Delhi District Court
State vs . Bahadur Singh & Ors. on 13 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM02(MAHILACOURT) :
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO. 48/03
P.S. KASHMIRI GATE
U/s. 498A/406 IPC
02401R: 0197572006
STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.
1. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : DURING SUBSISTENCE OF
MARRIAGE SINCE 14.02.1997
2. NAME OF COMPLAINANT : SMT. BHARTI LAXMI NARAYAN
D/o LATE SH. RAM CHANDER
3. NAME OF ACCUSED,
PARENTAGE & ADDRESS : 1. BAHADUR SINGH (SINCE EXPIRED)
S/O SH. MANGAL SINGH
2. SHEELA RANI
W/O LATE SH. BAHADUR SINGH
3. JITENDER
S/O LATE SH. BAHADUR SINGH
4. DEEPAK
S/O LATE SH. BAHADUR SINGH
5. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE SH. BAHADUR SINGH
ALL R/O H.NO. B130/R, PHASEI
ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI
6. MADAN MOHAN
S/O SH. VIDHYA SAGAR
7. AARTI RANI
FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 1/23
W/O SH. MADAN MOHAN
BOTH R/O H. NO. B312
STREET NO. 12, BHAJAN PUR,
DELHI.
8. GHANSHYAM
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
S/O LATE SH. MAAN SINGH
R/O H.NO. 3915, GALI BARNA,
SADAR BAZAR, DELH.
4. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : 498A/406 IPC
5. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS : FALSELY IMPLICATED
6. FINAL ORDER : ACQUITTED
7. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 13.02.2015
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
FOR THE STATE : MS. SARITA RANI
FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS : SH. PRAVEEN CHATURVEDI,
SH. A.K. NIGAM
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present complaint was filed by the complainant against her husband Naveen Kumar, mother in law Sheela Devi, father in law Bahadur Singh, sister in law(Nanad) Aarti, brother in law(Nandoi) Madan Mohan, brothers in law(Devar) Jitender & Deepak, maternal fathers in law Ghanshyam & Bille, maternal mothers in law Geeta, Sharda, Gudia, Beena. The brief facts of the case as have been disclosed in the statement made by the complainant, wherein it is stated that the complainant was married to accused Naveen Kumar on 03.07.1998 according to Hindu Rights and FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 2/23 Ceremonies at Delhi. It is further stated that sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage by the parents of the complainant but in laws of the complainant were not happy with the quantum of dowry. They used to demand more dowry time and again by saying that had they got Naveen Kumar married some where else, they would have been given more dowry.
2. It is further stated that after the marriage, when the complainant reached the matrimonial home, her sister in law Aarti snatched all her silver and gold jewellery articles in the night. When the complainant objected to it, her brother in law (Nandoi) Madan Mohan gave her beatings. When the complainant started weeping, her Mausi Saas Geeta, Sharda, Gudia and Teena also gave her beatings and with the assistance of all, sister in law Aarti removed all the jewellery articles. It is further stated that after 15 days of marriage, her husband, mother in law, father in law, sister in law(Nanad) and brother in law ( Nandoi) gave beatings and directed to bring Rs. 50,000/ from the parental house and made clear that if the demand was not fulfilled then there was no need to come back. The complainant requested all of them not to do by pleading that her widow mother would die to hear their atrocities and demands but they did not pay any heed to her request, again gave beatings and forcibly sent her to the parental house . It is further stated that the complainant told her mother about their demand then her mother out of compulsion somehow arranged Rs. 10,000/ and telephonically informed complainant's father in law. Thereafter, complainant's father in law sent her maternal fathers in law Ghanshaym and Bille to the parental house. The complainant's mother gave Rs.40,000/ to them but instead of receiving the money, they started quarreling with her and reiterated their demand of Rs. 50,000/. They told that complainant shall be allowed at the matrimonial house only after the arrangement of Rs. 50,000/. Thereafter, complainant's mother somehow arranged Rs.10,000/ more by borrowing from the neighbours and gave Rs.50,000/ to them and only then they took the complainant back to the matrimonial house.
