Delhi District Court
State vs . Anshuman Narang & Ors on 30 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMENDER RANA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. 82/2019
Case No. 522/2019
Unique Case ID No. DLND01-024018-2019
State
Versus
1. Anshuman Narang
S/o Sh. Anil Narang
R/o E-159 and E-163, Greater Kailash
Phase-I, New Delhi.
2. Anil Narang
S/o Sh. Somnath Narang
R/o E-159, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi.
3. Rachna Narang
W/o Sh Anil Narang
R/o E-159, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi.
4. Astha Narang
D/o Sh Anil Narang
R/o E-159, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi.
( Discharged vide order dated 12.10.2018 )
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 1 of 91
5. Sushil Arora
S/o Late Sh. Tilak Raj Arora
R/o AN-55, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
( Discharged vide order dated 12.10.2018 )
... Accused persons
FIR No. 985/2015
U/s 498A/406/377/307/506/34 IPC
P.S Shalimar Bagh
Case received by transfer : 23.12.2019
Arguments in matter concluded : 23.04.2021
Date fixed for pronouncement : 30.04.2021
Date of pronouncement : 30.04.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang have been sent up to face trial for offences punishable u/s 498A/406/307/377/506/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 15.04.2015, complainant Ritika Juneja lodged a complaint (Ex.PW3/BE) in CAW Cell North West District against her husband Anshuman Narang, mother-in-law Rachna Narang, father-in-law Anil Narang, sister-in-law Astha Narang and Sushil Arora, maternal uncle of accused Anshuman Narang regarding dowry demand and causing physical and mental torture/atrocities, committing the act of criminal breach of trust and for committing unnatural sex and attempt to kill her.
3. The facts emanating from the complaint (Ex. PW3/BE) giving rise to the present case in brief are that Complainant and her family came to State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 2 of 91 know about the contacts of the accused persons after going through the matrimonial column published in Hindustan Times newspaper dated 20.10.2013 and the bio-data of accused No.1 Anshuman Narang on jeevansathi.com. Both the complainant and accused no. 1 agreed to marry and all his family members i.e. grandmother, grandfather, chachaji, chachiji along with accused Rachna Narang, Anil Narang and Astha Narang came to the house of complainant few days before Mooh Mitha ceremony and agreed to proceed with their marriage. On 16.11.2013, in the Mooh Mitha ceremony, performed at the house of accused persons, the parents of complainant gave cash of Rs 31,000/-, gold chain with pendant of Lord Ganesh to accused no 1 and apart from this, cash of Rs 5100/-, other articles, fruit thall, 11 sweet boxes, dry item hampers were given by the parents of the complainant to the accused persons and all the relatives and close family member. On 17.11.2013, a roka ceremony was held at the house of the complainant where accused persons came alongwith their 25 relatives and in the said roka ceremony, the accused persons gave green gold-cum-diamond necklace, gold-cum-platinum chain and gold-cum diamond bracelet to the complainant and in return the parents of the complainant gave gold coin (approximately Rs.26.000/-), cash of Rs 21000/- to accused Anshuman Narang apart from other items, fruit baskets, sweet boxes, fruits dall and cash were given to all the other accused persons and the relatives. Cash of Rs.5100/- was given to all the other relatives of the accused persons by the parents of the complainant. It is claimed that the accused persons also demanded separate functions for every occasion; demanded that each and every function should be done according to their status and accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang demanded from the parents of the Complainant to give equal amount of cash, jewellery, clothes and gifts to all the close relatives and other relatives on all occasions. It is claimed that as per the demands and desires of the accused persons, ring ceremony was performed on 22.12.2013 at Farm No.3, DLF Farm House, Mapple Avenue, Chinar Drive, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 3 of 91 Chhattarpur, New Delhi in which cash of Rs.21,000/-, gold cum diamond bracelet, solitaire ring was given to accused Anshuman Narang apart from one fruit dall, 51 fruit tokris and 51 sweet boxes. It is claimed that accused persons gave an engagement solitaire ring, pink gold-cum- diamond necklace with earrings, gold chain, gold-cum-diamond earrings and two peacock polki karas, laptop. It is claimed that cash of Rs.11,000/- was given to all the accused persons and their close family members and cash of Rs. 5100/- was given to all the other relatives of the accused persons by the parents of the complainant. It is claimed that both the families met each other in get together and in a wedding reception in which the complainant and her parents gave cash, sweet boxes, fruit baskets and few gifts to the accused persons and their relatives and in return the complainant received cash of Rs.5100, Rs. 2100/- and a suit on both the occasions.
It is further claimed that the parents of the complainant gave cash, costly articles/gifts, fruit baskets, sweet boxes, dry items hampers, dry fruits thaals including costly watch, I-Phone and gold coin worth Rs.26,000/- on the occasion of festivals such as Christmas, Lohri, Valentines Day, Holi, birthday of accused Anshuman Narang, Mata ki Chowki and in return the complainant also received costly gifts from the accused persons. It is further claimed that after 18.04.2014, her husband/accused Anshuman Narang put some terms and conditions for marriage before the Complainant to loose weight in order to have a slim figure and that she will not be allowed to go to her maternal house except on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and Bhaiya Dooj after marriage. Accused Anshuman also questioned and taunted rudely about her upbringing and management and also insulted the complainant for her north Delhi upbringing and cheap lifestyle and demanded her to change her lifestyle according to south Delhi lifestyle and his family, she felt hurt and she requested accused Anshuman to call off the wedding but accused Anshuman apologized to her and her parents and assured not to repeat the same in future and on the assurance of accused persons, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 4 of 91 she agreed to marry accused Anshuman Narang but still she was forced to join VLCC before marriage against her will and consent and did not complain and accepted not to raise any issue and she alongwith her parents was even forced and pressurized to recruit a driver for the same. It is claimed that these false and frivolous, baseless issues/rules were again raised after the marriage which caused immense mental torture, harassment, humiliation to her. It is claimed that on 29.04.2014, on the birthday of accused Anshuman Narang, one gold cum diamond ring, 11 sweet boxes, cash and flowers were given by the Complainant to accused Anshuman Narang. It is claimed that whenever the accused persons and their close family members used to visit the house of complainant, cash of Rs. 5100/- and sweet boxes were given to them individually and accused Anshuman Narang also used to meet her once a week and cash of Rs. 2100/- was given to him as per the customary Indian tradition on every visit. It is claimed that on 05.05.2014, on the occasion of marriage anniversary of accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang, the parents of the complainant had given cash of Rs.5100/- and four silver bowls (valued approximately Rs.22,000/-) and cash and sweet boxes were given by the relatives of the complainant.
It is claimed that as the marriage approached near, the accused persons started making more and more expensive demands according to their standard and status which created health complications for the mother of the complainant. It is claimed that on 02.07.2014, a sagan ceremony was solemnized, as per the approval of the accused persons, at Grand Sapphire, Moti Nagar, Delhi and around 325 people from both the sides had participated in the function and in the said function, cash of Rs.10,100/-, one silver Ganeshji idol, one silver thaal along with one silver katori and Audi A4 car was given to accused Anshuman Narang and accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang demanded cash, expensive clothes, jewellery for all the accused persons as well as other relatives; they had clearly demanded everything according to their standard and status and everything was given as per State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 5 of 91 their demands. It is claimed that car make Audi-A4 TDI valued approximately Rs.30 lacs was given in the name of accused Anshuman Narang and that too on the demand of accused Anshuman Narang, Rachna Narang, Anil Narang and Astha Narang ,after taking loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the bank by accused Anshuman Narang and Anil Narang, due to a discount scheme, but the said amount was returned by her parents to the accused Anshuman Narang and Anil Narang and rest of the payment was made by her parents through the FDR/bank account). It is further claimed that cash, clothes and jewellery of gold, diamond and silver i.e. three gold-cum-diamond necklaces with heavy earrings, two gold ladies chains, three gold gents chains and three gold- cum-diamond gents rings, one silver thaal, one silver thaal, one silver Ganeshji idol and one silver katori were given to the accused persons. It is claimed that jewellery was also demanded equally for paternal aunts, uncles, maternal aunts and uncles and their children and also for late Nanaji but her parents could not afford jewellery for the paternal aunts and their husbands so they were unable to give them and they were just given cash and clothes. The clothes, cash, 51 sweet boxes, 10 dry fruit thaals, one dry items hamper, 51 fruit baskets and one fruit dall were also given to the accused persons and their relatives and in return one gold cum polki necklace along with maangtikka and earrings, one pair of single line solitaire bangles and cash was given to the complainant by the accused persons and their relatives. Cash (Rs. 5100/-) was given by all the relatives and friends individually of the accused persons to the complainant and her brother got a gold chain from accused persons. It is further claimed that on 04.07.2014, a cocktail party was organized by the accused persons at Oodles, Chattarpur and in the said party, cocktail hamper of valued approximately Rs.20.000/- alongwith dry fruits, cash and sweet boxes were given to the accused persons by her parents and cash and sweet boxes were also given to accused Anshuman Narang by the relatives of the complainant. It is claimed that in the Haldi ceremony on 05.07.2014, accused Rachna Narang alongwith 8/10 State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 6 of 91 family members had come to her parental home and in the said ceremony, the complainant was gifted eight gold bangles, one silver ring, one pair of silver anklets, one red colour suit, two lipsticks, one kohl and one lip liner to the Complainant and in return, cash of Rs.2100/- each alongwith sweet boxes, fruit basket and dry fruit thaals were given to all the female relatives of the accused persons and the silver ring was handed over to accused Rachna Narang. It is claimed that in another cocktail party organized at the parental home of the complainant, 60-80 persons from the side of accused persons had participated and cash of Rs 11,000/-, sweet boxes, and dry items hamper were given to accused Anshuman Narang and the persons accompanying him. It is claimed that their marriage was solemnized on 07.07.2014 at Hotel Le-Meridian, Connaught Place, New Delhi and the marriage was performed by her parents with great pomp and show and approximately 865 peoples from both the sides had participated in the function in which the accused Anshuman Narang was given Kanyadaan Ring, as demanded by accused Rachna Narang. Accused Rachna Narang and her mother-in- law demanded cash of Rs. 5100/- and dry fruit thaal/sweet box from the complainant's mother for a ceremony in which a little boy had to sit in the lap of the complainant the next day or two and even the kalicharis were also handed over by the family of the complainant to the accused persons.
After the marriage, she joined her matrimonial home alongwith accused Anshuman Narang. On the occasion of GrahPravesh ceremony, first at farm house and then at E- 159 and E-163, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi, accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang gifted cash of Rs.5100/- and gold cum diamond danglers (green colour); chacha-chachiji of the accused Anshuman Narang also gifted her cash of Rs.5100/- but all the abovesaid cash and article were taken by all three accused persons. against her will and consent. Similarly on PagPhera Ceremony, her parents gifted clothes and cash (Rs.5100/-) to the complainant and her husband; her parents also handed over all the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 7 of 91 jewellery (given by both the sides) and cash (given by the accused persons and their relatives before marriage to the complainant) to complainant and accused Anshuman Narang. All the jewellery given by the accused persons and their close family members i.e three gold-cum- diamond polki necklaces with earrings, one Mangtikka, two gold chains, one gold-cum-diamond bracelet, one gold karah, one pair of gold single line solitaires karahs, one pair of peacock gold polki karahs, eight gold bangles, one solitaire ring, one gold cum diamond ring, one silver ring, two silver anklets and one pair of gold cum diamond earrings, cosmetics, purses, clothes gifts and Rs.3,10,000/- approximately in cash envelopes which were given to her by the accused persons and their relatives on different occasions before marriage, was also handed over to the accused persons. It is claimed that the gold, diamond jewellery i.e four necklaces, one mang tika, heavy earrings with each set, one pair of gold- cum-diamond karah and one heavy gold karah given by the parents of the complainant was also handed over to the accused Anshuman Narang and complainant. It is claimed that before going to honeymoon, all the cash and jewellery was taken by accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang on the pretext of keeping them in their safe custody but even after coming back from honeymoon, she was deprived of using the same and the same were kept in the safe custody of bank locker/room locker of accused Rachna Narang since her marriage with accused Anshuman Narang. It is further claimed that she alongwith accused Anshuman Narang went to Europe for honeymoon and came back on 04.08.2014. It is claimed that before going to honeymoon, the accused persons used to ask her for cash and thereafter, her parents gave Rs.51,000/- to the complainant in the presence of accused persons. The grand father of accused Anshuman Narang also gifted Rs.11.0 lacs by way of FDR and cheque and chachi of accused Anshuman Narang also gifted her cash of Rs.31,000/-The grandfather of accused No. 1 had gifted a sum of Rs.11 lacs by cheque and FDR. The cash of Rs.31,000/- given by chachi of accused Anshuman Narang and cash given by her State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 8 of 91 parents were immediately taken away by accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang against her will and consent and despite her strong objections. It is claimed that the complainant was also taunted for the gifts which she had brought for all the accused persons i.e one bottle whisky from Switzerland, two bottles of Double Black from Duty Free, cosmetics from Italy, 6-7 souvenirs, many other costly gifts, dry fruits and many chocolates for all the accused persons and their relatives and she had also brought one small showpiece, eight chocolates, two shirts, 2-3 souvenirs and two bottles of compare for her maternal side (parents, cousins, brother),since the accused persons taunted therefore, the complainant had brought back all the items except few chocolates and a showpiece. It is claimed that on the occasion of first cooking ceremony she was given cash of Rs.5100/- and antique gold set with ear rings by the grand parents of the groom. Her parents also gave her gold, diamond and silver jewellery, cash and costly articles and other valuables on Raksha Bandhan, cash of Rs. 5100/-, clothes, two dry fruit thaals, two sweets thaals, one fruit basket and gold cum diamond danglers, cash of Rs. 5100/, clothes, costly watch, two sweet boxes, one dry items hamper and 2 dryfruit thaals received on Bhai Dooj; cash of Rs. 21,000/-, clothes for the complainant and accused Anshuman Narang, five dry fruit thaals, five sweets thaals, one fruit basket, one dry items hamper received on Karwachauth and cash of Rs.21,000/-, silver Ram Darbar, many other expensive gifts, one fruit basket, one dry items hamper, five sweets thaals, five dry fruit thaals received by the complainant on the occasion of Diwali; she also received gold cum diamond polki necklace (with earrings) from accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang and grandfather of accused Anshuman Narang gifted one gold ginni to the complainant on the occasion of Diwali. She also received cash of Rs.30,000/- and gifts from relatives of accused Anshuman Narang during first dinners and on different occasions after marriage. It is claimed that the complainant could only give a watch to her brother on first Raksha Bandhan; she was State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 9 of 91 not allowed to go to her parental house and wish Diwali to her parents. It is claimed that after marriage, accused Anshuman Narang visited the parental house of the complainant only for Pagphera ceremony, Raksha Bandhan and Bhai Dhooj for about 2 hours and he never took any interest to drop the complainant or visit the complainant (on her stay when her mother was discharged from hospital) or her parents; the driver used to drop and pick the complainant always; whenever accused Anshuman Narang was invited for dinner, he used to refuse directly and rudely and never showed any interest in talking to the family of the complainant.
It is alleged that accused Anshuman Narang was acting hand in gloves with accused Anil Narang, Rachna Narang, Astha Narang and his grandmother and they were immensely interfering in the matrimonial life of the complainant. Accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang took away the entire cash and jewellery from her which was given to her before and after marriage, functions and on different occasions. It is alleged that accused Anshuman Narang started causing humiliation to the complainant on the instigation and abetment of accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang and also used to strangulate the complainant in case she raised her voice towards the mental torture and harassment on various occasions. It is claimed that the complainant was even made to wash the bathroom tiles, clothes etc. despite having three servants. Accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang under the well planned conspiracy had caused the mental torture, stress, cruelties and atrocities upon the complainant to such an extent that she had taken the decision to commit suicide and to end her life as the persons had made her life full of miseries, agony and suffering. It is claimed that they used to give continuous threats to get more CCTV cameras and spy cameras /speakers installed in her room and bathroom to record each and every moment of the complainant.
It is claimed that accused Anshuman Narang and Anil Narang dishonestly, fraudulently and maliciously used to remove her State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 10 of 91 mobile phone; they used to create and send fake messages from her mobile phone to their own mobile phone for the purpose of creating false evidence in their favour in future; accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang used to cause continuous humiliation, invectives and insults to the complainant and her parents; accused Anil Narang used to use abusive, filthy, vulgar, invective language against her and her parents; accused Anil Narang after having dinner used to throw the saucer upon her face and accused Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and their daughter Astha Narang used to pin point and take away her food plate as she was kept on crash dieting; all three accused persons and Astha Narang used to taunt and humiliate her regarding her weight and even kept her hungry for 2-3 days which was in the knowledge of the accused persons and all the relatives; the accused persons used to taunt and humiliate her when she tried to have tea/coffee/ketchup/yoghurt.; the accused persons made her to join Gym, VLCC as well as put her on crash dieting by saying that if she would not reduce her weight then they would solemnize another marriage of accused Anshuman Narang in a rich family as they have not received the expected cash and gifts from the parents of the complainant.
