) PW 1 stated that after her marriage, she joined her matrimonial home at Vasant Kunj and started residing there with her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and husband. The witness has not stated anywhere in her examinationin chief that her husband was undergoing residential training at Faridabad after his selection in the Civil Services. During cross examination, she stated that she did not know prior to marriage that accused Sameer was selected for Civil Services. However, she said again that on the date of marriage, accused Sameer was already working in Civil Services. She denied the suggestion that prior to the marriage, accused Sameer had disclosed to her that during probation, he would be undergoing training all over the country. She said that she was not told by accused Sameer that he would not get leave during probation. She was informed that he would visit home at weekends and he used to visit accordingly. During oral arguments, counsel for accused persons had stated that the same was the actual bone of contention between the parties and the complainant was unhappy about the fact that accused was not keeping her with him. She admitted that probation period of accused Sameer had started from 05.01.1998 and the same was fulltime and residential. She denied that her husband used to come home over weekends to make her feel love and settled. She said that she could not remember whether accused Sameer was posted to Delhi in September 1999. Considering that accused Sameer was undergoing full time residential training at Faridabad for civil services, the entire case of the complainant/ prosecution comes under doubt.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 24 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
(d) In her examination in chief, PW 1 stated that she was continuously harassed mentally and physically by the accused persons for dowry demand. She stated that when her husband used to go in the morning, her motherin law used to taunt her and when her husband would come back, he would join his mother. This statement of complainant appears to be absolutely untrue considering that she had herself admitted that accused Sameer was undergoing residential and fulltime training after marriage at Faridabad and he used to visit her only on weekends. It is also clear that accused Sameer did not get leave during the probation period. In her cross examination, she has also admitted that after marriage while she was residing at her matrimonial house, she had taken admission in fashion designing course at South Extension and the course was regular and fulltime from about 7/8 am to 2 pm. Considering that the complainant was enrolled in fulltime course and used to go to attend the course, it cannot be said that her inlaws did not give her the liberty and freedom to do what she desired and she was continuously harrassed. Further, since she used to go out of the house everyday to attend the course, it is not possible to believe that the accused persons used to torture her for dowry at all times. PW1, as per her own admission, remained out of the house for a good part of the day and accused Sameer, as has been established, was mostly at Faridabad. Thus, complainant's case comes under doubt.
(e) PW 1 has further stated that she could not call her parents regularly from her landline phone as the same used to be locked and therefore, she had to write secret letters to her parents and uncle informing them about her condition. Considering that the complainant had full liberty and used to go out of the house for her fashion designing course, she had full access to FIR No. 531/98 Page 25 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
telephones and she could call her parents at any time from a public phone. There was no need for her to write letters secretly. It appears that the complainant only wanted to create written documents with the intention of creating proof against the accused persons.
(f) PW 1 stated that accused Kamal had asked her about her FD and Insurance papers and accused Sameer had asked her to call her parents for the same. Her father had told her that there was no FD in her name. However, later in her examinationinchief, she had stated that on 14.09.1998 when she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, all her dowry articles and FD of Rs. 1 lakh remained in the possession of both accused. Complainant has contradicted herself on this point considering that her father had told her that there was no FD in her name.
(g) PW 1 has further stated that on 09.01.1998, she was sent with her brother to her parental house and on 10.01.1998, she came back. Considering that the said date is after 6 days of the marriage, it cannot be taken that complainant was sent to her parental house against her wishes. As per Indian traditions, a new bride is usually sent back to her parental house after marriage. PW 1 further stated that on 10.01.1998, when she came back, she was asked by accused Sameer as to how much she had brought. The same has not been stated by her in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. Thus, it appears that the same has been added later on in her examinationinchief. In any case asking of accused as to how much money she had brought does not amount to any demand for dowry. She said that her husband did not appear satisfied on her saying that her father had given enough. She called her father again and on 12.01.1998, her brother came on her birthday and on demand of FIR No. 531/98 Page 26 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
accused, gave him Rs. 25,000/ and one gold chain to PW1. The said fact is not stated in complaint Ex. PW1/A and appears to be an improvement. During her cross examination, she admitted that she did not mention the incident of 12.01.1998 in her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Considering that the same is an improvement, it cannot be relied upon. PW8 also stated that on Makar Sakranti festival, accused persons demanded Rs. 21,000/ each, which was given by him in cash. There is discrepancy in statements of PW1 and PW8 regarding the amount, hence casts doubt on the veracity of their statements.