3. It is further stated that after some time, complainant gave birth to a son. After the FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 3/23 birth of male child, accused persons reduced commission of cruelties but after the birth female child , they again started committing cruelties upon the complainant. The in laws told her to arrange Rs. 2,00,000/ for the business of her husband and marriage of sister in law. The complainant was shocked to hear the new demands of her parents in law, brothers in law Jitender, Deepak, Nanad and Nandoi. She pleaded them with folded hand not to raise such demand but they did not listen and gave her severe beatings and sent her to the parental house along with 10 days old infant. It is further stated that after 20 days, she brought Rs. 1,00,000/ and gave it to her father in law and husband but her mother in law, both Devar, Nanad and Nandoi asked her as to when remaining amount shall be arranged. When the complainant expressed her inability to arrange the money then all of them gave her beatings.
4. It is further stated that the complainant's parents in law insulted her in front of both Mausi Saas and told that she did not want to see her husband happy as despite knowing well that the working of her husband was not going well, she was not inclined to arrange money for his business. On hearing such things, both her Mausi Saas started beating the complainant by pulling her hair and told that there was no use of keeping such daughter in law, who could not arrange money. They further told that she would be killed by setting fire and her husband would get married second time and all four of them gave severe beatings to her. It is further stated that complainant was used to be left at the parental home in furtherance of more money and was taken back only after their demands were fulfilled.
5. It is further stated on 06.10.2002 at about 08.00 pm, complainant's husband, parents in law, both brother in law, and sister in law beaten her by reiterated their demand of Rs.1,00,000/ . When the complainant refused to bring the same, they increased the volume of TV and beaten her. When the complainant tried to stop them , her mother in law and sister in law poured kerosene oil upon her and father in law lit the match stick and threw upon her. When she tried to flee, her brother in law Jitender caught hold her and Deepak closed her mouth so that she could not scream. The complainant somehow managed to save herself and raised the alarm. Some of FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 4/23 the neighbours got collected to hear the alarm and intervened into the matter. At that time, her maternal fathers in law Ghanshayam and Bille also reached there and dispersed the neighbours stating that it was a family matter. Thereafter, the complainant was taken in a room and scolded for calling the neighbours. They told that money was being demanded for the welfare of her husband and all of them gave beatings to her. It is further stated that some neighbour telephonically informed her mother about the incident, who came to the matrimonial home next morning at about 07.00 am but was not allowed to meet her . It is further stated that the complainant was not given food since the night of 06.10.2002 till she was rescued by her mother, relatives with the help of police officials of PS Ashok Vihar on 10.10.2002. Thereafter, on the next day, complainant, her mother and other relatives came to her matrimonial house and demanded the dowry and stridhan articles but accused persons refused to return the same by abusing them. Ultimately complainant filed the complaint to police. The matter was referred to CAW cell for reconciliation proceedings but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Thereafter, recommendation for registration of case was made. A case U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons and matter was investigated.
6. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused Navin Kumar, Sheela Rani, Bahadur Singh, Jitender, Deepak, Madan Mohan, Aarti, Ghanshayam . Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. Accused persons were supplied with copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under section 207 Cr.PC. During the course of trial accused Bahadur Singh unfortunately expired. On receiving his death verification report, proceedings against him were abated. Arguments on the point of charge heard and vide order dated 23.01.2010, Charge U/s 498A/34 IPC against accused Naveen Kumar, Sheela Rani, Deepak, Jitneder, Madan Mohan and Aarti and under section 406 IPC against accused Naveen Kumar was framed , to which they individually FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 5/23 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Ghanshayam was discharged.
7. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for Prosecution Evidence. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution produced following seven witnesses :
(i) Smt. Bharti/complainant appeared as PW1 and proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A, list of istridhan Ex. PW1/B, list of returned articles Ex. PW1/C, list of remaining articles Ex. PW1/D,
(ii) SI Limji Bhai, Duty Officer, appeared as PW2 and proved FIR Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka PW2/B,
(iii) HC Ombeer Singh appeared as PW 3 and proved seizure memo Ex. PW3/A,
(iv) Ct. Dharambir Singh appeared as PW4 and proved record destruction order of complaint dated October, 2002 vide Ex. PW 4/A,
(v) SI Veer Sain, appeared as PW5,
(vi) Smt. Shakuntala, mother of the complainant, appeared as PW 6,
(vii) WSI Manju appeared as PW7 and proved her detailed report Ex. PW7/A,
(viii) Inspector Rita, appeared as PW8 and proved arrest memos Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/E,
(ix) Retired SI Dilip Kumar appeared as PW9,
(x) Retired SI Chander Singh appeared as PW10 and proved vide seizure memo of FDR Ex. PW10/A, photocopy of FDR Mark B, bail bond of accused Naveen Kumar Ex. PW10/B,
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr. PC. The statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to accused persons individually, to which they denied as false and incorrect and claimed to have been falsely implicated but did not prefer to lead evidence in their defence. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. During the course of final arguments, following arguments were made on behalf of accused:
(i) no allegation is found against accused Naveen Kumar in the entire complaint Ex FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 6/23 PW1/A as well as in examination in chief of complainant/PW1,
(ii) allegations qua other accused persons are general in nature,
(iii) the matter was reported to police after the gap of 22 days of alleged incident dated 06.10.2002,
(iv)the complainant and accused Naveen Kumar were residing separately at Mandawali, Delhi after being disowned by the family. Other accused persons were also residing separately with their families without there being any concern with the complainant and her husband. These facts are proved through arrest memos Ex PW8/A to PW8/E, bail order dated 29.09.2003, memo dated 23.10.02, various summons sent to Naveen Kumar at Mandawali address etc,
(v)bail order dated 12.12.2005 & court order dated 06.10.2004 clearly show that the complainant was interested in living with her husband. This fact is reflected even in CAW cell proceedings dated 03.01.2008 and documents Ex PW1/DB & Ex PW1/DC,
(vi) father of accused Naveen Kumar had also made complaint against the complainant,
(vii) admittedly, substantial dowry articles were returned to the complainant and for remaining articles, complainant was duly compensated by way of FDR Mark B,
(viii) no revision/appeal was filed against the discharge order of coaccused,
(ix) allegations qua accused Navin Kumar as mentioned in the testimony of PW6 are not mentioned in the testimony of complainant/PW1,
(x) the allegation in respect to attempt to kill the complainant by burning is not substantiated
(xi) the main cause of dispute was demand in the property of father in law,
10. The arguments of the prosecution are given below:
(i) guilt of accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as PW2/complainant has made specific mention of demand of Rs 50,000/ out which of Rs 10,000/ was given to the accused by complainant's mother/PW6 and these facts are mentioned in her testimony as well,
(ii) dowry articles are still in the possession of accused and have not been returned FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 7/23 despite repeated demands,
11. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through the entire record including testimonies of witnesses. Before appreciating evidence on record, let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions given U/s 498A/406 IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life,limb or health,whether mental or physical or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or(2) on account of failure by such woman or any person or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand, section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust. For offence under this section the prosecution must prove :
(i) that the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it,(ii) that he
(a) misappropriated it or(b) converted it to his own use or © used it or (d) disposed of it.
12. In the light of aforesaid legal provision, the court shall now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain if the alleged acts of accused persons amount to cruelty in terms of provision given U/s 498 A IPC and if accused Naveen Kumar is guilty of criminal breach of trust u/s 406 IPC. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly, the complainant has built her case on explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 8/23 page 3019 , the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498A IPC observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must have the nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation(b). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed that cruelty under section 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
13. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of aforesaid legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
The testimony of PW1/Smt. Bharti is reproduced and appreciated as below: (13.1) She has deposed that after the marriage, she was illtreated at the matrimonial house by her in laws , who used to harass her for bringing more dowry being dissatisfied with the articles given at the time of marriage. She has further deposed that accused persons used to demand cash amount of Rs.1,00,000, Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 25,000/ etc., on different occasions from her. It be observed that complainant has levelled allegations only against her in laws and nothing has been stated against accused Naveen Kumar. It further be observed that allegations are general in nature without any specific detail. During cross examination, she has deposed that accused used to demand Rs. 2 lacs, which is not mentioned either in complaint Ex. PW1/A or in her examination in chief. She has denied that no such demand was made by the accused as she has not specified the date and time of such demand to the police and FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 9/23 as to who made such demand.