It is claimed that Astha Narang and all three accused persons used to pass continuous remarks and used to cause continuous humiliation, stating that the brother-in-law of a reputed family had agreed to spend a sum of Rs 5 crores on the occasion of the marriage of the accused Anshuman Narang and her parents had spent only Rs 2.0 crore plus. It is claimed that her parents out of their savings as well as with the financial assistance and help of relatives had spent money in her marriage and all the functions were organized as per the wishes and desires of the accused persons and were also given the diamond, gold. silver jewellery, cash, costly articles. clothes and other valuables, as per the demands, desires and wishes of the accused persons. It is claimed that accused Anshuman Narang had not purchased anything except medicines for her as prescribed by the doctor and he never paid single State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 11 of 91 penny for meeting her personal expenses and he gave only Rs.10,000/- for a period of two months and her mother used to purchase her clothes and undergarments and had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet her expenses. It is claimed that accused Anil Narang, Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang alongwith Astha Narang used to humiliate and insult her as she is not slim and the clothes chosen by her are not suitable for to the Complainant.
It is claimed that accused Rachna Narang alongwith Astha Narang and grand mother of accused Anshuman Narang made clear to the complainant and her parents that if she would not reduce her weight, then accused Anshuman Narang shall establish extra marital physical relations with other women and they will solemnize another marriage of accused Anshuman in a very rich family from where they will receive a huge amount of gold/diamond jewellery, cash and other valuables.
It is claimed that she was not allowed to take the car whenever she used to go to her parental house; she even requested accused persons to take the Audi Car but they did not allow her to take the same and deprived her. It is claimed that on 21.08.2014, when the complainant requested to stay at her parental home on the occasion of birthday of her father on 23.08.2014) as usual an issue was made. Accused persons executed a well planned conspiracy in order to teach the complainant a lesson; accused Anshuman took the complainant leaving the Audi car at her parental home saying that car is to be kept at her parental home for some time and then will get it back when problem gets solved but later she came to know that there was no such problem and it was infact a conspiracy of the accused persons to mentally torture her and her parents. The Accused no. 1 came to take back the complainant with him but the parents of the complainant invited accused no. 1,2, 3 and 4 for dinner on the eve of the complainant's father's birthday. But due to a hectic schedule, as told to the complainant by the Accused no.1 and 2, dinner was fixed at China Garden, M-Block market instead of Pandara road for dinner as per the convenience of the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 12 of 91 accused no.2. Later, the complainant and her family members (other relatives as well) were taunted and humiliated for inviting accused persons to Pandara road for dinner as it did not suit accused person no.1-4's status. After 2-3 days, the complainant and her parents came to know about this conspiracy about the car and the parents of the complainant decided to go and talk to the Accused person no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 regarding the matter and clear he misunderstandings, if any. They also took the car (Audi A4) with them that the complainant had got with her during her stay. They also decided to invite the accused persons and the close family members for first family dinner and on 27.08.2014, when her parents and brother went to the house of accused persons, all three accused persons misbehaved with her and her parents and also said that she is not fit for accused Anshuman and created pressure upon the complainant and her parents to give divorce. The accused persons humiliated and abused the complainant and her parents to such an extent that they started crying; accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang threatened her and her parents that he will arrange 20-30 people and dissolve the marriage by either ways. They hey had also disclosed their intention that they will secretly solemnize another marriage of accused Anshuman Narang in a rich family and the Complainant would not be able to do anything as they are having good nexus with the police officials and bureaucrats and politician and such remarks on the part of the accused persons had caused grave set back to the complainant and her parents and accused Anshuman Narang did not react to the comments of accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang and such remarks of the accused persons caused set back to the mother of the complainant to such an extent that she developed heart complications and depression which is still in continuation. Accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang had made it clear that they will attend the first family dinner only when their all 65 relatives will be invited. It is claimed that accused persons and her sister-in-law Astha Narang tried to build a continuous pressure upon the complainant and her parents to take her State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 13 of 91 away but the complainant had made clear that she will not leave as her parents have spent their earnings of whole life and she wanted to establish happy and prosperous matrimonial life with accused Anshuman Narang but the accused persons used to threaten her that they will not allow her to stay in the house at any cost as she is not of their choice. It is claimed that she was also forced to take up a job to meet her expenses but she did not agree as she was a homely girl before marriage though she only helped her father with computer work and had no job experience.
It is claimed that on 05.10.2014, on the occasion of marriage anniversary of her parents, accused Anil and Rachna Narang alongwith Astha Narang misbehaved with her, accused Rachna Narang physically assaulted her and passed remarks that her parents have not given gold, diamond jewellery, cash, costly articles, sweets, dry fruits and fruits on occasion of birthday of accused Anil and Rachna Narang or on any other occasion such as Ram Navmi/ Dussehra festivals and had also not arranged the first family dinner for the accused persons and their 60 to 65 close relatives. It is further claimed that accused Rachna Narang demanded cash and clothes for Astha Narang and accused Anshuman Narang; she also caught hold of the complainant through her arms and elbows, pushed her into the dining area and closed the door and mistreated her in presence of accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang, she was crying and she left crying for her parental home and apprised this incident to her parents. Accused Anil Narang was called by her father but he insulted and threatened her father in her presence. Thereafter, her father called and apprised the whole incident to the grand parents of accused Anshuman Narang who were present at the farm house; accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang also reached there; accused Anil Narang snatched the phone from his father, misbehaved, abused and threatened to dissolve their marriage saying that the complainant is not fit for them and they will not keep the complainant. It is stated that she State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 14 of 91 has also informed ACP North-West, DCP North West and Commissioner of Police via email about the demands and torture of the accused persons.
It is claimed that on 07.10.2014, a meeting was held at the farm house of the accused persons at Chattarpur where accused Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang tendered apology for the misconduct of accused Anil and Rachna Narang and had given the assurance that they will treat the complainant like their own family member and will not cause any kind of harassment and humiliation. Thereafter, accused Anshuman Narang visited her parental house with his sister Astha Narang on 10.10.2014 and was taken back to her Greater Kailash house as there was festival of Karvachauth on 11.10.2014.Her parents gave cash of Rs. 21,000/- (for the accused persons and their close family members and cash of Rs 11,000/ for accused Anshuman Narang and complainant), dry fruits in 5 steel thaals, 5 sweets thaals, valuable clothes and 8 steel glasses, etc. which were given on the occasion of Karwachauth but later she was taunted by accused Anil and Rachna Narang for not getting enough cash and jewellery for themselves and their relatives and for not putting all the jewellery, clothes, cash, fruits and dry items in her lap at that time.
It is claimed that a day or two before cards party on 19.10.2014, her parents came to her matrimonial home to wish Diwali and they gave cash of total Rs.21,000 /-, gifts, five woolen clothes, one double blanket, silver articles (Ram Darbaar, silver coated dry fruit thaal), five sweets thaals and five dry fruits thaals, fruit dall and dry items hampers on this occasion. It is claimed that the accused persons used to keep the jewellery with them and distribute the fruits and dry fruits among their servants at both their houses, at farm house and houses and nearby. Her parents were invited in the cards party and they have given cash (Rs 11,000/-) sweets boxes and dry fruits, fruit to the accused persons at farm house. It is claimed that the complainant was asked repeatedly not to disclose anything to anyone.
It is claimed that all her gold, diamond, silver jewellery, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 15 of 91 cash, costly articles which were given to her before and after the marriage and at the time of marriage were taken away by accused Anil and Rachna Narang on the pretext of keeping the same in the safe custody leaving just 3/4 daily wear jewellery/small gifts and whenever she used to ask the accused persons to give the jewellery to wear on some occasion, then accused Anshuman Narang on the instigation of accused Anil and Rachna Narang used to misbehave and refused to given the jewellery and also used to give threats to give her divorce.
It is further claimed that on 22.10.2014, on the occasion of Diwali, a Diwali Puja was organized at all the three Okhla factories and at Amar Colony office but accused Anil Narang misbehaved with her on the night of 21.10.2014 and in the morning of 22.10.2014 he told her to keep quiet and to get out from their house in the presence of accused Rachna Narang. She thereafter went for her first Diwali Puja at Okhla factories without wearing any jewellery where she apprised about the conduct of accused Anil Narang to accused Rachna Narang but she also misbehaved with her and humiliated her in the factory itself. She thereafter left for the office of Astha Narang at Amar Colony for her first Diwali Puja in separate car and her husband and anil Narang went in another car and when they returned home, she got a call from accused Anil Narang who abused her using filthy and vulgar language against her and her parents/relatives in the presence of accused Astha Narang and accused Rachna Narang. Later accused Anshuman told her not to disclose the incident to anyone and in order to cover up his misconduct, accused Anil Narang called every relative and father of the complainant to give Diwali wishes in advance. It is claimed that on 23.10.2014, accused Anil Narang gifted her Polki gold necklace and grand parents of accused Anshuman Narang gave her a gold coin in the puja in presence of all three accused persons, Astha Narang and other relatives/family members. Accused Anil Narang and other family members very well greeted her parents/other family members in order to hide his misconduct. It is alleged that she was in so much mental State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 16 of 91 pressure that she was unable to apprise the whole incident to any one and decided not to raise it till Bhaiya Dooj to maintain peace, harmony and merry environment. But on Bhaiya Dooj, she alongwith accused Anshuman Narang visited her parental house for a very short period and could not apprise the incident to her parents.
It is alleged that accused Anshuman Narang after seeing the blue film, used to force and coerce her to have oral sex contrary to the order of nature and whenever she used to refuse for the same, accused Anshuman Narang used to misbehave, taunt and humiliate her and also used to give threat to desert and divorce her.
It is further claimed that on 26.10.2014, her parents called her to sign some papers; she went to her parental home wearing Kurti, jeans and one Mangal Sutra; she disclosed the entire acts of atrocities and cruelties to her parents; her father called accused Anshuman Narang but he did not turn up; accused Anshuman Narang called up his driver with Audi car; he also sent text message stating that he has not told anything to accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang and his sister Astha Narang and made an excuse for not coming at her parental house. It is claimed that since 26.10.2014, she is residing with her parents. Several meetings took place between both the parties but all in vain; accused Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and Astha Narang used to give continuous threats to divorce her as she was not able to fulfill their expected demands and desires and threatened to solemnized another marriage of accused Anshuman Narang secretly. She again gave an intimation to DCP, North-West and Commissioner of Police on 28.10.2014 regarding the torture, demands and harassment committed by the accused persons.
It is submitted that even after lodging complaint on 28.10.2014, many meetings took place in December 2014, January 2015, February 2015, March 2015 and the last meeting took place in March. 2015 and in that meeting, the accused persons and their relatives threatened her for divorce and also confessed that they had very clear point in their mind State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 17 of 91 to separate accused Anshuman Narang from the complainant in November 2014 itself and they were just gaining time. It is alleged that in every meeting, the complainant and her family and other relatives were taunted, humiliated, abused and threatened by the accused persons in presence of their close family members. Accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and maternal uncle Sushil Arora always misbehaved with the complainant and her family members and it was only in march, the complainant got to know the real intentions of the accused persons and their conspiracy. It is alleged by the Complainant that since the very inception of her marriage, she was tortured and harassed by her husband and her in-laws i.e. accused Anshuman Narang (husband), Anil Narang ( father-in-law), Rachna Narang ( mother-in-law), Astha Narang (sister-in-law) and Sushil Arora ( maternal uncle-in-law). It has been further alleged that accused Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang had misappropriated her istridhan and that accused Anshuman Narang after marriage used to force the complainant into unnatural sex and had also attempted to kill her. It is stated that she finally left the matrimonial home on 27.10.2014.
4. After conducting preliminary enquiry, case FIR No. 985/2017 was registered in P.S Shalimar Bagh. The matter was duly investigated by the investigating agency and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed in the court.
5. During the course of trial, accused Astha Narang (sister-in-law of the complainant) and Sushil Arora (maternal uncle of accused Anshuman Narang) were discharged by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.10.2018 and the said order of discharge was subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s) 399 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5231/2019 dated 16.03.2020.
6. Charge u/s 498A/34 IPC was framed against accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang, Charge u/s 406/34 IPC was framed against accused Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 18 of 91 Charge u/s 307 and 377 IPC was framed against accused Anshuman Narang on 12/10/2018 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, during the course of trial, in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, amended charge was also framed against accused Anil Narang for the offence punishable u/s 406/34 IPC vide order dated18/09/2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined following 49 witnesses :-
PW1 Lady Ct. Sanju took the complainant Ritika Juneja to BJRM Hospital for her medical examination. PW1 handed over the MLC to the IO.
PW2 ASI Santosh Yadav, who was working as Duty Officer, had registered the FIR of the present case on 21.08.2015. He has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW2/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW2/2 and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence as Ex. PW2/3.
PW3 is the complainant Ritika Juneja. She has deposed on the lines of her complaint in the witness box. Her testimony shall be discussed in detail during the course of instant judgment.
PW4 Dr. Inderpal Yadav, CMO, BJRM Hospital, has testified that the complainant was examined in their hospital by Dr. Aqil Reza, JR under his supervision and prepared the MLC Ex. PW4/A. PW5 Kapil Sammi, an employee of Decorworld, has proved the copy of invoice dated 07.05.2014 as Ex. PW4/A and his authorization to depose as Ex. PW 4/B. PW6 Veena Nandwani, owner of Khwahish Images Studio has proved the invoice bearing no. 633 as Ex. PW6/A. PW7 Jayant Kumar Mishra, owner of Bikaner House Sweet Shop, has proved the copy of bill dated 19.11.2014 as Ex. PW7/A and his authorization to depose as Ex. PW7/B. State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 19 of 91 PW8 Bashir A. Alvi, Assistant Director (Finance), Le Meridien Hotel, has proved the copy of bill dated 07.07.2014 regarding banquet function of Rs.17,77,443.92 as Ex. PW8/A and receipts in this regard as Ex. PW8/B and C regarding the payments made by Ms. Ashita Sachdeva and Anil Juneja. He has also proved the other receipts of different dates as Ex. PW8/D to Ex. PW8/F regarding the payments received by Sh. Pradeep Juneja.
PW9 Reetika, owner of Kimana Fashion Studio, has proved the receipts Ex. PW9/A to Ex PW9/E. PW10 Dr Seema has proved the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Amita Shukla at Point Y on MLC Ex. PW4/A who has medically examined the complainant on 24.10.2015 at BJRM Hospital and also identified her handwriting from portion X to X1 on the said MLC.
PW11 Ashok Arora, Manager of Karol Bagh Saree House, has proved the copy of cash memos Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW 11/K respectively.
PW12 SI Vishambhari, who was the initial IO of the case, has testified that she got the complainant medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW4/A, got the statement Ex. PW12/C of complainant recorded u/s 164 CrPC.
PW13 SI Vikas Pawar had accompanied the IO Insp. Narinder Beniwal during the arrest of accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang vide arrest memos Ex. PW 13/A and B and also seized seven photographs and two FDRs of Rs.5.0 lacs each vide memos Ex. PW13/C to Ex. PW13/E respectively from their house bearing no. E-159, GK-1, New Delhi.
PW14 SI Sangeeta, who was part IO of the case, had recorded the statement of mother of complainant, had seized two photographs handed over by the mother of the complainant showing the dowry articles, also seized the photographs handed over by accused Rachna State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 20 of 91 Narang regarding the engagement of her daughter and two photographs/print outs (Ex. PW 14/P1) of the Facebook account of accused Rachna Narang handed over by the complainant vide seizure memos Ex. PW 14/A to Ex. PW14/C respectively.
PW15 Insp. Samar Singh, part IO of the case, had seized four coloured photographs of jewellery articles vide memo Ex. PW 15/A and also verified the invoices and bills from the respective shops at Pitam Pura and Karol Bagh, recorded the statement of witnesses. PW15 has also arrested accused Anshuman Narang vide arrest memo Ex. PW 15/B on 21.09.2016.
PW16 SI Krishan Kumar (Retired) has seized marriage card, marriage photographs, photographs of menu card of Sagan and marriage function, copy of ID proof, list of stridhan articles and other articles handed over by the complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/BF, verified the bills regarding jewellery articles. In the presence of PW16, the complainant received her articles from accused persons as per the list Ex. PW 3/BG. PW16 also seized passport of accused Anshuman vide memo Ex. PW 16/A. PW17 Kawal Bhola, owner of Chunni Lal Jewellers, Karol Bagh, has given his report Mark PW17/A vide which he handed over the nine photographs, photocopy of three bills of Shree Jagdish Gems and Jewelers Pvt Ltd. handed over to him by Pradeep Juneja for the purpose of valuation.
PW18 Surender Kumar, owner of Bhola Jewellers, Karol Bagh, has proved the observation report after seeing nine photographs on a paper and copy of three bills of Shree Jagdish Gems and Jewelers Pvt Ltd which were given to him by Pradeep Juneja for the purpose of observation report of the jewellery. PW18 also gave the valuation report Ex. PW3/AM.