(h) PW 1 stated that on the festival of Holi, Rs. 21,000/ was given by her brother to accused Kamal though demand was for Rs. 50,000/. The complainant has not stated anywhere as to when the demand for Rs. 50,000/ was made. Further, PW8 had not stated that there was any demend for Rs. 50,000/. He just said that he had handed over Rs. 21,000/ to accused Kamal. During her cross examination also, PW1 admitted that she had not mentioned in Ex.PW1/A specifically the name of accused to whom the sum of Rs. 21,000/ was handed over. Considering that PW1 failed to state as to when the demand for Rs. 50,000/ was made and also considering that PW8 did not state that there was ever a demand for Rs. 50,000/, it is difficult to believe that there was ever a demand for Rs. 50,000/. Also considering that the complainant is an unreliable witness, her statement cannot be relied upon.
(I) PW1 stated that thereafter, there was general demand for Rs. 20 lakhs made by the accused persons. On 13.03.1998, at about 10 pm both accused persons abused her and told her to leave the house. On her request, they let her stay. She stated that on 18.03.1998, both the accused persons took her to her parental house and told her that they would not bring her back till the FIR No. 531/98 Page 27 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
matter of Rs. 20 lakhs solved. She denied the suggestion that on 18.03.1998, accused Sameer was at Faridabad. The Calendar for March 1998 has been seen in which 18.03.1998 was a Wednesday. Thus, it is possible that accused Sameer was at Faridabad. It raises doubt regarding the statement of the complainant as 18.3.1998 was a Wednesday and as admitted, accused Sameer was undergoing residential and full time training there.
(j) PW1 stated that thereafter, one flat at Jalvayu Vihar and 1.5 acres of farm land were given to the complainant on POA. She and PW8 stated that PW1 was pressurized for transferring the said flat and land in the name of accused Sameer. The fact remains that the flat and land were never transferred in the name of the accused persons and always remained in possession/ ownership of complainant. The said incident appears to be a one off incident and it is clear from the evidence that no flat and / or land were ever transferred in the name of the accused persons. Even if the incident happened, or even if there was a one off demand, it cannot be said that there was continuous demand for dowry for which the complainant was harassed. As per complainant's own admission in her examinationin chief, on 18.03.1998, the accused persons took her to her parental house and told her that only once the demand is fulfilled, they would take her back and she was brought back on June, 1998. It means that for almost 3 months the complainant was at her parental house, hence when the harassment? She stated that her husband telephoned her and asked her whether she wanted to return to her matrimonial home. It means that her husband wanted her at the matrimonial house. PW1's father transferred flat and land in name of PW1 and told accused Sameer that he could do no more. If PW1 was actually being harassed for dowry, her father would have transferred the flat and land in name of accused and not FIR No. 531/98 Page 28 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
complainant to save her marriage. It is difficult to believe the complainant's story. The allegation of harassment also appears to be untrue as accused Sameer was undergoing residential training and complainant had also full liberty to go for her fashion designing course. While the complainant went out for her course, she did not file any complaint or inform anyone about the harassment. She had stated that she was beaten also but she has filed no medical on record and she could have easily gotten her medical done considering that she had the opportunity to go out of the house. As per her, her brother and sisterinlaw also used to come often to meet her. They also never took her for any medical. It brings the prosecution story under doubt.
(j) She said that on the festival of Teez, again demand was made for Rs. 51,000/and her brother gave Rs. 11,000/. Since the complainant has stated that all these demands were made during festivals and partly fulfilled then, it appears that the amount, if given at all, was given as Shagun to the accused persons, which is in keeping with the Indian customs. Even if considering that the amount was demanded by accused persons, it cannot be considered to be a continuous demand for which the complainant was harassed. As discussed above, it does not appear that the complainant was actually harassed.
(j) PW 1 stated that on 13.09.1998, both accused gave her beatings and abused her and on 14.09.1998, accused Sameer, after giving her beatings, and threw her out of the house. She called her parents from public booth and her brother and mother picked her up. PW8 stated that only he came to pick her up. Thus, there is contradiction in statement of both the witnesses.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 29 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
(k) PW 1 also stated that she had purchased jewelery worth Rs. 5 lakhs herself alongwith her accused Kamal and others, from South Delhi, but she did not remember the shop. It is difficult to believe that a woman who has purchased the jewelery herself for herself is not able to remember the shop from which the said was purchased. The complainant has also given details of the jewelery at length. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that she did not remember the shop from which it was purchased.
(l) During cross examination, PW 1 denied that after marriage, since she was not taken for honeymoon, she started putting pressure on accused Sameer for taking her for honeymoon and when he explained that he could not take her due to service conditions pertaining to leave, she quarreled with both accused. It is possible that PW1 was unhappy on this count with accused Sameer.
(m) PW1 denied the suggestion that after June 1998, she used to leave her matrimonial house on and off with her brother. PW1 further denied the suggestion that she used to have a bad temper and would threaten to kill herself. She denied the suggestion that the motive for registration of present FIR was to spoil career of accused Sameer. The said suggestions have not been proved. However, complainant admittted that her brother and sisterin law used to visit her often.