(13.2) She has further deposed on the very first day of the marriage, accused Aarti Rani and Madan Mohan took the jewellery articles by assaulting her. It be observed that complainant has mentioned different facts in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, where she has levelled allegations against her maternal mothers in law. So far as, allegation against accused Madan Mohan is concerned, she has stated in Ex. PW1/A that he had merely assaulted her and the fact of taking her jewellery articles is not mentioned. It further be observed that allegation is not supported by corroborative evidence. During cross examination, it has come on record that accused Aarti Rani was already married and this fact has been admitted even by the complainant during cross examination. It be observed that complainant has mentioned different facts. In her examination in chief, she has stated that accused Aarti Rani and Manmohan took all her jewellery by assaulting her on the first day of the marriage whereas in cross examination, she has mentioned that they did so just after two days of the marriage. She has denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place as mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. During cross examination, she has further admitted that she had normal conversation with accused Madanmohan and whenever he used to come, she only paid regard and nothing else. These admissions on the part of the complainant, go on to prove that no such incident as alleged had taken place. (13.3) She has further deposed that after 15 days of marriage, accused Sheela Rani & Aarti asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/ from her parents. When she refused to do so, she was forcibly sent to her parental house. She has further deposed somehow her mother arranged the said amount and sent her back to the matrimonial house. It be observed that complainant has mentioned different facts in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, wherein she has mentioned the name of her husband, father in law and brother in law (nandoi). It also be observed that complainant in Ex. PW1/A has stated that her mother somehow arranged Rs. 10,000/ and telephoned complainant's father in law, who sent complainant's maternal fathers in law namely Sh. Ghanshyam and Sh. Bille. Complainant's mother handed over the amount of Rs.
FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 10/23 40,000/ to them but they started quarreling with her by stating that she was supposed to give Rs. 50,000/ and also told that complainant shall be allowed to live at the matrimonial house only after payment of Rs. 50,000/. Thereafter, her mother borrowed remaining sum of Rs.10,000/ from the neighbours and handed over the same to them and complainant was taken back to matrimonial house. It be observed that these facts are not mentioned in the testimony of complainant/PW1. During cross examination, she has deposed that she does not know the name of the neighbour who gave Rs. 10,000/ to her mother. denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated on the basis of concocted story. (13.4) She has further deposed that the behaviour of accused persons became worse after the birth of female child. She has further deposed that just after 10 days of the birth of female child, her mother in law, father in law and sister in law started demanding Rs. One lac for her husband's business. When she expressed her inability to arrange the said money, she was forcibly sent to her parental house with the newly born child. She somehow arranged the said money with her mother's help and handed over the same to her parents in law, yet she was illtreated at the hands of accused persons. She has further deposed that accused persons were not satisfied even with said cash amount of Rs. One lac and she was insulted before the relatives of her husband, who also used to instigate her parents in law to do away with her. It be observed that the allegations are general in nature and without any specific detail. It also be observed that the allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. It further be observed that during cross examination, she has admitted that she has not mentioned the exact date when she handed over Rs. one lac to her husband and father in law but in her examination in chief, she has stated that the said amount was handed over to his parents in law.