PW19 Vinod Anand, owner of Jewel Valuer and Design, Karol State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 21 of 91 Bagh, New Delhi has proved his observation report Ex. PW19/E after seeing the nine photographs (Ex. PW19/A) and photocopy of three bills (Ex. PW19/B to Ex. PW 19/D) issued by Shree Jagdish Gems and Jewelers Pvt Ltd which were given to him by Pradeep Juneja for the purpose of observation report of the jewellery.
PW20 WSI Sunita was the initial IO and after the conciliation proceedings between the parties, she recommended registration of the present FIR and prepared legal action report Ex. PW20/A, as a result, the present case was registered and matter was transferred to CAW Cell.
PW21 Sanjay Pahwa, the photographer and owner of photography shop named Fotomen, who had photographed and videographed the sagan ceremony, marriage function and other functions on 22.12.2013, 02.07.2014, 06.07.2014 and 07.07.2014 has proved 11 DVDs as Ex. PW21/1 to Ex. PW21/11 and album as Ex. PW21/13 alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Evidence act Ex. PW 21/12.
PW22 Raju, photographer in R. S. Photo Studio has clicked the photographs and prepared the videography of handing over and taking over of the dowry articles in PS Shalimar Bagh. He prepared the DVD Ex. PW22/A which he handed over to the IO alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW22/B which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex PW22/C. PW23 Luxmi Narain, Senior Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce, has proved the bank report Ex PW23/A bearing the signatures of the then Senior Manager at Point B. As per the said report, accused Anshuman Narang, being the first customer and Ritika, being the second customer had joint saving bank account no. 02122271000027 in the said bank and the account was operational with the mandate of former or survivor.
PW24 Ashok Kumar, employee of Lahore Watch House, Karol State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 22 of 91 Bagh, has proved the invoice no. 30888 dated 16.03.2014 as Ex. PW24/A /Ex PW24/B ( both are the same invoice) regarding purchase of one gent's watch for an amount of Rs.45,500/-.
PW25 Dinesh Kumar Jain, one of the partners of M/s Quality General Store has proved the bill Ex. PW3/AA being issued by his brother Mukesh Kumar Jain bearing his signatures at Point A. PW26 Rakesh Sharma, employee in shop named Watch Palace Pitampura, has proved the bill Ex. PW 3/U issued by his owner Tarun Makhija.
PW27 Sarjas Rai Kakkar, owner of jewellery shop named Krishna Jewellers Karol Bagh, has testified that he alongwith his brothers K. L. Kakkar and R. K. Kakkar had given the opinion and valuation report Ex. PW17/D7 of jewellery shown in photographs Ex. PW 3/C6. He has testified that the jewellery in photograph did not match with the bills bearing no. 3548, 3549 and 3550 (Ex. PW 18/B to Ex. PW18/D) of M/s Jagdish Gems and Jewellary Pvt. Ltd.
PW28 Rakesh Lal, Field Executive of R2S Group, an event management company in the panel of Le Meridian Hotel, has testified that one event was booked by them which had taken place on 07.07.2014 for which they received a total payment of Rs.1,75,000/-
from Pradeep Juneja vide receipts Ex. PW 3/AJ and Ex. PW3/AK.
PW29 Govind Bisht, Manager of United Colours of Benetton, has proved the invoice Ex. PW3/AT dated 05.06.2014 issued by him regarding the purchase of some articles, as mentioned in the invoice, and also certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW29/A. PW30 Rakesh, Authorised Representative of Link Utsav HSRP Pvt. Ltd has proved the cash receipt Ex. PW 30/B (Ex. PW3/AP) of High Security Registration Plate which was affixed by their company on vehicle (LMV Car) bearing no. UK 07 BE 6961.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 23 of 91
PW31 Sunil, Manager of Grand Plaza Sapphire has proved the menu card of their banquet hall as Ex. PW3/BM.
PW32 Sanjeev Monga, Admin. Head of Appeal Kids Dream International Pvt. Ltd, has proved the invoices dated 11.08.2014 as Ex. PW3/AS2 for purchase of total sum of Rs.2,500/- and his certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW32/A. PW33 Sanjay Vij, owner of Om Prakash Jawahar Lal, has proved the bill no. 048560 dated 06.05.2014 as Ex. PW3/Z for the purchase of wedding lehnga and dupatta for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-
PW34 Cham Narain, Manager, Medical Record Document of MAX Hospital, has proved his reply dated 05.04.2017 Ex. PW 34/A for non-maintenance of OPD record in their hospital.
PW35 Bhavna, owner of Qaiynat store, has proved the bills Ex. PW 3/X1 to Ex. PW3/X16 and Ex. PW3/AR issued by their store for stitching and designing.
PW36 Nabeel Ahmed, Manager of Lakshita Pvt. Ltd has proved the cash memo Ex. PW3/Y dated 22.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.14,735/-.
PW37 Meenu Kaushik, Ld. MM has recorded the statement of complainant u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW12/C on 28.10.2015 which was marked to her vide order Ex. PW12/A. PW38 Inspector Surender Kumar is one of the IO who testified that no effective investigation took place when the investigation remained with him.
PW39 Insp. Ram Kishore, part IO of the present case, seized four observation reports vide memo Ex. PW39/A which were handed over to him by the complainant, recorded the statement of witnesses and also interrogated accused Anshuman Narang and other co-accused persons namely Anil Narang and Rachna Narang. During investigation, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 24 of 91 the complainant handed over to him some documents and one complaint. He sent letters Ex. PW 39/B to Ex. PW 39/E to Facebook u/s 91 CrPC through Cyber Cell to produce certain documents, recorded the statement of photographer Sanjay and thereafter, prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
PW40 SI Kamal, being the part IO of the present case, he added Section 307 IPC in the present case after getting permission from DCP vide his application Ex. PW40/A, seized the photocopies of documents regarding dowry/jewellery articles vide memo Ex. PW40/B and thereafter the matter was transferred to Mediation Center during the hearing of anticipatory bail application of accused Anshuman Narang.
PW41 Rishu Rastogi, owner of Shree Jagdish Gems and Jewellers Jagdish Pvt. Ltd, had sold some jewellery articles to co- accused Rachna Narang vide bill nos. 3548 to 3550 Ex. PW19/B to Ex. PW19/D and his letter in this regard to the IO as Ex. PW41/A. PW42 Pandit Mahimanand Diwedi has performed all the rituals of the marriage of accused Anshuman Narang with complainant Ritika Juneja on 07.07.2014.
PW43 Yashpal Sachdeva is the childhood friend of father of complainant. He has also supported the prosecution version in the witness box. He has attempted reconciliation between the complainants family and the accused family. He has recorded the conversation between himself and accused Anil Narang that took place during the conciliation talks. He has proved the transcript of the conversation Ex. PW43/A along with the CD Ex. PW 43/P1 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW43/B. PW44 R. K. Sharma, Public Relation Officer, Postal Department has proved the reply Ex. PW 44/B of the Sub Post Master Shalimar Bagh to the letter of the IO dated 10.04.2017 Mark PW 44/A with respect to the delivery of one letter.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 25 of 91
PW45 Ruchi Arya, owner of Ruchi Fashions has proved the bill bearing nos. 1368 dated 18.03.2014 and 1783 dated 09.05.2014 as Ex. PW 3/S1 to S3.
PW46 Vijay Goel, family friend of father of complainant, has testified that some gold and diamond jewellery was purchased from his two firms Prem Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Vijay Goel and Sons by the father of the complainant vide invoices Ex. PW3/AL1 to Ex. PW3/AL7. Besides this, PW 46 did remaking of old jewellery into new jewellery which was provided to him by the father of complainant also. In June, 2014, PW46 also gave loan of Rs.21.0 lacs without interest to the father of the complainant which was repaid to him in two installments in April, 2015 vide document confirmation of accounts Ex. PW46/A1.
PW47 Deepak Aggarwal, employee of Chand Mal Gauri Shankar has proved the bill no. 4146 as Ex. PW3/AB.
PW 48 Pradeep Juneja, father of complainant has supported the version given by the complainant Ritika Juneja in the witness box. The testimony of PW48 Pradeep Juneja shall be discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment.
PW49 Insp. Narender Beniwal was assigned the further investigation on 27.01.2017. During investigation, he served notices upon accused Anshuman Narang and co-accused Rachna Narang Ex. PW 49/A and B, they both replied to the notices vide replies Ex. PW49/C and D. Accused Anshuman Narang produced the RC of Audi car bearing registration no. UK 07 BE 6961, photocopy of which is Ex. PW49/F, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 49/E. PW49 again served notices upon accused Anshuman Narang and co-accused Rachna Narang, their replies have been proved as Ex. PW49/G and Ex. PW49/H. He has stated that on 06.04.2017, he again served a notice u/s 91 CrPC Ex. PW 49/I upon accused Rachna Narang asking her to produce the jewellery i.e. mang tika, ear rings and kangan. Co-accused Rachna Narang gave an undertaking Ex. PW 49/J to produce the same State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 26 of 91 before the court as and when required. PW49 has further stated that accused Rachna Narang retained the disputed jewellery i.e. mang tika, ear rings and kangans and on demand by PW49, she claimed that the mang tika, ear rings and kangans qua which she has produced the bills and the photographs are different from the one which were presented to the complainant and she on seeing the photographs of the kangans gave a written reply Ex. PW 49/K stating therein that she is not having the bill of the same and that she will try to locate the same. He has deposed that on 05.04.2017, accused Anshuman Narang, Rachna Narang and Anil Narang submitted an application Ex. PW 49/L alongwith five photographs Mark 49/X1 to X5 claiming that the kangans worn by her and the complainant are same as visible in the photographs which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 49/M. He has further deposed that on 02.03.2017, he had seized seven photographs Mark 49/X6 to X12 of the ring ceremony of Astha Narang vide seizure memo Ex. PW 49/N which were handed over by accused Rachna Narang and on 06.04.2017, PW49 again seized seven photographs Mark 49/X13 to X19 vide memo Ex. PW13/C. He has deposed that he sought permission Ex. PW14/A2 from the concerned DCP to arrest the accused persons but as per the directions of the court, served three days notice upon accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang Ex. PW 49/O1 and O2 and they were admitted to anticipatory bail. He has further deposed that he formally arrested accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang vide arrest memos Ex. PW 13/A and Ex. PW13/B but they were admitted to bail subject to filing of FDR in the sum of Rs.5.0 lacs each which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW 13/D and Ex. PW13/E. He has further deposed that during investigation, on 08.04.2017, he seized four photographs Mark 49/X20 to X23 vide memo Ex. PW 49/P which were handed over by the maternal uncle of accused Anshuman Narang; he also seized one CD Ex. PW49/P1 containing the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 27 of 91 photographs of handing over and taking over of the dowry articles as per the directions of the court vide memo Ex. PW22/C. He has further deposed that during investigation, he verified the letter posted by the complainant regarding the harassment and torture extended to her by her in-laws from Post Office Shalimar Bagh vide reply Ex. PW44/B. He has further deposed that he also made investigation regarding the record pertaining to the treatment of complainant Ritika at Max Hospital, Saket but the record was not available. He has further deposed that he also verified the bills submitted by accused Rachna Narang regarding the disputed jewellery vide reply of jeweller Ex. PW 41/A; he also verified the factum of joint account of the complainant Ritika and accused Anshuman Narang maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce vide reply Ex. PW 23/A on his letter Ex. PW 49/S. He has stated that he also wrote a letter to Facebook regarding verification of user of Facebook account numbers, as mentioned in his letter Ex. PW 49/T and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in the court.
8. After the conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, all three accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
9. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by Ld. counsels for both the parties, Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State and have also carefully gone through the material available on record.
10. In support of his submissions, Ld. defence counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 2486 of 2009 decided on 07.08.2012 Mohd. Ali @ Guddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 272 22, Neera Singh v. State I (2007) DMC 542 decided on 21.02.2007, Neelu Chopra & Anr v. Bharti Criminal Appeal no. 949 of 2003 decided on 07.10.2009, Anvar P.V v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, Arjun State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 28 of 91 Pandit Rao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal 2020 SCC Online SC 571, Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 decided on 02.03.2021, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.393 of 2020) decided on 28.09.2020, Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015 decided on 12.10.2020, State v. Surender Jain, Amit Jain, Deep Jain, Chetna Singh v. State and Anr, Jage Ram and Ors. V. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 92/2015, Pran Dutt v. State of U.P. (1983) 1 Crimes 286, Hanif Usman Bhai Kalva and Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2015 GLH(3) 766, Kailash Laxman v. State of Maharashtra 2010 CriLJ 3255, Phool Singh v. State 2011 (3) JCC 2235, Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal (Criminal Appeals Nos 1624-1625 of 2013), State of Rajasthan v. Sheeshpal and Others (Criminal Appeals No. 217-218 of 2013), Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371, Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa (1971) 3 SCC 192, Maruti Rama Naik v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 10 SCC 670, Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 3 SCC 68, Rohit Bansal Vs State Crl. A. 660/1990 decided on 29.05.2015, Abbas Ahmed Choudhary v. State of Assam (2010) 12 SCC 115, Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 92, Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2002 SC 3206, Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 2193, Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 Crl. L.J 4751,15, G.V Rao v. L.H.V, Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2003) 11 SCC 367, Vadivelu Thevar v. The Prasad and Others AIR 2000 SC 2474, Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa Criminal Appeal No. 2174 of 2009 decided on 28.04.2015, Narendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. Appeal (crl.) 298 of 1997 decided on 12.04.2004, State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram MANU/SC/0595/2003 :(2003) 8 SCC, Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana and Anr, MANU/SC/1114/2017:
(2017) 9 SCC 413, Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/SC/0418/2005: 2005 Cri.LJ 3439: (2005) 6 SCC 281, State of Punjab v. Pritam Chand and Ors. MANU/SC/0167/2009, 2009 Cri.LJ State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 29 of 91 1742: 2009 (2) SCALE 457, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCALE 250, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors Appeal (crl.) 1716 of 2007 decided on 14.12.2007,Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors 2003 CriLJ 2759 decided on 19.05.2003, Major Singh and Another v. State of Punjab 2015 (5) SCC 201, Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of U.P. 2015 (2) JCC 884, State of Haryana v. Inder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1239, HariKishan v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0183/1988, Sarju Prasad vs. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0342/1964, Matru v. State of U.P Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2019, Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P. 2006 Cri.LJ 2168, Machhendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0676/2005, Kanta Prasad vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 CriLJ 695, Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 95 (2002) DLT 147 decided on 15.10.2001, Govind Yadav & ors v. State NCT of Delhi 2003 IIIAD Delhi 525 decided on 07.04.2003, Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 2006 Appeal (civil) 812 of 2004 decided on 21.03.2006 and Alpic Finance Ltd vs P. Sadasivan & anr Appeal (crl.) 194 of 2001 decided on 16.02.2001.
11. For coming to a just and effective disposal of this case, it would be apt to discuss the following points for determination :-
(1) Whether accused Anshuman Narang has attempted to murder complainant Ritika and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC?
12. It has been argued by learned Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for the complainant that prosecution has successfully proved that accused Anshuman Narang attempted to murder complainant Ritika. It is submitted that in her complaint Ex.PW3/BE, complainant has asserted that accused Anshuman strangulated her. It is further pointed out that in State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 30 of 91 her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex PW 12/C complainant has described the entire incident. It is submitted that in her examination in chief complainant has vividly described the entire incident. It is submitted that she withstood the test of a grueling cross- examination by the defence and her testimony remains intact. It is further submitted that the allegations of strangulation are not only corroborated by Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva (PW 43) and Sh, Pradeep Juneja (PW48) but even accused Anshuman Narang has admitted his crime in the chat between the complainant and the accused. It is thus argued that accused Anshuman Narang deserves to be convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC.
13. On the contrary, it is forcefully argued by the learned defence counsel that the prosecution evidence available on record is full of improvements, embellishments, contradictions and mendacity. It is pointed out that in the complaint dated 07.10.2014 and complaint dated 28.10.2014 there is not even a whisper about any strangulation. It is further submitted that even in the FIR, there is a general and vague allegation that accused Anshuman Narang used to strangulate the complainant. It is submitted that even in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC dated 27.08.2015 complainant made no mention of any strangulation by accused Anshuman Narang. It is submitted that in order to pressurize the accused persons, complainant has cooked up a false and fabricated story and has falsely alleged that the accused attempted to kill her. It is pointed out that the incident of 'diary' finds a mention for the first time in the statement recorded under section 164 CRPC (Ex PW 12/C) on 28.10.2015. It is further pointed out that in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC dated 17.09.2019 Ex. PW3/DA11 she makes a mention about marks on her neck but still she opts to remain silent about the mode, manner, time, date and place of the alleged strangulation. It is further pointed out that it is only in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC dated 20.11.2015 Ex. PW3/DA12 she mentions about the date and time of the incident for the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 31 of 91 first time.