(n) She stated that on 26.09.1998, there was no compromise between her and her husband and it was her who made the efforts to make the compromise. But, after 14.09.1998 she never stayed with her husband. Some photographs were put to her Ex.P1 to P12 and she admitted that they were of FIR No. 531/98 Page 30 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
their tour to Shimla. She admitted that they had gone to Shimla in the Opal Astra car. She denied that the photographs were taken after 26.09.1998 when the compromise was effected. She denied that Ex.P13 was the photograph of Holi in the year 1999. When photograph Ex.P14 was shown to her, she admitted the same and the date on it was mentioned as 12.02.1999 and court also observed the same. She admitted that on photograph Ex.P15, the date is mentioned as 14.10.1998. Similarly, other photographs were shown to the witness, which were admitted by her. She denied the suggestion that she stayed at her matrimonial house till 03.03.1999 and thereafter, she left without informing anyone for which her husband had also filed a missing complaint with police. Considering that the witness admitted the photographs on which the date was mentioned as 12.02.1999, it appears that complainant was very much together with accused Sameer and they had gone to Shimla together after 14.9.1998. Thus, the statement of the complainant that she and accused did not stay together after 14.9.1998 is untrue.
(n) During cross examination, PW1 stated that she did not want to disclose her educational qualifications, but she said that she was a law graduate. She admitted that her husband had filed a divorce petition against her which she had not contested as she had no money. She said that she did not remember whether she initially contested the petition. She further said that she did not know whether the decree was given exparte to accused Sameer on ground of cruelty. Considering that parties have been divorced and decree is in favour of accused Sameer on the ground of cruelty, the same becomes substantial evidence against the complainant.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 31 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
(o) Witness was confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/A regarding the landline phone, taking away of her jewelery by accused Kamal and writing of letters to her parents, but none of it was mentioned in Ex.PW1/A. She admitted that on 16.04.12003, she had stated that she did not want to depose anything against the accused as matter was under compromise. She denied the suggestion that the matter was never under compromise and she made the statement of her own free will. She denied the suggestion that she was properly welcomed into her matrimonial house after the marriage. She admitted photographs P22 to P28. On perusal of the photographs, it appears that the complainant is happy and it looks that she was welcomed into the family.
(p) PW1 said she could not remember whether she filed complaint against the accused to various authorities. But she had again said that she had written the complaints, but she could not remember the agencies to whom the complaints were written. She denied that she wanted to take revenge from the accused persons and wanted to humiliate them. Considering that complainant did write letters to various authorities against accused, it appears that she wanted to humiliate the accused and harass him.
(q) PW 6 is the uncle of the complainant and his evidence is more of in the nature of hearsay evidence.
(r) Evidence of PW8 is also in the nature of hearsay evidence as he has stated that most of the things were told to him by the complainant and he had not witnessed demand for dowry or the harassment. He has stated only one FIR No. 531/98 Page 32 of 34 STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
incident of Makar Sakranti where accused persons demanded Rs. 21,000/ for each of them. Complainant has not stated the same. She has stated that Rs. 21,000/ was given on Holi to accused Kamal though demand of Rs. 50,000/ was made. PW 8 stated that on occasion of Holi, accused persons demanded Rs. 20 lakhs, but he gave Rs. 21,000/ to accused Kamal. PW 8 also stated that possession of one flat was transferred in the name of PW 1. During cross examination, he stated that his father had sourced money for marriage expenses from his savings and partly from taking loans from friends and relatives. During cross examination, he stated that he had gone alone to bring his sister from her matrimonial home. However, PW 1 had stated that her brother and mother had come. Thus, there appears to be contradiction in the statement of PW1 and PW8. He admitted that PW 1 had remarried and had children out of the second marriage. Thus, it is clear that PW1 has moved on with her life.
(s) Defence witnesses have stated in their examinationinchief and examination in cross that they did not witness any dispute between the accused persons and complainant and there appeared to be no harassment or dowry demand. DW 4 had stated that there was a compromise between the families and after the compromise accused Sameer and Complainant went to Shimla. In March 1999, accused Sameer had told DW 4 that his wife had left the matrimonial house. DW 4 in his cross examination stated that he visited the house of the accused 45 times after the marriage, but the complainant never told him about any harassment. From the evidence of defence witness, it appears that there were certain disputes between the parties but there was no dowry demand.
FIR No. 531/98 Page 33 of 34STATE V. SAMEER LATHAR AND ANR.
DECISION AND REASONS:
11. The test in criminal cases is that guilt of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On consideration of the evidence, the guilt of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Sameer and accused Kamal are hereby acquitted for all charges levelled against them u/s 498A/406/34 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT on 12.05.2016 (BHAVNA KALIA) MM/(MAHILA COURT)01/SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI FIR No. 531/98 Page 34 of 34