(13.5) She has further deposed that on 6.10.2002, she was assaulted and beaten by the accused persons in furtherance of their demand of more money, when she refused to fulfill. She has further deposed that at that time, accused persons switched on the TV at very high volume so that her cries could not be heard by anyone. Her FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 11/23 sister in law brought Kerosene Oil, her mother in law poured kerosene oil on her, her father in law fired the match stick and threw at her while brother in law Jitender caught hold of her. However, she somehow managed to save herself and raised the alarm. Some neighbours collected there, and intervened. Thereafter, her maternal father in law came there, locked her in a room and assaulted her . She was also taunted and cursed. Thereafter, some of the neighbours informed about the incident to her mother, who reached there but left the place when she could not find her. Thereafter, her mother again came to her matrimonial house on 07.10.2002. She has also deposed that she and her daughter were not provided meals for 34 days. (13.6) It be observed that the allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. No neighbour, who collected at the spot and intervened into the matter, has been cited as as witness to corroborate the version of complainant in this regard. It also be observed that despite such serious allegations, no complaint was made that day either by the complainant, her family members or any neighbour. During cross examination, she has admitted that she was not injured in the incident. She has denied that no such incident had happened. She has stated that she does not know the name of the neighbour who reported the incident to the police and informed her mother about the incident. She has denied that she was not locked in a room for 34 days and no incident dated 06.10.2002 had happened. She has also denied that her mother did not turn up on 07.10.2002. She has further stated that she did not have the knowledge as to when accused persons brought kerosene oil and where the same was kept. She has denied that she has not mentioned the name of the neighbour as no such incident had taken place. During cross examination, she has admitted that she was not medically examined after being rescued from the matrimonial house. She has denied that no such incident had happened, therefore, she did not get herself medically examined. She has further denied that her mother, relatives and police officials had come to the matrimonial house, to rescue her after 06 days of the incident despite having knowledge of the incident on the very date of the incident as no such incident had taken place.
FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 12/23 (13.7) It also be observed that during cross examination, she has admitted that she did not make any separate complaint to the police with regard to incident dated 06.10.2002. All these facts collectively suggest that no such incident had happened. So far as, allegation of keeping the complainant and her child hungry is concerned, the court finds it impracticable. During cross examination, she has stated that she has not mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that they were kept hungry but she again stated that she has stated so in Ex. PW1/A. (13.8) She has further deposed that on 10.10.2002 her mother came at the matrimonial house with police officials of PS Ashok Vihar. She was rescued and and taken to her parental house. It be observed that the allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. During cross examination, she has stated that her mother alongwith the parents of her sister in law (bhabhi) and brother had come to take her from the matrimonial house after the said incident. She has further stated that she does not know whether she has mentioned the name of her relatives who came to rescue her from the matrimonial house. In this regard, it be observed that the name of said relatives are not mentioned either in complaint Ex. PW1/A or in her examination in chief and their names have been mentioned only during her cross examination. She has denied the suggestion that she mentioned the names of above mentioned relatives earlier just to strengthen her complaint. (13.9) She has further deposed that whenever any of her relative came to visit her, they were not allowed to see her by accused persons. It be observed that the allegations are general in nature and without any specific detail. She has also deposed that all her jewellery articles had been taken by the accused persons and not given to her for using the same. She has further deposed that some of the articles were returned to her during investigation and some of the articles are still lying in the possession of the accused persons. It be observed that the allegations are general in nature, without any specific detail and not supported by corroborative evidence. During cross examination, she has denied that on 10.10.2002, she left the matrimonial house with all her jewellery.
FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 13/23 (13.10) The claims of complainant get falsified during her cross examination. She has admitted that she has not mentioned in complaint Ex. PW1/A as to who assaulted her by pulling her hair. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned date and time of the incident dated 06.10.2002. she has denied that she failed to mention the name of the person gathered after the incident and date and time as no such incident had occurred. she has further deposed that statement Ex. PW1/DB is in her handwriting bearing her signatures at point A. Though she has claimed that she wrote down the said complaint at the instance of police officials under force but admittedly no complaint was made against the said police officials. She denied the suggestion that she had not made any complaint as there was no pressure or coercion by the police officials and said statement was recorded with her consent. She has further deposed that she did not make any complaint of kidnapping of her son. she denied that she did not file the complaint because she herself left her son due to his physical deformity and was not willing to maintain and nurture him. She has further denied that she was kept properly after the delivery of her son. She has further denied that she had not mentioned as to who has assaulted her by pulling her hairs in her complaint made before CAW Cell. She has admitted that she had not mentioned time and date of the said occurrence. She has denied that she had failed to mention about the name of the person and the time and dated of the same as same has never occurred.