14. Perusal of the material available on record would reveal that the complainant has been consistently making material improvements in her version regarding the act of alleged strangulation. Evidently, in the emails dated 07.10.2014 Mark PW3/CM and the subsequent email dated 28.10.2014 Ex.PW3/BQ there is not even a whisper about the alleged act of strangulation. Even in the complaint Ex.PW3/BE complainant has made a general and vague allegation that the accused Anshuman Narang "used to strangulate the complainant in case she raised her voice towards the mental torture and harassment on various occasions". Even if we ignore the emails dated 07.10.2014 and the subsequent email dated 28.10.2014, there is no palpable explanation forthcoming on record as to why the complainant has failed to provide the details of the alleged strangulation in her complaint Ex.PW3/BE. The omission assumes significance when we notice the fact that the said complaint is a detailed document elaborately describing even the minutest details and consists of as many as 52 paragraphs, running into 18 pages. Further, one cannot escape irresistible inference that on the date, when the said complaint Ex.PW3/BE was moved legal assistance was definitely available to the complainant. Complainant has herself admitted the involvement of her cousin while drafting the said complaint but refused to divulge his particulars. Use of words like 'against the order of nature' while describing alleged sodomy in her complaint Ex.PW3/BE alludes towards the involvement of a fertile legal brain at the time of drafting the complaint Ex.PW3/BE. Further, she has moved a domestic violence petition (Ex. PW3/DA-6) before the Ld. Magistrate through her Counsel Vivek Aggarwal. Interestingly, the verification clause of the said petition reveals it to be verified by the complainant on 15/04/2015 and instant complaint Ex.PW3/BE is also dated 15/04/2015. Perusal of the domestic violence petition (Ex. PW3/DA-6) would reveal that the said petition is more or less verbatim reproduction of, barring a few cosmetic changes, the complaint Ex.PW3/BE.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 32 of 91
15. Further, besides the above-said omission, there is still another aspect of the prosecution version. It has been admitted by the complainant in the witness box that she used to drive to the gym and was also using her phone. She has further admitted that mostly she used to go to the gym alone and she carried her phone with her. She has even claimed that she was forced to take a job. It is baffling that instead of opting to make a PCR call or intimate her parents telephonically the complainant opts to mail a letter through post. In her testimony she has claimed that her husband snatched her phone and kept it with him. However, this fact is conspicuously absent in her complaint (Ex.PW3/BE) as well as her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex. PW 12/C) and even the letter (Ex. PW 48/D1) makes no mention of this fact. She also mysteriously remains silent regarding the date of the return of the said phone to the complainant though she admits that she has used the phone to write emails to the Commissioner of police. There is not even a whisper that the complainant was using two phones. It has been feebly attempted to be argued that for fear of detection complainant has not used the mobile phone, however, the explanation sounds very hollow as the entire record can be wiped off from the telephone by a simple press of a button and the accused persons, admittedly, are not computer experts to retrieve the deleted data from the complainant's phone. Thus, the inscrutable failure of the complainant to report the alleged act of strangulation to the authorities promptly, causes a serious shadow of doubt upon the prosecution version. It is really suspicious that an educated, aware and assertive girl would not seek police help when her husband attempts to strangulate her. The suspicion becomes even more graver when viewed against the fact that the complainant, who is a post graduate with degree from London in fashion, who writes emails to the Commissioner of police and Deputy Commissioner of police, neither informs the police or her parents, through email or telephone, nor raises an alarm to seek neighbour's intervention or gets herself medically examined and remains State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 33 of 91 satiated by posting a letter Ex. PW 48/ D1. The letter Ex. PW 48/ D1 is also not free from difficulties. The absence of any stamp of Post Office Greater Kailash, upon the envelope Mark PW 44/C, casts a shadow of doubt upon the very fact that it was ever posted by the complainant and allegation of the defence that it was merely an afterthought to create evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly. Further, complainant claims that there were cameras installed in her matrimonial home, however, there is no explanation forthcoming on record as to why neither the IO made any effort to collect the video footage nor any such request seems to have been made by the complainant. Similarly, no effort seems to have been made by the IO to recover the Complainant's diary wherein she used to record everything. Although, it is claimed by the complainant that the pages of the diary were torn and flushed by accused Anshuman but she stops short of saying that the entire diary was destroyed by the accused. Thus non recovery of any video footage or the remnants of the alleged diary also casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution version.
16. Further, Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) in his examination in chief has deposed that complainant Ritika stayed at their place from 07.10.2014 to 10.10.2014 and during her stay Ritika showed injury marks on her collar bone and informed him about the alleged strangulation by accused Anshuman Narang. However, in his cross- examination he dithered in answering the question as to when he came to know about the strangulation for the first time and from whom? It was only after persistent request by the court that he answered the question that he partially came to know about the incident of strangulation on 05.10.2014 through his wife and thereafter on 27.10.2014 he was informed about the incident by his daughter. Evidently, he contradicted himself as he had already testified in his examination in chief that he noticed the injury marks on the collar bone and was informed about the incident by the complainant Ritika, during her stay between 07.10.2014 to 10.10.2014. Furthermore, as per the complainant, the accused attempted to strangulate her on 11.09.2014. It is surprising that If the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 34 of 91 injury sustained by the complainant was so grievous that its marks upon the collar bone were visible even after a considerable time, probably almost after a month as per the father of the complainant, the complainant makes no mention of the incident in her email dated 07.10.2014 and subsequent email dated 28.10.2014 and even the complainant Ex.PW3/BE merely makes a general and vague allegation about the act of strangulation.
17. Further, even the testimony of Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva (PW43) is not free from difficulties on this count. He also claims that he noticed the pressing marks on the neck of Ritika and upon enquiry she informed him that accused Anshuman Narang had pressed her neck and tried to kill her. However, he also fails to make any mention of the date when he noticed such marks and was informed by the Ritika. He also offers no explanation as to why the matter was not reported to the police with alacrity.
18. Perusal of the final report for legal action of Enquiry Officer W. SI Anita Dated 03/08/2015 (Ex PW20 A) reveals that she has recommended registration of the case under section 498-A /406/34 IPC. The recommendations were approved by her senior Inspector Renu Lata who forwarded the report to P.S. Shalimar Bagh for legal action under section 498-A /406/34 IPC and other relevant sections of law. It would also be pertinent to mention here that as per statement of SI Kamal (PW40), section 307 IPC was added in the instant case only on 17.09.15 whereas, the FIR in the instant matter was registered on 21.08.2015. Therefore, the allegation of the accused persons that section 307 IPC was mischievously added in the instant case just to mount pressure upon the accused persons cannot be brushed aside lightly.
19. Prosecution has placed heavy reliance upon the Facebook chat (Ex PW3/CA) between complainant Ritika and accused Anshuman Narang to contend that accused Anshuman Narang admitted that he strangulated complainant Ritika. It would be apt to reproduce herein the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 35 of 91 relevant portion of the said chat :-
" 3/30, 5:05 pm Ritika Narang Anshuman dis must be ur attitude to get a gal .... and den leave her.... I m not da kind of gal Even wen u were vng ur eyes on esha on holi.... I tolerated dat.... Every time I thought of ignoring all your faults... Even wen I came to know truth about aakanksha....ur health problems..... Everything... I cud ve taken an action d day u strangled my neck... But I didn't 3/30, 5:05 pm Anshuman Narang U have taken action"
20. Evidently, there is no admission on the part of accused Anshuman Narang to the effect that he strangulated the complainant. At best, all that he can be blamed of is that he has not immediately vociferously repudiated the allegations. Mere failure on the part of the accused to immediately retort back cannot tantamount to an admission of commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Furthermore, when we read the chat a little further, we realise that the complainant makes an effort to woo back accused Anshuman Narang by reminiscing about the good old days and accused Anshuman Narang thwarts her efforts using the following words:-
" 3/30, 5:05 pm Anshuman Narang When u put fake accusations till this day I have cried enough"
21. Thus, in my considered opinion the above said Facebook chat is not of much use to bring home the charge for commission of the offence under section 307 IPC. Further, even if for the sake of arguments the abovesaid allegation regarding admission by the accused is presumed State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 36 of 91 to be true, even then it is not sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 307 IPC. The alleged act seems to be nothing more than an act of desperation and frustration. The requisite mensrea to commit the offence seems to be certainly missing as no palpable explanation is forthcoming on record to explain as to why despite resolving to murder Complainant Ritika, Accused Anshuman stopped short of killing her and what prevented the Accused Anshuman from accomplishing his goal.
Thus the allegation seems to be shrouded under doubt and suspicion and accused Anshuman is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
Now let us move on to the second point for determination i.e. (2) Whether accused Anshuman Narang had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with complainant Ritika and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 377 IPC?
22. It has been argued by learned Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for the complainant that prosecution has successfully proved that accused Anshuman Narang forced complainant Ritika to have unnatural sex with him and he is guilty for commission of the offence punishable under section 377 IPC. It is submitted that in her examination in chief complainant has vividly described the entire incident and the defence has not been able to breach her credibility in the cross-examination.
23. On the contrary, it is forcefully argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant has been consistently improving her version and her sole testimony cannot be relied upon as it is full of contradictions and embellishments.
24. Perusal of the record would reveal that In para no. 35 of her complaint (Ex.PW3/BE), complainant has alleged that accused Anshuman "after seeing the blue film on the Internet and his mobile used State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 37 of 91 to force and coerce the complainant to have the oral sex and contrary to the order of nature and whenever the complainant used to refuse for the same then the accused No. 1 used to misbehave, taunt and humiliate the complainant and used to give threat to desert and divorce the complainant and the accused No. 1 used to treat the complainant in a highly brute manner. The accused No. 1 forcefully used to do sex against the order of nature with the complainant". It can be argued that 'oral sex' is also against the order of nature but the use of word 'and' indisputably suggests that apart from 'oral sex' complainant refers to 'anal sex' also. Perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded under section 164 CrPC (Ex PW 12/C) would reveal that the complainant has claimed that during her honeymoon accused Anshuman forcefully had oral sex with her and he also tried to have anal intercourse but the complainant did not allow him to do so. After returning back from honeymoon, accused Anshuman, at his farmhouse, again tried to have anal sex with her but the complainant denied him. Evidently, there are contradictions in the version of the complainant, as reflected in the complainant (Ex.PW3/BE), wherein she claims that she was forced to do sex against the order of nature with the accused Anshuman and the statement recorded under section 164 CrPC (Ex PW 12/C) wherein, she claims that she did not permit accused Anshuman to have anal intercourse with her. The complainant again in her examination in chief dated 07.02.2019 has claimed that during the honeymoon accused Anshuman forced his organ in her mouth and made her participate in unnatural sex. She further went on to testify, although her husband forced her to do unnatural sex but she still refused him. She further claimed that after returning from honeymoon accused Anshuman, at his farm house, used to repeat his conduct but she still refused him unnatural sex. However, in her examination in chief dated 03.04.2019, she again takes a U-turn and alleged that accused Anshuman used to force her to have unnatural sex with her during her menstrual cycle due to which skin inside her private part had torn and she had to go to Max State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 38 of 91 Hospital Saket. Then again in her examination in chief dated: 27.04.2019 she once again reiterates the allegation that accused Anshuman, during their honeymoon, and after that at the farmhouse and also when they were alone, used to force her for anal sex and he continued this even till her last day in her matrimonial home.
25. Not only the inconsistent testimony of the complainant Ritika(PW3) fails to inspire confidence, the absence of any forensic or medical evidence to corroborate the above said allegation casts an irreparable dent upon the version of the prosecution.
26. In the matter of Gowrishankara Swamigalu vs State Of Karnataka & Anr {(2008)14 SCC 411, Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside a conviction under section 377 IPC has observed as under:-
" 10. Delay in lodging of a First Information Report although by itself may not be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case, but each case must be judged on its own facts. If the story of PW-1 is to be accepted at its face value, the court may not take serious notice of delay in lodging the First Information Report. But, for the said purpose, the entire facts and circumstances of this case must be taken note of. The offence was said to have been repeated for seven days at about the same time. It is wholly unlikely that a student of a school of the Mutt, where compulsorily prayer has to be offered on a clean cloth and as apart from two pairs of lungi and two pairs of school uniforms he did not have anything else, had been putting on the same lungi at least for about seven days while visiting the appellant at his call.
11. From the statements of PW-4, it appears that according to Respondent No. 2, his mother used to come to the school for washing the clothes once in a week or so. At the same time, soap had been provided to Respondent No. 2 for washing his clothes. This conduct on the part of Respondent No. 2 throws serious doubts to the whole story. If Respondent No. 2 had returned to school on 3.08.1986 and attempts were made by the appellant immediately thereafter to send for him for repeating the commission of the same offence, there was no reason why the First Information Report was not lodged immediately.
....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ...................................................... 14. A bare perusal of the First Information Report itself shows that it cannot be in the handwriting of a student studying in Class IX. It was in very good handwriting. It was written systematically. There was no mistake.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 39 of 91
There was no hesitation in writing. It was absolutely neat and clean. The contents of the First Information Report clearly demonstrate that the same has been drafted by a person who is well versed in legal language. Immediately, a purported statement was taken after the First Information report was lodged that there exists some improvement therein is not in dispute. A further statement was recorded that he had himself written the First Information Report. The subsequent statement may not be a part of the First Information Report being a statement under Section 161 of the Code; but the defence is entitled to show that improvements have been made therein vis-`-vis the allegations made in the First Information Report.
21.......................................................................................... ............................................................................................. ........................................................................ It may be true that absence of medical offence by itself may not be a crucial factor in all cases, but, the same has to be taken into consideration as a relevant factor when other evidences point towards the innocence of the appellant."
27. Thus, considering the delay in reporting the matter and delayed registration of the FIR, absence of any medical record and the nature of testimony of the complainant, I have no hesitation in observing that a shadow of doubt is cast upon the prosecution version and accused deserves the benefit of doubt.
Now I move on to third point for determination i.e. (3) Whether accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang, in furtherance of their common intention, treated Complainant Ritika with cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 498A IPC?
28. It has been jointly argued by learned APP and counsel for the complainant that prosecution has successfully proved that accused Anshuman Narang Anil Narang and Rachna Narang harassed Complainant Ritika and subjected her to cruelty with a view to coerce Complainant and her parents to concede to the unlawful demands of the accused persons. It is submitted that not only the testimony of the complainant remains unimpeached the same is also duly corroborated State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 40 of 91 by the testimony of other material witnesses and the documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 498A IPC.
29. On the contrary, learned defence counsel has forcefully argued that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is full of improvements, materials contradictions, embellishments and falsehood. It is argued that the presumption of innocence stands fortified as the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any cogent, convincing and credible evidence on record.
30. Before I advert on to a discussion or an analysis of the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses examined, It will be worthwhile to have a glance on the provision of Section 498A IPC.
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section "cruelty" means -
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman : or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 41 of 91
Explanation (b) to Section 498-A provides that cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment a cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security. Mere harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.
31. In the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990(2) RCR 18, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had observed that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands.
32. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Anr. 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 wherein it was observed that offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry.
33. While interpreting the provisions of Section 304-B, 498-A,306 and 324 IPC, in the decision reported as State of HP Vs Nikkur Ram and Ors 1995(6) SCC 219, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 42 of 91 the case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498-A IPC.
34. It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A IPC and the afore-noted judicial pronouncements that the pre-condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121. In the said case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
35. It is in the light of the aforesaid interpretation to Section 498A IPC, as has been laid down in a number of cases by the higher courts of the land, it is to be seen whether the conduct of the accused persons, as alleged by the complainant Ritika (PW3) and Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW
48) in their deposition, amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC or not. To have a better view of the allegations so levelled by the prosecution, it will be worthwhile to discuss the various allegations as have been stated by the prosecution witnesses in their deposition.
36. For the sake of convenience let us divide the set of allegations into the category of pre-marriage allegations and post-marriage allegations.
Pre -Marriage Allegations Complainant Ritika (PW3) has testified on oath that on 17.11.2013 her mother-in-law, father-in-law and grand mother-in-law demanded that everything should be given equal to all of them and their family members i.e equal cash, equal jewellery and expensive clothes. She has further testified that demands started increasing as date of marriage approached nearer. Heavy, cash and jewellery and clothes State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 43 of 91 were demanded by the accused persons, Astha Narang and Sushil Arora, maternal uncle-in-law. The demand also included a car Audi A4. It is stated that all the accused persons demanded that the car should be registered in the name of accused Anshuman She has further stated that before marriage, accused Anshuman had laid down conditions regarding her visit to her parental home to the effect that she would be permitted to go there only during Bhaidooj and Rakshabandhan and also asked her to change her life style to suit the South Delhi life style; taunted her North Delhi upbringing and forced her to start drinking and applying makeup and wearing clothes like his mother and sister and upon this, she had asked accused Anshuman to break off the marriage, however, after sometime accused Anshuman alongwith his mother Rachna Narang called up her parents and felt sorry for what had happened and assured them that none of these conditions or terms would be applicable or forced after the marriage. However, soon after her marriage, the said conditions were relaid upon her. She has further stated that during first Sagan Ceremony, accused persons and grand mother-in-law had asked for cash, jewellery and clothes for father of her mother-in-law despite the fact that he was no longer alive and this fact was mentioned by them in their written demand. It is stated that as the marriage approached, co-accused Rachna asked for kalicharies i.e silver kalicharies and silver ring while grand mother-in-law and accused Rachna demanded Rs. 5100/- in cash and kanyadaan ring. It is stated that Sagan ceremony was performed on 02.07.2014 and prior to that, a bollywood night was performed on 01.07.2014 and ring ceremony had been performed on 22.12.2013 and wedding ceremony took place on 07.07.2014. It is stated that as per the demand of all accused persons and their other family members, all functions were to be performed by them separately.
Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW 48) ; father of complainant has supported the complainant in the witness box. He has deposed that on 17.11.2013, 25-30 persons came from the side of accused persons including accused Anshuman, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang visited the house State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 44 of 91 of PW48. He has further deposed that accused persons gave a diamond necklace and some gifts to the complainant Ritika Juneja and in return, the family of complainant gave a gold coin and cash to accused Anshuman Narang and when they all were leaving the house of the complainant, accused persons told PW48 that in future, equal articles/cash/jewellery should be given to them on any function/ceremony but PW48 ignored the same at that time. He has further deposed that on 22.12.2013, the ring ceremony of accused Anshuman Narang with Ritika Juneja took place at the farm house which was attended by 65-70 people from the side of accused persons and in the said function, the family of complainant gave 51 sweet boxes, 51 dry fruit boxes, dry fruit thal, large dry dal etc and the family of complainant gave diamond gold ring to accused Anshuman Narang, cost of which was Rs. 3 Lacs. He has further deposed that after taking dinner with accused persons, when the family of complainant was leaving, accused persons were not happy being not given sufficient articles; accused Anshuman Narang misbehaved with complainant Ritika Juneja and her mother upon which PW48 told accused Anshuman Narang and other accused persons that he is breaking the alliance as he cannot afford to give cash and jewellery to each and every person and will not be able to fulfill their demands but then, accused Anshuman Narang and accused Rachna Narang sought apology from them and promised not to repeat the same in future. He has further deposed that on 10.04.2014, on the occasion of 25th birthday of the complainant, PW48 had arranged Mata Ki Chowki at Cherish Banquet Hall, Wazirpur, Delhi which was attended by 250 people from the side of accused persons and in the said function also, gifts and articles were exchanged between his family and the family of accused persons and the said articles/things have been mentioned by the complainant in her Istridhan list given to the IO. He has further deposed that in the said Mata ki Chowki, accused Anshuman Narang did not behave properly with his daughter; accused Anshuman Narang made a call to the complainant and asked her to take liquor against her wishes when he would meet her, due to this, the complainant got disappointed and conveyed her feelings of not getting married with State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 45 of 91 accused Anshuman Narang. He has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang gave a call to his wife seeking apologies for the act of accused Anshuman Narang with a request not to recall the marriage and on her request, the complainant Ritika Juneja agreed to go ahead.PW48 has further deposed that during the period between Mata ki Chowki in April and before July 2014, accused persons made huge demand of dowry and asked the complainant family to give lavish gifts of gold and cash to their entire family of about 60-65 people. During one of the meeting at Greater Kailash, a long list of dowry demands was given to family of the complainant and after coming back home, the complainant and her family decided not to succumb to heavy dowry demands of accused persons. He has further deposed that thereafter, PW48 called grandfather of accused Anshuman Narang and a meeting was held at the farm house of accused persons in May, 2014 in the presence of grand father of accused Anshuman Narang where accused persons handed over revised list of dowry demands stating that the accused persons would be satisfied, if their direct family is given gifts of jewellery and cash, which were about 20-25 persons and the remaining larger family of the in-laws of the complainant, would be gifted with clothes and cash. He has further deposed that as the date of marriage was fixed and the time was passing, the demands of accused persons started increasing as accused persons first refused to take car in the marriage as they were already having 5-6 cars but later on they demanded luxury car by saying that the car will be seen by the people and is required for their status; PW48 told accused persons to give Cruze car in the marriage but accused Anil Narang and other accused persons demanded Audi car in the marriage; as per the demand of accused persons, PW48 gave cash of Rs. 2,45,000/- for registration of car and Rs. 20 Lacs by cheque for car and the total cost of the Audi car was Rs. 29,95,000/-.
Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva (PW43) has deposed that in the engagement ceremony in December, 2013 held in the farmhouse of co-accused Anil Narang, the father of the complainant had gifted gold and diamond jewellery alongwith cash to accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and other family members but they were not happy with State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 46 of 91 the same. Upon enquiry, Pradeep Juneja (PW48) told him that accused perons had demanded something else also and told me that he will tell him in detail after reaching home. PW43 has further deposed that in the sagan ceremony held on 02.07.2014, the father of the complainant had gifted gold jewellery alongwith branded clothes to accused Anshuman Narang and other family members and relatives; Pradeep Juneja had also gifted one Audi car to accused Anshuman Narang but accused Anil Narang told Pradeep Juneja that " ye hame aap kya de rahe ho, ye audi car bohut low standard ki hai, 30-32 lakh ki hai".
37. Perusal of the testimonies of the two star witnesses(PW3 and PW
48) of the prosecution would reveal that there are certain vague, general and omnibus allegations and fails to pass muster the test laid down by superior courts in the matter of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors, Richhpal Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Anr, State of HP V Nikkur Ram and Ors (Supra). For instance, let us take the allegation regarding giving equal cash, equal jewellery and expensive clothes or demanding heavy cash and jewellery and clothes, car or demanding separate functions or for that matter laying down conditions regarding life styles etc. even if presumed to be true for the sake of arguments, the said allegations are not sufficient to bring home a charge for commission of the offence under section 498 A IPC. Further, even the allegations regarding the demand of kalicharies i.e silver kalicharies and silver ring, Rs. 5100/- in cash and kanyadaan ring it is not of much help for the prosecution. Complainant Ritika (PW3) had admitted that it is customary to exchange gifts between the bride and groom side on the occasion of marriage ceremonies. She also admits that it is not only her family members, who gave gifts to the other side but even she received expensive gifts from the groom's side. Thus, mere exchange of gifts, or for that even though on demand, are not sufficient to constitute 'cruelty' for the purpose of Section 498AIPC unless there is a nexus between such demand and the alleged cruelty. Evidently, State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 47 of 91 Complainant admitted that she used to meet accused Anshuman before their marriage. In her cross-examination on 06.01.2020, she has categorically admitted that she was comfortable in these meetings with accused Anshuman. It is really surprising that if she and her family were constantly harassed and traumatized by the accused persons by demanding dowry then how come she was comfortable in these meetings.
38. Complainant Ritika (PW3) fails to corroborate the allegation of her father that accused Anshuman misbehaved with her on 22.12.2013,on the occasion of the ring ceremony, or on 10.04.2014, on the occasion of 25th birthday of the complainant. Still further, complainant claims that she called off the marriage on account of absurd and onerous conditions laid down by accused Anshuman. It is surprising that she is perturbed by the above said conditions but she is not disturbed by the rising dowry demands. Although, in the subsequent portion of her testimony she also supports her father that they attempted to call off the marriage on account of dowry demands from the accused persons but such an averment is conspicuously missing in the complaint (EX PW3/BE) or the statement recorded under section 164 CrPC. Further, she claims that groom's side demanded bracelet and ring and accused Anshuman personally selected the engagement ring at the shop of the jeweller. She has also placed on record the bill of the said engagement ring EX PW3/AN1. The mendacity of the complainant is exposed when we closely scrutinise the said Bill. The said Bill is dated 12-April-2013 whereas, as per the complainant and her father, the first meeting between both the families took place around October 2013.Therefore, the ring which the complainant claimed was personally selected by accused Anshuman at the shop of the jeweller is found to have been purchased much before complainant came in touch with the accused persons. Further, the testimony of Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva also deserves to be discarded as neither PW 3 nor PW 48 corroborates of any such conversation with PW 43. Rather to the contrary, PW 48 claims that the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 48 of 91 'demanded Audi Car valued about Rs. 30 lacs' was gifted to the groom. If the groom side has received their demanded car there was no occasion for them to have any grudge. Even the list Ex. PW 3/Q1 and Ex. PW 3/Q2 simply makes a mention of the customary Milni/gifts and the description of the relatives to be given milnis and are not of much help for the cause of the prosecution.
Post Marriage Allegations Complainant Ritika(PW3) has testified that her grahparvesh also took place at E-163, G.K-I and also at E-159 and when they were planning to go for honeymoon, accused Anshuman, his parents and sister started pressurizing her asking as to what her parents were going to give before they go for honeymoon; accused Anshuman even pressurized her to ask her parents to give Rs. 1 lakh and also second floor of her parental house; even at the time of grahparvesh at the Farm House, her parents- in-law and sister-in-law had demanded the second floor of her parental house. She has further stated that her mother-in-law (Accused Rachna) also taunted her before they went to honeymoon, and also at Grahparvesh that she had not received diamond necklace like the one which her mother was wearing on her Sagan; her father-in-law (Accused Anil Narang) also taunted her to the effect that, 'kanglo ke ghar se aagayi hai aur hame kuchh nahi mila'.PW3 has further testified that about 865 peoples had attended their wedding in Lee Meridian Hotel; parents of PW-3 had spent about 2.5 crore on marriage She has further testified that after marriage and before going to honeymoon, she was often taunted by the accused persons for having not brought sufficient dowry. She has further testified that when she refused unnatural sex, Accused Anshuman forced her to do the same after 2-3 days but she still refused him and accused Anshuman slapped her and taunted her for her North Delhi upbringing and life style and orthodox mentality. She stated that all these facts were in the full knowledge of her mother-in-law Rachna Narang. She has further stated that accused Anshuman had an ejaculation problem and due to this, he used to throw his frustration on her;PW3 further stated that when she requested for jewelry and other expensive articles she was first scolded and thereafter they started neglecting her request and then started beating her since that day. She further deposed that accused persons did not let her enjoy and use her jewelry received from either side ; accused persons used to decide and dictate terms what to wear and have been very interfering in her private and matrimonial life. She has further stated that accused Rachna Narang and her daughter started taunting and putting blame on PW-3 for the ejaculation problem of accused Anshuman Narang. She has further deposed that few self-written demand slips Ex.PW3/Ql and State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 49 of 91 Ex.PW3/Q2 mentioning baby's sagan for a ceremony, where a boy had to sit on her lap after marriage, milnis, silver ring to be given by her in- laws to her in her haldi and oil ceremony, kalichidis that were to be given by her in-laws during her wedding, clothes, cash and jewelry for same number of people as in milnis to be given in the sagan ceremony by her parents, were made by accused Rachna Narang , Anil Narang and Anshuman Narang alongwith her sister-in-law Astha Narang and the Grandmother.PW3 has further testified that accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang alongwith Aastha Narang have started interfering in her day to day activities when she had returned to her matrimonial home from honeymoon and when she asked about such behavior, all the accused persons bluntly told her that as their dowry demands have not been fully met and only Audi A4 model has been given and not a higher model, hence, they will not allow her to live in her matrimonial life peacefully and happily. She has further stated that accused Anil Narang had taunted her by saying "audi ke naam pe humein accord ke rate ki gadi de di hai, jiski na sunroof hai or nai. hi side mirror automatic hai, kam, se kam ye to dekh lete ki humar e paas bhi sunroof wali hi gadi hai". She has stated that all the accused persons in lieu of the demand of dowry started harassing her more. All accused persons alongwith other family members had insulted her by saying that her family had not given cash and jewelery items individually to all their 65 relatives but infact all three accused persons, grandparents and paternal uncle and family of paternal uncle were already given cash, jewelry articles and clothes by her family. She has further stated that even before marriage whenever her parents used to visit at the house of accused persons and farm house, her parents used to bring everything including fruits baskets, sweets, cash etc. on the asking/demand of accused persons and the same things were also given to the grandparents and paternal uncle.
PW3 has further deposed that accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang have also demanded that whenever her parents would visit at their house and farm house, they should also get something for rest of the family members which include four paternal sisters of accused Anil Narang and two sisters and brother of accused Rachna Narang but this demand was not accepted by the parents of PW3 saying that they would not be able to fulfill these demands for their relatives as well. She has further deposed that even on Sagan ceremony, when accused persons demanded cash and jewelry for all their 65 relatives, her parents could not fulfill their demands and after marriage because of non-fulfillment of all their demands, they all started harassing and taunting PW3 and also started interfering in her daily activities; accused persons did not let her buy any light clothes and undergarments; accused Anshuman Narang even denied for her basic need and told her to beg in front of her mother- in-law and sister-in-law and accused Anil Narang equally interfered in this matter directly or indirectly. PW3 has further testified that Ye puchne par ke mere sath aisa kyun ho rha hai, Ye sare log mujhe idhar se udhar bhagate rhte the, kabhi kehte the usse pucho, usse puchne pe, khte the ke usse pucho. PW3 has further deposed that after coming from honeymoon when she asked accused Anshuman Narang and her in- laws to go to her parental home but they all denied and told her that State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 50 of 91 now this is her matrimonial home and it is her duty to only stay here and not go to her parental home anymore and that she will only be allowed to go to her parental home only on Raksha Bandhan and Bhai Duj. PW3 has stated that the same terms and conditions were put before the marriage by accused Anshuman Narang but at that time, she and her parents had declined but they were given assurance that no such stupid terms and conditions would be kept after marriage and at that time, accused Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang had apologized for the same to PW3 and her mother but all three accused persons alongwith Astha Narang and grand mother started harassing and torturing PW3 and did not let her go to meet her parents at all. She has stated that she went to her parental home after coming back from honeymoon but on her return, accused Anshuman Narang, Rachna Narang and Astha Narang started taunting her using filthy language for her and her parents and thereafter they became adamant to not allow her to visit her parental home. PW3 has stated that even when her mother was hospitalized in Escorts Hospital and remained admitted there for about 3-4 days, she was not allowed to visit her mother in the hospital by accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and by sister-in-law Astha Narang not even in visiting hours but after begging in front of them individually for several times and crying in front of them, accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang allowed her to visit her mother at the Escorts Hospital only for 10 minutes subject to condition that she should not tell her parents and relatives anything about torture, harassment and misbehavior of accused persons and other family members meted out to her due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands by her parents. She has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang, Rachna Narang and Anil Narang and sister-in-law Astha Narang used to find ways and means to torture her physically and mentally to such an extent that she even thought of committing suicide in just short span of her matrimonial life. PW3 has stated that she was subjected by accused Rachna Narang and Astha Narang to wash bathroom tiles and clothes of both the houses despite of having around three servants; the accused persons deliberately removed the part time maid to torture and pressurize her to ask her parents to give them all jewelry that they have demanded. PW3 has stated that all accused persons alongwith other family members to harass PW3 and support each other in one way or the other to keep her hungry so that she could be sized zero and this was being done just to pressurize her and her parents to give divorce to accused Anshuman Narang. PW3 has stated that accused persons even made her to join VLCC, Gym and crash dieting course all at the same time to torture her and her parents; they used filthy language for her and her parents; accused Anil Narang also used to throw saucer, pans, plates on her to hurt her deliberately but she somehow used to save herself; accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang used to demand expensive gifts on the occasion of their birthdays, Ram Navmi, Dusshera and other occasions.
PW3 has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang, Rachna Narang and Anil Narang and Astha Narang have insulted her and her parents demanding equal amount of dowry and also told her that another person or party was ready to spend Rs. 5 Crore on the wedding before her marriage and they were also searching and looking State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 51 of 91 for another bride for accused Anshuman Narang through different mediums. PW3 has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang gave her approximately Rs. 10,000/- in the short span of her matrimonial life and he even refused to maintain her daily needs and has always been supported by his parents. PW3 has deposed that accused Rachna Narang used to make her do all dirty works of the house with an intention to trouble her because her expensive demands including the diamond necklace similar to one that mother of PW3 wore on 02.07.2014 were not met; accused Rachna Narang has clearly told her that she will torture and harass PW3 as her parents were not able to fulfill their demand as per their status and standard; even grandmother and maternal uncle Sushil Arora of accused Anshuman Narang had immense interference in her private and matrimonial life alongwith others and their interference also contributed to her decision to commit suicide; they both provoked the accused persons to demand more from the parents of PW3. PW3 has further deposed that in order to harass and torture her and her family, accused Anshuman Narang filed three civil cases Mark PW3/CE to Mark PW3/CG claiming relief of Rs.50.0 lacs alongwith other different cases including a criminal case against her brother in Noida besides other cases filed by both the parties against each other.
PW3 has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang alongwith his parents and sister even threatened PW3 to install more CCTV Cameras and spy speakers in her bedroom and bathroom to record and track her movements and conversations and they all even threatened to kill her if she told anyone; the accused persons traumatized her and did not let her live her private and matrimonial life with dignity and independence; all the accused persons have used vulgar and bad language which also included invectives to such a level to pressurize, insult and humiliate her to either divorce accused Anshuman Narang or to meet their expensive demands. PW3 has further stated that she lived under constant fear and trauma during her matrimonial stay and this constant fear and trauma was given by accused Anshuman Narang, accused Rachna Narang, Anil Narang, her sister-in-law Astha Narang, grand mother Bimla Narang and maternal uncle Sushil Arora and they all in collusion with each other have tortured and harassed PW3 physically as well as mentally and did the same with her parents even in meetings that were held since 27.10.2014. She has further deposed that accused Anil Narang had also threatened her to be size zero because he wanted her to wear bikini as he had bad intentions towards her and she had constant pressure and fear from him everyday in her matrimonial life.
PW3 has further deposed that all three accused persons were so greedy that they straightaway asked her either to give Rs. 2.5 Crore in cash or to spend the same in the form of expensive articles as they had only spent approximately Rs. 2.5 Crore in the wedding; accused persons always used to pass remarks and kept comparing her and her parents with a person who was ready to spend Rs. 5 Crore in the marriage. She has further deposed that accused persons and Astha Narang always used to check her mobile phone, its every application, every detail and scroll each and every detail of her Facebook and other State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 52 of 91 messages and even despite her repeated requests, accused Anshuman Narang and his parents kept on interfering regularly in her private and matrimonial life. She also requested them to remove CCTV cameras from her room again and again but they did not remove which caused her grave mental trauma. She even repeatedly requested each of the accused persons to permit her to go to her parental home on the birthday of her father on 23.08.2014 but the accused persons made her run from one person to another which also caused her immense mental stress; she was also not allowed by the accused persons to even use the Audi car that her parents had purchased on their demand; PW3 was even deprived of using anything which included cash, jewellery articles or other expensive articles which were given to her by her parents and her in-laws which were used to be kept in possession of accused persons and whenever she demanded them for her use, she was refused by the accused persons; her jewelry was also kept in their possession which she was permitted to use only when she had to go out with accused Anshuman in their social circle or function and thereafter, they used to take the same back on her return. She has further stated that she finally got permission from the accused persons to go to her parental home on 21.08.2014 and they all unwillingly gave her permission to take the car with her. She has stated that on 21.08.2014, her father invited accused persons, grandparents and Vikas Narang and his family to a restaurant at Pandara road but the accused persons taunted and hurled unparliamentary words for inviting them to a restaurant in Pandara road and not inviting them in a posh place or a five star hotel according to their status and accused Anil Narang refused to come by giving an excuse of being busy. She has deposed that on 23.08.2014, on the invitation of her father, accused Anshuman Narang came to her parental house where he demanded the second floor of her parental house in his name but her father refused to do so and then, accused Anshuman Narang misbehaved with her and her family.
She has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang also asked her family to keep the Audi car with them for a month or so and on enquiry, accused Anshuman gave an excuse of excise raid that has taken place in their factories and he asked her parents to keep the car till everything is sorted out but after birthday dinner, when she returned back to her matrimonial home, accused Anshuman and his parents laughed at her and stated that they had made a fool of PW3 and her parents and she was told that her parents can keep the car with them for whole life as they had taken the car without their will and desire, so they all planned this fake excise raid conspiracy to harass her and her parents mentally to such an extent that when she told this to her parents, she and her parents could not sleep and had sleepless nights till 27.08.2014 and her parents immediately came to return the car on 27.08.2014 and also to invite for first official family dinner after marriage. She has further deposed that when her parents and brother came to her matrimonial home i.e at E-159, accused Rachna Narang behaved rudely with her parents and brother and inspite of greeting them, she started taunting and passing remarks about PW3 to her parents. She also told the parents and brother of PW3 that "ki tumhari beti yaha aakar State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 53 of 91 phit gayi hai aur isne yaha pe sab kuch dekh liya hai"; accused Rachna Narang tried to show off that she belong to a very sophisticated and rich family and PW3 belongs to a very poor family and asked her parents to keep PW3 with them for five to six months so that her brain starts working. Accused Rachna Narang was continuously complaining, demanding something or the other, passed taunting vulgar remarks to her parents and when her parents were discussing about menu, venue etc, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith his parents and sister suddenly started misbehaving and yelling at her parents for not inviting the other 60 to 65 relatives whom her parents had not given any cash, jewellery or other expensive articles in shagun held on 02.07.2014 and when her parents politely said no to this demand, then accused Anshuman and his parents started demanding second floor of parental home again and when her parents denied this demand as well, they all started misbehaving and also threatened to call 20-30 people to harm them and dissolve this marriage by hook or by crook. She has further deposed that she was threatened by the accused persons to give divorce or else they all had good nexus with police officials, bureaucrats and politicians and they could get this marriage dissolved by any means and solemnize another marriage of accused Anshuman Narang secretly due to which her parents got shocked and her mother developed serious complications.
PW3 has further testified that grandfather of accused Anshuman Narang called a meeting of both the family in the farm house of accused Anil Narang regarding their misconduct where all the accused persons apologized and also gave assurance in front of grandfather not to repeat it again and to treat PW3 as their family member; everything was alright but again after few days, accused persons started misbehaving with her; accused Anil Narang again started throwing food plates on her and said "iska kaam tamaam kar do" and she was even forced to take a job to meet her expenses as accused Anshuman had denied to maintain her financially and also her daily needs.
PW3 has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang used to strangulate her on abetment of accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang whenever she used to raise her voice against the harassment and torture. She has further deposed that on 05.10.2014, accused persons again refused to give her permission to go to her parent's house on the occasion of marriage anniversary of her parents and she was also given beatings by the accused persons as they were in fear that she would tell everything to her parents. She has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang even told her to think that she is in a hostel and accused Rachna Narang is her warden and even told her that she could also think her as the Jailer and herself as a prisoner of her jail. She has deposed that accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang misbehaved with her in every extent possible on 05.10.2014; accused Rachna Narang physically assaulted her, tore her clothes, beat her and caught her from her elbows, dragged her inside the dining area and pushed her forcefully and badly and at that time, accused Anil Narang and her sister-in-law Astha Narang were laughing at her condition. She has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang alongwith Anil Narang was yelling at her for their unsatisfactory demands and accused State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 54 of 91 Rachna Narang was only concerned with her demands and kept asking about the demands including the diamond necklace for herself, expensive articles and gifts for festivals like Novmi, Dusshera, expensive articles which were not given on their birthdays on 20th and 21st July 2014, jewelery and cash for her and other relatives, branded clothes for accused Anshuman Narang, her sister-in-law Astha Narang and was continuously demanding expensive articles for all other 65 relatives. She has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang kept on asking about the dinner invitation for their other 65 relatives and they both while complaining about their demands, kept on beating her and on that day, she got a chance to run away; accused persons sent her with the driver asking her to never come back; she narrated the whole incident to her parents upon which, her father called accused Anil Narang and enquired him but accused Anil Narang started misbehaving, insulting and using vulgar language filled with invectives and other unparliamentary words and also threatened her father(PW48) to keep PW3 with him and to never send her back to her matrimonial house and also threatened to get her divorced from accused Anshuman Narang at any cost. Accused Anil Narang kept on abusing and yelling loudly on her father (PW48) on phone and was continuously giving threats one after another.
PW3 has further deposed that her father also called grandfather of accused Anshuman Narang at the farm house and at that time, accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang, were already present there as they could be heard abusing them in the background; accused Anil Narang thereafter snatched the phone from grandfather and started abusing PW3 and her family continuously and using the same invectives and unparliamentary words.
PW3 has further deposed that she had sent an e-mail dated 07.10.2014 Mark PW3/CM through her personal e-mail address i.e [email protected] bearing diary no. 11501 and endorsement of ACP and SHO and when her father told about this intimation to the grandfather, a meeting was fixed at the farm house by the grandfather on 07.10.2014 itself where accused Anshuman Narang was present alongwith his parents; family of PW3 also participated in the said meeting and in the said meeting, accused Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang apologized for their misconduct and assured not to repeat this again in future and treat her as their own family member and as decided in the said meeting, on 10.10.2014, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith his sister Astha Narang came to parental home of PW3 where after spending some time, Astha Narang asked about the allergy on the left side of face of PW3 to which she told her that she got treatment from their family doctor and on hearing this, Astha Narang got angry that as to why she did not get the same treated from their doctor and then accused Anshuman alongwith his sister again started misbehaving with her and her parents and they both complained about fulfillment of their demand of second floor in her parental house. She has further deposed that they both were reminded of their assurances made in front of grandfather and then they both accompanied PW3 and her parents to Gulab Restaurant; Pitam Pura, where accused Anshuman also invited one of their cousin Esha Monga for the dinner State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 55 of 91 and after dinner, PW3 went back to her matrimonial home. After her return, she was taunted by accused Rachna Narang and her daughter Astha Narang for not taking them to Hotel City Park for dinner. She has stated that she was given new clothes and cash by her parents on 10.10.2014 and on 11.10.2014, her parents came to her matrimonial home for greeting the first karvachauth but no one from the family of accused persons spoke to them and they went back after 15-20 minutes. She has stated that thereafter, accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang and grand mother started complaining about less cash given to them and were not given any clothes and jewelry as they were expecting all these articles for themselves.
She has further deposed that on the day of Karva Chauth, accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang further harassed her for insufficient dowry and asked her to compensate for a sum of Rs.5 crores, which her parents have claimed that they were getting from another marriage proposal of accused Anshuman Narang and they again insisted for transfer of floor of her parental house in the name of accused Anshuman Narang and that accused Rachna Narang and her sister-in-law Astha Narang expressed their unhappiness over the gifts of Karva Chauth, stating that they were expecting the diamond necklace worth of Rs.25 lakhs for themselves that was worn by her mother on the Sagan Ceremony.
PW3 has further testified that after two/three days, accused Anil Narang abused her and used very unparliamentary language towards her and threatened to divorce her and secretly marry accused Anshuman Narang elsewhere. She has stated that the dowry demands of accused persons kept on increasing day by day and they started pressurizing her to communicate and ask for dowry from her parents. She has stated that thereafter, accused Anil Narang started throwing utensils towards her, she was beaten and tortured by accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang and her sister-in-law Astha Narang and accused Anshuman supported his family members. She has further stated that accused Anil Narang also humiliated PW3 by asking her to loose weight in the presence of the entire larger family/all the accused persons in her matrimonial house saying that he wanted her to wear a bikini and take her to different foreign locations.
PW3 Ritika Juneja has further deposed that few days before the festival of Diwali, parents of PW3 alongwith some relatives came to her matrimonial house with gifts, which are also part of her Istridhan articles, and sweets but they were not received well by the accused persons which was noticed by her relatives and they left with a heavy heart.
PW3 has further deposed that on 19.10.2014, all three accused persons arranged a card party at farmhouse and asked her to invite her parents and brother to keep a social face where her family came with gifts but they were misbehaved and not received well in the said party; her parents remained there for half an hour/one hour; they were taunted by maternal uncle Sushil Arora saying that why she is still at her matrimonial house and not thrown out so far, as per the desire of accused persons to marry accused Anshuman Narang elsewhere in a richer family and maternal uncle Sushil Arora also misbehaved with her State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 56 of 91 father by hurling vulgar abuses and expressed anger for insufficient dowry brought by PW3.
She has further deposed that on 21/22.10.2014 morning, she was told by accused Anshuman Narang to divorce her due to insufficient dowry; he demanded that she(PW3) should agree for divorce by mutual consent, failing which he threatened her of having close connections and nexus with higher police officials, politicians and persons of command and asked her to get out of the life on the same day. On that day, she was asked to get ready for pooja at the factories in Okhla; despite her repeated requests to accused Rachna Narang, she refused to give her jewellery; accused Anil Narang objected to her coming to the pooja without wearing any jewellery for which they misbehaved with her; when she returned home, she also received a call from accused Anil Narang who addressed her in very vulgar language in the presence of accused Rachna Narang and Astha Narang for about one hour and also spoke vulgar words against her family, friends and relatives and he also asked her to leave her matrimonial home at the earliest and accused Rachna Narang asked Anshuman Narang to keep the entire telephonic conversation a secret, even from his own grandparents.
Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) has testified that on 07.07.2014, the guest list from accused side exceeded and about 700 guests from their side, attended the wedding, PW48 requested the management of Le Maridien Hotel to increase the arrangements for dinner by about 400 people and also requested to give the payment later as there was an increase by Rs.10-15 lacs. Even the band walas about 51 persons were also made to have dinner at the main venue, though, there was arrangement for their separate dinner. He has deposed that on 08.07.2014, next day of marriage, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith complainant Ritika Juneja came on the Pagphera ceremony to the house of PW48 but at that time, the complainant Ritlka Juneja was not properly dressed like a newly wed and was wearing only a very light weight neck piece. On enquiry, the complainant told that she was not wearing heavy jewellery as she was returning from the market and that the behaviour of accused Anshuman Narang was also not upto the mark and he was very dry and impersonal while interacting with the family members of the complainant and on confrontation, accused Anshuman Narang expressed displeasure owing to lesser gifts to his family and said that even the admitted guests were given gifts of smaller value than desired and his family was unhappy with the dowry gifted to Ritika. PW48 has further deposed that he had given the entire cash received by them in the marriage, amounting to about Rs.3,10,000/-, gold jewelry gifted by their relatives to the complainant and the entire gold jewelry gifted by in-laws of Ritika at Sagan and the entire valuable were handed over to accused Anshuman Narang; he alongwith his wife made a call to parents of accused Anshuman Narang and conveyed them regarding handing over of all the entire valuables to accused Anshuman Narang pertaining to stridhan of Ritika Juneja to accused Anshuman Narang.
PW48 Pradeep Juneja has further deposed that on the first visit i.e pagfera, at his house, accused Anshuman raised demand for State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 57 of 91 transfer of second floor of his house at Shalimar Bagh in his favour, stating that insufficient dowry was given in the marriage and he made persistent requests for the same to the complainant as well as to PW48 directly when he again met him. He has further deposed that one day before the date of leaving for Honeymoon, i.e. on 13.07.2014, his daughter requested him to arrange for a sum of Rs 1.00 lakh for expenses during the trip and accused Anshuman also talked to PW48 on telephone and accordingly, PW48 alongwith his wife visited the matrimonial house of their daughter on that day with gifts and cash of Rs.51.000/-, which were handed over to accused Anshuman.
PW48 has further deposed that when his daughter came back from honeymoon, he alongwith his wife went to airport to receive them but they were not received well by the family of accused persons. He has deposed that his wife suffered heart attack owing to mental shock due to illegal dowry demands of accused persons and remained admitted there for two days but his daughter was not allowed to stay with her mother in the hospital and had visited them only for ten minutes.
PW48 has further deposed that prior to his birthday on 23.08.2014, his daughter came to his house by driving the Audi car herself and stayed for about three days; none of the accused persons attended his birthday celebration because the invitation was not for a five star hotel. He has further deposed that after the birthday celebration, complainant Ritika came back to her matrimonial house in another car driven by accused Anshuman and Audi car remained parked at the house of PW48 and when requested, accused Anshuman Narang said that he would pick up the car through his driver but after another two days, it was communicated that there was an excise raid and accused family requested to let the Audi car remained parked at the house of PW48 for few more days and after 4-5 days, approximately on 27.08.2014, PW48 himself took the Audi car to E-159, Greater Kailash-I but it was later told to him by his daughter that accused persons were deliberately not picking up the car to mentally harass them. PW48 has further deposed that when he alongwith his wife just reached the house of accused persons to return the Audi car and just taken the water, accused Rachna Narang started telling them to take back their daughter Ritika as she could not settle in their house and that time, accused Anshuman Narang was also present there. PW 48 agreed to take his daughter back with him but then accused Rachna Narang called accused Anil Narang who reached home and after seeing his (PW48) willingness to take his daughter back, the attitude of accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang immediately changed and showed their love and acceptance towards the complainant. PW48 has further deposed that after returning home, when he realized that they have left their home keys in the Audi car, they went back to the matrimonial house of the complainant to take their keys where they were ill-treated by accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and Astha Narang and asked them to take back their daughter Ritika as she was not adjusting well in her matrimonial house and to keep her for 4-6 months to make her level headed, however, his daughter Ritika refused to accompany her father and accused Anshuman Narang said that Ritika would have to live on his terms and conditions and then PW48 alongwith his wife came back home.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 58 of 91
PW48 has further deposed that due to unending demands of accused persons, the health condition of his wife deteriorated. He has further deposed that in the first week of September, 2014, complainant came for two days to see her mother and at that time, she informed PW48 about the persistent dowry demands and mental harassment meted out to her by her father-in-law/accused Anil Narang, who told her that he was dissatisfied with small gifts, short guest lists and insufficient jewellery gifts and expenditure of 2 - 2.5 crores in the wedding. He has deposed that his daughter further told him that accused Anil Narang conveyed that they would easily get match for accused Anshuman Narang who would spend upto 5 crores. He has deposed that till that time, accused Anil Narang made calls to him asking him to send back the small and dissatisfactory dowry articles. He has deposed that on return of the complainant to her matrimonial home, accused Anil Narang threatened him that he would come with 20-25 persons and asked him also to call as many people as he wanted to which he replied that he is willing to come to their house or office to which accused Anil Narang retracted and said that he was talking about mediation with 20-25 persons, to sort out the differences. Accused Anil Narang showed same conduct repeatedly for 4-5 times, at an interval of every 7-10 days, extending threats to him(PW48).