14. It is worthwhile to mention that while appreciating the evidence in such type of cases involving matrimonial disputes, the court has to be on its guard and not to be swayed by the general and bald nature of allegations which are bound to emanate from the mouth of family members of a woman after the relations between two sides have gone to the extreme opposite end. It is for this reason a strict analysis of allegations levelled by the family members of the complainant shall be done. Clearly , the accused persons have faced trial for penal provisions and the consequence of which are very grave in nature so a strict interpretation needs to be taken of the various allegations levelled by the complainant and her relatives.
FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 14/23
15. Testimony of PW6/Smt. Shakuntala, mother of complainant, is reproduced and appreciated as below: (15.1) She has deposed that at the time of marriage, they gave dowry articles beyond their capacity but accused Navin Kumar and his family members were not satisfied with dowry articles. It be observed that allegations are general in nature without specific detail. No evidence has come on record with regard to source of dowry articles. During crossexamination, these claims turn out to be false and incorrect. The admissions of this witness go on to suggest that arrangement of such dowry articles was not possible in view of their financial condition. She has deposed that her husband had passed away before the marriage of complainant and at the time of marriage, complainant and her three sons were maintaining the family and the approximate house hold family income was Rs. 30,000/ per month. The claims of PW6 appear to be exaggerated as no evidence has been collected to prove the financial capabilities of the complainant's family. PW6 has further deposed that she cannot tell how much they used to save and made expenditure thereof in one month. Though she has claimed that her late husband had left approximate Rs. 2,00,000/ for purpose of marriage but no evidence has come in this regard and such amount appear to be insufficient in view of tall claims of the complainant and her family members specially in the event that four more children two daughters and two sons were to be married. During crossexamination, this situation becomes crystal clear that arrangement of such dowry articles were not possible. She has deposed that her eldest son used to ply three wheeler, her second son was doing the business of Iron Scrap, and third son was doing sale and purchase of Head light of automobile. They also used to manage one tea stall near by their house. She has further deposed that at the time of marriage, they had ten members in the joint family. She has further deposed that she cannot say how much was the household expenditure at the relevant time.
(15.2) She has further deposed that in the year of 2002, she had gone to meet her daughter at the matrimonial house but she was not allowed to meet her by her in FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 15/23 laws. She has further deposed that accused persons used to harass her daughter for insufficient dowry. Accused Sheela, Navin, Bahadur, Deepak used to beat and torture her daughter in furtherance of their demand and threw her daughter from matrimonial house. It be observed that allegations are general in nature without specific detail and are not supported by corroborative evidence. The fact of not allowing to meet her daughter in the year 2002 does not find mention either in complaint Ex PW1/A or examination in chief of complainant. (15.3) She has further deposed that maternal parents in law Ghanshyam and Bille had come at her house and demanded dowry. She managed Rs. 50,000//from some where and gave the same to them and only then her daughter was taken to matrimonial house. It be observed that allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence and are without specific detail. No evidence has come on record with regard to source from where she managed to arrange the said amount. During crossexamination, she has deposed that she does not remember how much money she had at home and how much money was arranged from outside. (15.4) She has further deposed that accused persons demanded Rs. 2,00,000/but for expressing the inability, her daughter was harassed. She has further deposed that she had gone to the matrimonial house of her daughter along with police officials and brought her back to the parental house. In this regard, the court has already observed that no evidence has been placed on record to prove this fact. (15.5) She has further deposed that the dowry articles including istridhan are still with accused persons and they have not returned back to her daughter. In this regard, it be observed that allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. (15.6) During crossexamination, the claims of PW6 are proved to be false and incorrect unlike complainant. PW6 has admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. She had deposed that the first demand was made for Rs. 50,000/, after around two month of the marriage by father in law of her daughter but this fact does not find mention in the statements of the complainant. Similarly the fact of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/ after two years also does not find mention in the FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 16/23 statements of complainant. She has admitted during crossexamination that she never made any complaint to the Police with respect to harassment of her daughter by her in laws, which appears to be impracticable. She has further admitted that no direct demand dowry was made from her.