PW48 Pradeep Juneja has deposed that on the next day, accused Anil Narang fixed up a meeting at United Coffee House, Connaught Place at 3:00 pm to meet him but he expressed his unhappiness on the manner and behaviour of the complainant and asked him to teach her to behave as per their desires; accused Anil Narang further told him that due to small gifts given to them, they had lost a face in the society, as they all were people of high status in the society; accused Anil Narang further told him that he gave disrespect to him by not offering them dinner in five star hotel and not taking care of their respectable status; accused Anil Narang also threatened to return the Audi car as he wanted a red Audi which was booked by him and after staying for 35-40 minutes there, he (PW48) returned back to his house.
PW48 has further deposed that on 05.10.2014, being his wedding anniversary, complainant was coming to her parental home and when she was on her way, he (PW48) received a telephonic call of accused Anil Narang to send back Ritika to her matrimonial house, as she had not respected her in-laws and had left her matrimonial house without touching his feet; he (PW48) accordingly asked Ritika to go back and at that time, she was crying and she later told him that on reaching her matrimonial home, she touched the feet of accused Anil Narang and told him that she had done this at the time of leaving. He has deposed that when his daughter came to her parental house, she was very upset and told him that accused Anil Narang had earlier misbehaved with her on two occasions by throwing food filled plate towards her and one time, it had missed hitting her on her face; she further told him that she was also humiliated by accused Rachna Narang and Astha Narang, expressing their displeasure for insufficient dowry; on hearing this, he (PW48) called accused Anil Narang and confronted him who admitted his mistake of having forgotten that Ritika State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 59 of 91 had touched his feet already but he soon raised his temper and shouted at him that he do not want to keep Ritika in his house, to which he told him that he will not send his daughter back to her matrimonial house.
PW48 has further deposed that after an hour, father of accused Anil Narang namely Somnath Narang called him and asked him about the differences and he narrated the whole facts and Somnath Narang fixed up a meeting at his farmhouse at Chhattarpur, on 07.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. where he called both parties to be present. PW48 has further deposed that on his way to the farm house, emails were sent to Commissioner of Police Delhi and DCP, North West for their safety. He has deposed that both the parties met at the farmhouse where the matter was compromised and accused persons sought pardon for their misbehaviour and requested him to forget the past misbehaviour; in the said meeting, he told Somnath Narang about the ill-words of accused Anil Narang, asking his daughter Ritika to shed her weight enough, so that she could be fit to wear a bikini and be taken to foreign locations, however, the matter was resolved, as accused Anil Narang apologized and touched his feet for the said words and Somnath Narang asked Anshuman and Astha, to come to the house of PW48 to escort Ritika, on 10.10.2014, so that she could stay with her mother for few days. He has further deposed that during the abovesaid meeting on 07.10.2014, grandmother of accused Anshuman Narang in his (PW48) presence of and in presence of all the accused persons said that her daughter-in- law Rachna Narang came from a poor family and therefore, all their demands in respect of her son's Anil and grandson Anshuman, shall have to be satisfied by PW48.
PW48 has further deposed that during the stay of his daughter in her parental house from 07.10.2014 to 10.10.2014, she told them about physical beatings given to her by accused persons, she also told that her in-laws were looking for any rhyme or reason, to throw her out from the matrimonial home and that accused Anil Narang was forging the purchase of red Audi car, which he wished to demand from them; she also showed her injury marks on her collarbone which were due to throttling of her neck by accused Anshuman Narang and further told her that accused Anshuman wanted to eliminate her, under pressure from his parents, who were unhappy with the dowry gifts and wanted to remarry accused Anshuman Narang.
PW48 has further deposed that on 10.10.2014, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith Astha Narang came to his house to take back Ritika; he confronted accused Anshuman Narang for misbehaving with his daughter Ritika and also reminded of the compromise regarding denial of transfer of second floor of his house in his favour upon which accused Anshuman Narang restrained on creating more fuss and left peacefully ,with gifts and cash given to Ritika by him; at dinner time, he met accused Anshuman Narang alongwith Ritika and cousin Isha Monga at Gulab Restaurant, where again accused Anshuman Narang made demand for a floor in his property in the presence of his cousin. He has further deposed that on 11.10.2014, on the day of Karva Chauth, he alongwith his wife, son, sister-in-law Renu Juneja went to the matrimonial home of Ritika at E-159, GK-1, New Delhi, to give her gifts and sweets where he met all accused persons but they all were State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 60 of 91 unhappy with the gifts and demanded diamond necklace which was worn by his wife on the Shagun of Astha Narang, which they have even demanded earlier.
PW48 has further deposed that on 19.10.2014, he alongwith his family was invited by Ritika on telephone to attend the card party at the farmhouse but they were not paid due regards in the said party, Ritika was not allowed to interact with her parents; even before 19.10.2014, he had gone to the matrimonial house of Ritika to give Diwali gifts at E- 159, GK-1, from where they were taken to E-163. On that day also, they were not regarded well by accused persons. PW48 has further deposed that on the day of Bhaiya Dooj in the year 2014,accused Anshuman Narang and Ritika came to the house at about 1.00 p.m; they both were welcomed by her parents but due to some urgent business meeting, he (PW48) sought excuse for an hour and when he came back, he saw that PW3 had already left his place as they both had to visit some relative. He has deposed that when his daughter came to her parents house, she was not wearing adequate jewellery, good clothes though she was given heavy jewellery and sufficient wardrobe; his wife told him that when he left for business meeting, PW3 seemed unhappy, she cried in the washroom, wiped her face and left with her husband. PW48 has further deposed that next day, he called accused Anil Narang and requested him to send PW3 to her parents house to sign some important papers but accused Anil Narang reluctantly told him that she had just come the previous day, but agreed to send her the next day and on 27.10.2014, Ritika came to her parental home and when he asked about her well-being, she wept unconsolably and after getting normal, PW3 Ritika Juneja told him about receiving a telephonic call from accused Anil Narang on the day of Chhoti Diwali; abusing her for about one hour; expressing his dissatisfaction over insufficient dowry, spoke vulgar words and he also said that he had gifted an Audi car in the price of the Accord car and that Ritika came from a very poor family; she further told him that her in-laws were not willing to keep her and had even called two advocates to explore legal advise. PW48 has further deposed that on that day, Ritika Juneja was dressed up in old Kurti and was having old wallet without cash; she also informed that she was kept hungry and was harassed at the instance of maternal uncle Sushil Arora, who used to device new means to torture her, at the hands of her in-laws; her entire jewellery, from both sides, were kept by her in-laws and in particular by accused Rachna Narang and father accused Anil Narang and that she was given some jewellery to be worn, on social occasions only, which were taken back immediately on return from function by her in-laws. PW48 has further deposed that his daughter had also told him about the atrocities given to her by her parents-in-law and that they had made persistent dowry demands and asked her not to come back to the matrimonial house, unless their demands were satisfied by his father and further on knowing that accused Anshuman Narang had tried to throttle her neck and had subjected her to cruelty further threatening to divorce her, he (PW48) gave a telephonic call to accused Anshuman Narang, asked him to come to his house in the evening but he resisted and expressed his inability to come at dinner stating that it would get very late but he (PW48) offered him to come at any time. He has deposed that accused Anshuman Narang in between State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 61 of 91 discontinued the phone and enquired from PW3 through an SMS if she had told about her entire torture to PW48 to which PW3 replied that she had not told anything to her father and asked him to come home as per the request of her father.
PW 48 has further deposed that he told accused Anshuman Narang that he is not willing to send his daughter Ritika Juneja back to her matrimonial home as they had tried to throttle her neck and had misbehaved with her continuously, and also confronted accused Anshuman Narang asked about his misbehaviour on the pre-Diwali and on hearing this, accused Anshuman Narang refused to come for dinner and told him that Ritika could come back on her own and that he would not come to talk to him.
PW48 has deposed that on 28.10.2014, his daughter/PW3 Ritika sent a mail to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, conveying her torture by her in-laws, in concise manner, saying that she was being harassed for dowry demands by her in-laws. He has further deposed that a meeting was fixed at the farmhouse in the presence of accused Anshuman Narang, grandmother Bimla Narang, maternal uncle Sushil Arora, sister Astha within 2/3 days of 28.10.2014 and in the said meeting, accused Rachna Narang refused to give back jewellery articles saying that it was her desire to give or not to give jewellery to her and accused Anil Narang said that Ritika was their property and it was their wish, as to how to behave and deal with her and her property and in the said meeting, grandfather Somnath Narang sought pardon for dowry demands and conveyed his inability to have controlled accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang and for their misbehaviour and sought 2/3 days, to sort out the issue. He has further deposed that after about a week, again a meeting was fixed at the farmhouse in which grandmother Bimla Narang again conveyed her dissatisfaction on insufficient dowry given by the parents of PW3 and said that she wanted PW3 to compensate for the entire insufficient dowry from her daughter- in-law / accused Rachna Narang; she also stated that parents of PW3 should have given bigger gifts after the birthday of accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang and that they had shamed them by only meeting them with cake and flowers and the said meeting ended with no results. He has further deposed that sequence of meetings took place till February 2015 but no corporate result could be arrived at. Last meeting was held at the farmhouse in February 2015, when all the accused persons refused to accept PW3 Ritika at her matrimonial house; accused Rachna and Anil Narang misbehaved with family of PW3 and even physically assaulted Ritika and they were thrown out of the farmhouse, with great disrespect.
PW48 has further deposed that a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs was hypothecated against the Audi car which he had given as gift against his wishes for which accused persons have filed a civil suit against him (PW48) for recovery of Rs.7.5 lacs which was dismissed. He has deposed that he alongwith his family was intimidated and criminally threatened with dire consequences by accused Anil Narang saying that he would collect workers from his own as well as brother's factory and will attack them and will not allow them to reach their home safely, if they did not agree to settle the matter with them. Accused Anil Narang State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 62 of 91 had gone to China for some work, from where he called Yashpal Sachdeva (PW43) and asked him to remain away from the matter, or else they would cause harm to him and asked him to get the matter settled on the terms and for the composite amount offered- by the in- laws, or else face the consequences. He has further deposed that accused Anil Narang also told Yashpal Sachdeva that in case an amicable settlement was not arrived at, he would level false allegations against Ritika saying that she had taken away all jewellery and also saying that they had gifted her unreal / brass jewellery but Yashpal Sachdeva requested for return of some old clothes and basic necessities of Ritika as her stay was not planned and thereafter, accused persons sent two suitcases containing old clothes and footwear of Ritika to their house and in this regard, a recording was also handed over to the IO.
He has further deposed that in between the meetings, Amit Nayar, friend and employee of accused Anshuman Narang, met him (PW48) and tried to intervene and made a conference call, connecting accused Anshuman Narang and PW3 Ritika and during the conversation and settlement efforts of Amit Nayar, accused Anshuman Narang conveyed that he is not willing to accept back Ritika, unless she learns to behave and spend her daily routine, such as time of rising and sleeping etc., as per their desire and also imposed condition that parents of Ritika would have to draw lines to seek pardon, on the floor of the house of accused persons. He has further deposed that accused Anil Narang contacted his friend Yashpal Sachdeva and tried to arrange for a mediation meeting, wherein he offered a settlement amount of Rs.1.50 crores, at first instance and then changed to Rs.1.40 crores and said they would not return any Stridhan, in lieu of the settlement but on third day, accused Anil Narang resiled from his offer, which they were willing to accept and instead extended threats to him that he alongwith his family should accept, whatever is paid by accused persons without any question or resistance; accused Anil Narang further issued criminal threats that if they did not agree, they would be responsible for the consequences; accused Anil Narang agreed that he (PW48) had spent about Rs.2.5 crores in the marriage and that they had also spent some money in the wedding and a lunch was fixed by accused Anil Narang to meet Yashpal Sachdeva at United Coffee House, Connaught Place but of no result. He has further deposed that during the talks, maternal uncle Sushil Arora met him near Everbake, Shalimar Bagh in his car for further talks of settlement but Sushil Arora started extending threats and asked him to accept whatever settlement was being offered or face dire consequences and the said conversation was intermittently recorded by Sushil Arora, as was confirmed by Somnath Narang in one of the meetings at his farmhouse.
39. Ignoring the general, vague and omnibus allegations, it would be apt to deal with some of the specific allegations levelled by the complainant and her father which can be broadly categorised as under:
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 63 of 91 A. Demand of cash before going to honeymoon B. Demand of second floor.
C. Demand of Audi car D. Demand of diamond necklace E. Incident dated 23.08.2014 F. Incident dated 27.08.2014 G. Incident dated 05.10.2014 and 07.10.2014 H. Incident dated 10.10.2014 I. Incident dated 11.10.2014(Karwachauth) J. Incident dated 19.10.2014 K. Incident dated 21 - 22.10.2014 L. Incident dated 22 - 23.10.2014 M. Incident dated 27.10.2014 N. other incidents of harassment:-
(i) restrictions on the freedom of movement of the complainant
(ii) compelling the complainant to do household chores
(iii) Coercing the complainant to loose weight
(iv) Meeting at the trade fair and other meetings.
Let us now deal with the above said allegations in seriatim.
A. Demand of cash before going to honeymoon
40. It has been alleged by the complainant and her father that before going for honeymoon accused Anshuman demanded ₹ 1 lakh from the complainant. Further, ₹ 51,000 were given to the complainant by her parents.
41. Perusal of the complaint (Ex.PW3/BE) would reveal that any such demand of Rs. 1 lakh by Accused Anshuman, at the time of going to Honeymoon, is conspicuously missing. Even the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (PW12/C) merely makes a mention of general demand of cash State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 64 of 91 by accused Anshuman at the time of going to Honeymoon. Further, even PW 48 stops short of corroborating the claim of PW 3 that accused Anshuman demanded Rs 1 lacs and claims that her daughter (PW3) asked him to arrange Rs. 1 Lacs for expenses at the trip.
42. Perusal of the record would reveal that the couple had gone for honeymoon to the various countries of Europe. Presumably, even if we ignore the claim of the accused persons to have spent ₹ 23 lakhs on the said honeymoon, a considerable amount would have obviously been spent as the couple's honeymoon was spread over the various countries of Europe for a period of about 22 days. Complainant herself in her complaint (Ex PW 3/BE) has admitted that she bought costly gifts and articles even for her family members. She has further admitted that she was gifted a sum of ₹ 11 lakhs by way of FDR and cheques by grandfather of accused Anshuman and uncle and auntie of accused Anshuman also gave her some cash. She has claimed that she was not carrying any money with her as the above said money was taken away by her in-laws and accused Anshuman borne the entire expenses, including the gifts purchased by the complainant. It appears highly unlikely that after gifting more than ₹ 11 lakhs to the complainant and quite conscious of the considerable amount to be spent on account of honeymoon, accused Anshuman would demand ₹ 1 lakh from the complainant or her parents. Further, even if we presume the allegation to be true, mere demand would not come within the ambit of section 498 A IPC as any nexus between the said demand and the alleged harassment or cruelty is conspicuously missing. Though the general allegations of demand of cash and cruelty and harassment is there but there is no specific allegation that complainant was subjected to some kind of cruelty and harassment on account of non fulfilment of demand of ₹ 1 lakh.
B. Demand of second floor.
43. It has been alleged by the complainant and her father that the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 65 of 91 accused persons demanded second floor of their house.
44. Evidently, any such demand of second floor is conspicuously missing in the complaint (EX PW 3/BE) and the statement recorded under section 164 CRPC (EX PW 12/C). The allegation seems to be nothing more than a sinister attempt to embellish the prosecution version and deserves to be discarded.
C. Demand of Audi car
45. It has further been alleged by the complainant and her father that an Audi car was given to the accused persons on their demand.
46. Perusal of the record would reveal that the prosecution successfully proved that the complainant's side definitely gave an Audi car to the accused persons. However, whether the same was given as dowry on demand of the accused persons or it was merely a gift is a seriously debatable issue. In her complaint (EX PW 3/BE) complainant mentioned it as a 'gift' whereas in her testimony she claims it to be a demand. Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) in his testimony has claimed that sister of accused Anshuman Narang namely Astha called up complainant Ritika and demanded the said car however the claim of Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) is not corroborated by the complainant. Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) in his testimony has further claimed that accused Anil Narang threatened to return the Audi car as he wanted a red Audi which he stated to have been booked by him. Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her cross-examination has revealed that the accused person were owning as many as six cars including Honda city, Honda accord, Hyundai Elantra and BMW 5 series et cetera and as per the claim of her father, accused Anil Narang has even booked an Audi car for himself. In these circumstances it appears highly unlikely that the accused persons would have harassed the complainant on account of the said Audi car. Further, once the accused persons have received the car demanded by them there was absolutely no reason for them to harass the complainant on this account. Although, it is claimed that the State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 66 of 91 accused persons wanted a higher version of the said car but the claim seems to be an afterthought as the said claim is conspicuously absent in the complaint (EX PW 3/BE) and the statement recorded under section 164 CRPC (EX PW 12/C). Even Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) in his examination in chief has deposed that "The demanded Audi car of the value of about ₹ 30 lakhs was also gifted to the groom on the same day" Under these circumstances, it appears highly unlikely that accused persons would harass the complainant for an Audi car which was already available with them. Further, considering the nature of inconsistent and untrustworthy testimony of the complainant and her father it would be extremely dangerous to act upon such allegation.