16. Now dealing with remaining arguments made on behalf of the accused persons. So far as arguments in respect to delay in registration of the case is concerned, the court finds force in the submissions made on behalf of the accused persons. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the complaint was made to CAW Cell on 28.10.2002 more than 22 days after the alleged incident of attempt to kill the complainant and about 04 years of the marriage despite claiming that cruelties were being committed soon after the marriage for the reasons of non fulfillment demand of dowry Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of the coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result or deliberations and consultations, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 577) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao). In the present case also, no explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. Rather, it is established on the record that no complaint was filed with the police despite serious allegations of cruelties and harassment. No independent witnesses have been examined to prove the allegations of cruelties and harassment. It appears impracticable that the complainant would continue to live with the accused persons despite constant threats to her life.
17. The court is further in agreement with the arguments of accused persons that allegations of harassment and cruelties allegedly committed by the in laws in furtherance of dowry demand are false and incorrect. It be observed that during FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 17/23 cross examination, complainant/PW1 has denied the suggestion that she was residing separately along with her husband at Mandawali after having been disowned however this fact clearly established on the record. It also be observed that other accused persons were also residing separately with their families without there being any concern with the complainant and Naveen Kumar. The factum of living separately is proved through arrest memos, bail order dated 29.09.2003, memo dated 23.10.02 and various summons sent to Naveen Kumar at Mandawali address.
18. It is further noticeable that bail order dated 12.12.2005 and court order dated 06.10.2004 clearly show that the complainant was interested in living with her husband and this fact is mentioned even in CAW cell proceedings dated 03.01.2008, Ex PW1/DB & Ex PW1/DC. Court order dated 06.10.2004 also discloses that complainant was not willing to reside with her husband in a rented house and was insisting to live only at the house where her parents in law were residing. The insistence of complainant to reside in the matrimonial house bolsters the argument of accused persons that she was having an evil eye upon the property of her father in law. Document Ex PW1/DB also discloses that the complainant during CAW cell proceedings demanded that either Rs. 5 lacs be paid or the matrimonial house be transferred in her name and in case such demands were not fulfilled then action be initiated against the accused persons. These facts clearly prove that complainant was not interested in settlement of the dispute but wanted to be compensated in her own terms and in the event of non fulfillment of her demand, she was alright with the idea of initiation of legal action against the accused persons. The intentions of complainant appear to be malafide and allegations of harassment and cruelties were false and incorrect.
19. It is noticeable that abovementioned facts also find mention in the testimony of PW7 WSI Manju, Enquiry Officer, CAW Cell. During crossexamination, she has admitted that the complainant was demanding Rs. 05 lacs and matrimonial house in her name for compromise and in case her demands were not fulfilled then case may be registered against the accused persons. It is further noticeable that accused FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 18/23 Bahadur Singh had also made many complaints against the complainant. The contents of said complaints clearly show that in the eventuality of nonfulfillment of complainant's demands, accused persons would be falsely implicated. Despite number of complaints, the police instead of conducting an independent enquiry into the claims and counter claims, believed the version of complainant and charge sheeted the accused persons. It is also noticeable that the complainant or prosecution did not challenge the order on charge against discharge of coaccused persons. This fact also goes on to suggest that allegations levelled by the complainant are not true and correct.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that charge u/s 498A IPC is not established against accused.
20. The accused Naveen Kumar has also been charged under section 406 IPC for having misappropriated the istridhan articles of the complainant to his own wish. In order to to establish the charge of Section 406 IPC, the prosecution was under the obligation to establish the ingredients of section 405 IPC thus, it was required to be established that an entrustment was made in favour of the accused and he was having dominion over the articles of the complainant and with dishonest intentions the articles entrusted to him, have been misappropriated.
21. It be observed that during cross examination, she has deposed that she does not know in whose presence the dowry articles were given in the marriage. She has denied the suggestion that no such articles were given in the presence of the relatives at the time of marriage as such she has not mentioned the name of said relatives in Ex. PW1/A. The list of dowry articles Ex.PW1/ B & Ex.PW1/C are not witnessed by family members of the parties, which casts a serious doubt over the genuineness of above mentioned list. No bill, invoice etc. of the articles and or of the conveyance through which the articles reached the matrimonial home of complainant has been proved on record. In such circumstances being guided by the judgment of Neera Singh vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 138 (2007) DLI 152.
FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 19/23
22. It be also observed that in the present case, there is no investigation regarding source of dowry articles. In the judgment of Narender Kumar & Anr.Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) I (2008) DMC 337, it has been held by the Hon'ble court that the court must be very cautious during trial of offences under section 498A/406 IPC as in all such cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by the police. Police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about claims made by the complainant. This all results into gross misuse of provision of law and investigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial and other evidence in respect of claims made by complainant. The courts should always be careful in considering credibility and truthfulness of statement of complainant and relatives. In the present case also, admittedly no investigation regarding source of dowry articles has been conducted. The court has already observed while appreciating the testimonies of PW1&6 in preceding paras that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and no evidence has come on record to prove the source of dowry articles as mentioned in the list of dowry articles.
23. It is pertinent to note that vide proceeding dated 31.12.2002 , the complainant had already received substantial Stridhan articles and in respect of unrecoverable articles , she was compensated for a sum of Rs. 1 Lac in the bail matter. These facts find mention in the testimonies of PW7 and 10. PW7 has testified that on 31.12.2002, accused persons produced some Stridhan articles and same were given to the complainant. During cross examination, she has testified that that on 13.01.02, accused Naveen Kumar had given the statement that he had given istridhan articles to the complainant. She has already taken all the jewelleries but still he was ready to pay reasonable amount in lieu of said jewelleries. Similarly, PW10 has also testified that on 06.01.2006, he along with complainant, her mother and accused Naveen Kumar had gone to Punjab National Bank, where accused got made a FDR of Rs. 1 Lac in favour of the complainant. He seized the receipt of said FDR vide seizure memo Ex PW10/A and retained photocopy of said FDR Mark B. The FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 20/23 original FDR was handed over to the complainant. It be observed that these facts have not been disputed by the complainant. Hence, there is nothing to suggest that accused has committed criminal breach of trust.
24. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the view that none of the ingredients of section 405 IPC is established and therefore no case u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused.
25. In view of aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced on record to secure the conviction of accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted from the charge framed under section 498A/34/406 IPC .
26. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13.02.2015 (MONA TARDI KERKETTA) MM02 , MAHILA COURTS TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 21/23 FIR No. 48/03 P.S.K. Gate U/s. 498A/34/406 IPC State Vs. Bahadur Singh & ors.
13.02.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State Accused Bahadur Singh has expired.
Accused Ghanshyam has been discharged.
Other accused persons are on bail in person with Ld. counsel. Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, accused persons are acquitted from the charge framed U/s 498A/34/406 IPC.
Put up for furnishing of bail bond under section 437A Cr.PC. On 19.02.2015.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 22/23 FIR No. 48/03 P.S.K.Gate U/s. 498A/34/406 IPC State Vs. Julfi Singh & Ors.
19.02.2015
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Bahadur Singh has already expired.
Accused Ghanshyam is discharged.
Other accused persons are in person.
Previous bail bonds are cancelled, sureties are discharged. Documents if any, be returned against receiving and endorsement if any, be cancelled.
In compliance of provision given under section 437A Cr.PC., fresh personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/ each with one surety have been filed. Same are attested and accepted. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR NO. 48/03 PS: KASHMIRI GATE STATE VS. BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. 23/23