D. Demand of diamond necklace
47. It has been alleged by the complainant that accused Rachana Narang demanded a diamond necklace.
48. Evidently, any such demand of diamond necklace is conspicuously missing in the complaint (EX PW 3/BE) and the statement recorded under section 164 CRPC (EX PW 12/C). The allegation is another illustration of puffing up the prosecution case and deserves to be discarded.
E. Incident dated 23.08.2014 .
49. Complainant Ritika (PW3) has testified that on 21.08.2014 she repeatedly requested each of the accused persons to permit her to go to her parental home on occasion of the birthday of her father on 23.08.2014 but the accused persons made her run from one person to another which also caused her immense mental stress; she was also not allowed by the accused persons to even use the Audi car that her parents had purchased on their demand; PW3 was even deprived of State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 67 of 91 using anything which included cash, jewelry articles or other expensive articles which were given to her by her parents and her in-laws which used to be kept in possession of accused persons and whenever she demanded them for her use, she was refused by the accused persons; her jewelry was also kept in their possession which she was permitted to use only when she had to go out with accused Anshuman in their social circle or function and thereafter, they used to take the same back on her return. She has further stated that she finally got permission from the accused persons to go to her parental home on 21.08.2014 and they all unwillingly gave her permission to take the car with her. She has stated that on 21.08.2014, her father invited accused persons, grandparents and Vikas Narang and his family to a restaurant at Pandara road but the accused persons taunted and hurled unparliamentary words for inviting them to a restaurant in Pandara road and not inviting them in a posh place or a five star hotel according to their status and accused Anil Narang refused to come by giving an excuse of being busy. She has deposed that on 23.08.2014, on the invitation of her father, accused Anshuman Narang came to her parental house where he demanded the second floor of her parental house in his name but her father refused to do so and then accused Anshuman Narang misbehaved with her and her family. She has further deposed that accused Anshuman Narang also asked her family to keep the Audi car with them for a month or so (sometime) and on enquiry, accused Anshuman gave an excuse of excise raid that has taken place in their factories and he asked her parents to keep the car till everything is sorted out. But after birthday dinner, when she returned back to her matrimonial home, accused Anshuman and his parents laughed at her and stated that they had made a fool of PW3 and her parents and she was told that her parents can keep the car with them for whole life as they had taken the car without their will and desire, so they all planned this fake excise raid conspiracy to harass her and her parents mentally to such an extent that when she told this to her parents, she and her parents could not State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 68 of 91 sleep and had sleepless nights till 27.08.2014.
50. Interestingly, Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) fails to corroborate complainant Ritika regarding the allegation that " the accused persons taunted and hurled unparliamentary words for inviting them to a restaurant in Pandara Road". He also fails to corroborate the complainant regarding the demand of second floor on 28/05/2014. Further, in the complaint (Ex.PW 3/BE) although, she alleges that accused No. 1 Anshuman Narang taunted and fought with her but there is no mention of the accused persons hurling any unparliamentary abuses against her. Further, in the complaint (Ex.PW 3/BE) ,there is also no mention of any demand of second floor on 28/05/2014 by accused Anshuman Narang. Even in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C (PW12/C) the allegation that " the accused persons taunted and hurled unparliamentary words for inviting them to a restaurant in Pandara road" or that accused Anshuman Narang demanded 'second floor' is conspicuously missing. Still further, barring the uncorroborated demand of second floor, the allegations are too general and vague and any nexus with the demands of dowry is conspicuously absent. Thus, even this allegation deserves to be discarded.
Now let us examine the next allegation.
F. Incident dated 27.08.2014
51. Complainant Ritika (PW3) has testified that on 27.08.2014 when her parents came to return the car and also to invite for first official family dinner after marriage, accused Rachna Narang behaved rudely with her parents and brother and she started taunting and passing remarks about PW3 to her parents. She also told the parents and brother of PW3 that "ki tumhari beti yaha aakar phit gayi hai aur isne yaha pe sab kuch dekh liya hai";accused Rachna Narang tried to show off that she belongs to a very sophisticated and rich family and PW3 belong to a very poor family and asked her parents to keep PW3 with them for five to six months so State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 69 of 91 that her brain starts working. Accused Rachna Narang was continuously complaining, demanding something or the other, passed taunting vulgar remarks to her parents and when her parents were discussing about menu, venue etc, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith his parents and sister suddenly started misbehaving and yelling at her parents for not inviting the other 60 to 65 relatives whom her parents had not given any cash, jewellery or other expensive articles in shagun held on 02.07.2014 and when her parents politely said no to this demand, then accused Anshuman and his parents started demanding second floor of parental home again and when her parents denied this demand as well, they all started misbehaving and also threatened to call 20-30 people to harm them and dissolve this marriage by hook or by crook. She has further deposed that she was threatened by the accused persons to give divorce or else they all had good nexus with police officials, bureaucrats and politicians and they could get this marriage dissolved by any means and solemnize another marriage of accused Anshuman Narang secretly due to which her parents got shocked and her mother developed serious complications.
52. Whereas, while deposing about the incident dated 27/08/2014 Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW 48) has testified that accused Rachna Narang started telling them to take back their daughter Ritika as she could not settle in their house and that time accused Anshuman Narang was also present there. PW 48 agreed to take his daughter back with him but then accused Rachna Narang called accused Anil Narang who reached home and after seeing his (PW48) willingness to take his daughter back, the attitude of accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang immediately changed and showed their love and acceptance towards the complainant. PW48 has further deposed that after returning home, when he realized that they have left their home keys in the Audi car, they went back to the matrimonial house of the complainant to take their keys where they were ill-treated by accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang, Rachna Narang and Astha Narang and asked them to take back their State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 70 of 91 daughter Ritika as she was not adjusting well in her matrimonial house and to keep her for 4-6 months to make her level headed, however, his daughter Ritika refused to accompany her father and accused Anshuman Narang said that Ritika would have to live on his terms and conditions and then PW48 alongwith his wife came back home.
53. Evidently, complainant Ritika makes no mention of return of her parents along with her brother to collect the keys. She also failed to corroborate Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW 48) regarding any change of attitude of accused Rachana Narang and Anil Narang or they showering any love and acceptance towards the complainant. Further, the allegations of the complainant regarding 'when her parents were discussing about menu, venue etc, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith his parents and sister suddenly started misbehaving and yelling at her parents for not inviting the other 60 to 65 relatives whom her parents had not given any cash, jewellery or other expensive articles in shagun held on 02.07.2014 and when her parents politely said no to this demand, then accused Anshuman and his parents started demanding second floor of parental home again and when her parents denied this demand as well, they all started misbehaving and also threatened to call 20-30 people to harm them and dissolve this marriage by hook or by crook and that she was threatened by the accused persons to give divorce or else they all had good nexus with police officials, bureaucrats and politicians and they could get this marriage dissolved by any means and solemnize another marriage of accused Anshuman Narang', also remains uncorroborated. Considering the inherent contradictions between the testimony of two star witnesses the allegations against the accused persons are highly doubtful.
Let us now examine the next set of allegations.
G. Incident dated 05.10.2014 and 07.10.2014
54. Regarding the incident dated 05.10.2014 and 07.10.2014 complainant Ritika (PW3) has testified that on 05.10.2014, accused State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 71 of 91 persons again refused to give her permission to go to her parent's house on the occasion of marriage anniversary of her parents and she was also given beatings by the accused persons as they were in fear that she would tell everything to her parents. She has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang even told her to think that she is in a hostel and accused Rachna Narang is her warden and even told her that she could also think her as the Jailer and herself as a prisoner of her jail. She has deposed that accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang misbehaved with her in every extent possible on 05.10.2014; accused Rachna Narang physically assaulted her, tore her clothes, beat her and caught her from her elbows, dragged her inside the dining area and pushed her forcefully and badly and at that time, accused Anil Narang and her sister- in-law Astha Narang were laughing at her condition. She has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang alongwith Anil Narang was yelling at her for their unsatisfactory demands and accused Rachna Narang was only concerned with her demands and kept asking about the demands including the diamond necklace for herself, expensive articles and gifts for festivals like Novmi, Dusshera, expensive articles which were not given on their birthdays on 20th and 21st July 2014, jewelery and cash for her and other relatives, branded clothes for accused Anshuman Narang, her sister-in-law Astha Narang and was continuously demanding expensive articles for all other 65 relatives. She has further deposed that accused Rachna Narang and Anil Narang kept on asking about the dinner invitation for their other 65 relatives and they both while complaining about their demands, kept on beating her and on that day, she got a chance to run away; accused persons sent her with the driver asking her to never come back; she narrated the whole incident to her parents, upon which her father called accused Anil Narang and enquired from him but accused Anil Narang started misbehaving, insulting and using vulgar language filled with invectives and other unparliamentary words and also threatened her father/PW48 to keep PW3 with him and to never send her back to her matrimonial State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 72 of 91 house and also threatened to get her divorced from accused Anshuman Narang at any cost but accused Anil Narang kept on abusing and yelling loudly on her father/PW48 on phone and was continuously giving threats one after another. PW3 has further deposed that her father also called grandfather of accused Anshuman Narang at the farm house and at that time, accused Anil Narang and Rachna Narang, were already present there as they could be heard abusing them in the background; accused Anil Narang thereafter snatched the phone from grandfather and started abusing PW3 and her family continuously and using the same invectives and unparliamentary words.
55. PW3 has further deposed that PW3 had sent an e-mail dated 07.10.2014 Mark PW3/CM through her personal e-mail address i.e. [email protected] bearing diary no. 11501 and endorsement of ACP and SHO and when her father told about this intimation to the grandfather, a meeting was fixed at the farm house by the grandfather on 07.10.2014 itself where accused Anshuman Narang was present alongwith his parents; family of PW3 also participated the said meeting and in the said meeting, accused Anshuman Narang and Rachna Narang apologized for their misconduct and assured not to repeat this again in future and treat her as their own family members.
56. While describing the incident dated 05.10.2014 and 07.10.2014, Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) has testified that on 05.10.2014, being his wedding anniversary, complainant was coming to her parental home and when she was on her way, he (PW48) received a telephonic call of accused Anil Narang to send back Ritika to her matrimonial house, as she had not respected her in-laws and had left her matrimonial house without touching his feet; he (PW48) accordingly asked Ritika to go back and at that time, she was crying and she later told him that on reaching her matrimonial home, she touched the feet of accused Anil Narang and told him that she had done this at the time of leaving. He has deposed that when his daughter came to her parental house, she was very upset State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 73 of 91 and told him that accused Anil Narang had earlier misbehaved with her on two occasions by throwing food filled plate towards her and one time, it had missed hitting her on her face; she further told him that she was also humiliated by accused Rachna Narang and Astha Narang, expressing their displeasure for insufficient dowry; on hearing this, he (PW48) called accused Anil Narang and confronted him who admitted his mistake of having forgotten that Ritika had touched his feet already but he soon raised his temper and shouted at him that he do not want to keep Ritika in his house, to which he told him that he will not send his daughter back to her matrimonial house.
57. PW48 has further deposed that after an hour, father of accused Anil Narang namely Somnath Narang called him and asked him about the differences and he narrated the whole facts and Somnath Narang fixed up a meeting at his farmhouse at Chhattarpur, on 07.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. where he called both parties to be present. PW48 has further deposed that on his way to the farm house, emails were sent to Commissioner of Police Delhi and DCP, North West for their safety. He has deposed that both the parties met at the farmhouse where the matter was compromised and accused persons sought pardon for their misbehaviour and requested him to forget about the past misbehaviour; in the said meeting, he told Somnath Narang about the ill-words of accused Anil Narang, asking his daughter Ritika to shed her weight enough, so that she could be fit to wear a bikini and be taken to foreign locations, however, the matter was resolved, as accused Anil Narang apologized and touched his feet for the said words and Somnath Narang asked Anshuman and Astha, to come to the house of PW48 to escort Ritika, on 10.10.2014, so that she could stay with her mother for few days. He has further deposed that during the abovesaid meeting on 07.10.2014, grandmother of accused Anshuman Narang in his (PW48) presence and all the accused persons said that her daughter-in-law Rachna Narang came from a poor family and therefore, all their demands in respect of her son's Anil and grandson Anshuman, shall State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 74 of 91 have to be satisfied by PW48. PW48 has further deposed that during the stay of his daughter in her parental house from 07.10.2014 to 10.10.2014, she told them about physical beatings given to her by accused persons.
58. However, Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) fails to corroborate the complainant Ritika on some material points. Complainant Ritika claims that when she reached her home she narrated the incident to her parents and her brother. She also claims, in the cross-examination dated 24.02.2020 (post - lunch session), that her father applied dressing to her wounds. However, Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW48) has a different version of the incident dated 05.10.2014. He claims that the dispute arose as the accused persons mistakenly thought that complainant Ritika had left for her parental home without touching the feet of her in-laws. He failed to corroborate the complainant regarding the said beatings and applying any dressings to the wounds of the complainant. In his testimony recorded on 04.12.2019, he claims that during her stay at their place in between 07.10.2014 to 10.10.2014 his daughter informed him about the physical beatings given to her by the accused persons during her stay at her matrimonial home. Evidently, he has not corroborated the claim of the complainant that when she reached her home on 05.10.2014 she informed him about the alleged beatings. Further, even the claim of the complainant seems to be self-contradictory. She claims that in order to save herself she ran out of her matrimonial home however, in the same breath she deposed that her in-laws sent her to her parental home with a driver instructing her not to return back to their home. Furthermore, it is surprising that in the meeting dated 07.10.2014 Sh. Pradeep Juneja, despite the fact that his daughter was so severely beaten up by the accused persons that he had to apply dressing to the wounds, condoned the mistakes of the accused persons and absolved them of their sins when accused Anil Narang apologised and touched his feets.
59. The non-recovery of the torn clothes, absence of any MLC, delay State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 75 of 91 in reporting the matter to the police, when viewed against the above highlighted contradictions in the testimony of the star witnesses casts a shadow of doubt upon the prosecution version.
Let us move on to the next leg of the allegations.
H. Incident dated 10.10.2014
60. Complainant Ritika (PW3) has testified that on 10.10.2014, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith his sister Astha Narang came to parental home of PW3 where after spending some time, Astha Narang asked about the allergy on the left side of face of PW3 to which she told her that she got treatment from their family doctor and on hearing this, Astha Narang got angry that as to why she did not get the same treated from their doctor and then accused Anshuman alongwith his sister again started misbehaving with her and her parents and they both complained about nonfulfillment of their demand of second floor in her parental house. She has further deposed that they both were reminded of their assurances made in front of grandfather and then they both accompanied PW3 and her parents to Gulab Restaurant, Pitam Pura where accused Anshuman also invited one of their cousin Esha Monga for the dinner and after dinner PW3 went back to her matrimonial home. After her return, she was taunted by accused Rachna Narang and her daughter Astha Narang for not taking them to Hotel City Park for dinner.
61. Regarding the incident dated 10.10.2014 Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW 48) has deposed that on 10.10.2014, accused Anshuman Narang alongwith Astha Narang came to his house to take back Ritika; he confronted accused Anshuman Narang for misbehaving with his daughter Ritika and also reminded of the compromise regarding denial of transfer of second floor of his house in his favour upon which accused Anshuman Narang restrained on creating more fuss and left peacefully with gifts and cash to Ritika given by him; at dinner time, he met accused State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 76 of 91 Anshuman Narang alongwith Ritika and cousin Isha Monga at Gulab Restaurant, where again accused Anshuman Narang made demand for a floor in his property in the presence of his cousin.
62. Evidently, Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW 48) is silent regarding any dispute on account of treatment by family doctor. Further, complainant Ritika claims that accused Anshuman and his sister Astha Narang complained regarding the nonfulfilment of the demand of second floor at the parental house of the complainant and she is silent about any such demand being made at Gulab restaurant whereas Sh. Pradeep Juneja (PW 48) claims that the demand for second floor was once again made at the Gulab restaurant. Further, the allegation regarding the taunt of accused Rachna Narang about accused Anshuman Narang and his sister being taken to Gulab restaurant instead of Hotel city Park is conspicuously absent in the complaint or earlier statements of the complainant.
63. Let us now analyse the allegations regarding the next incident.
I. Incident dated 11.10.2014(Karwachauth)
64. Shri Pradeep Juneja (PW48) has testified that on 11.10.2014 when they reached the matrimonial home of their daughter they gave her gifts and sweets and met all the accused persons. He testified that there again, the accused persons were unhappy with their gifts and demanded the Diamond necklace worn by his wife on the ceremony of shagun of their daughter, which they had even demanded earlier. Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her testimony recorded on 11.09.2019 has testified that on 11.10.2014 when her parents and her relatives came to her matrimonial home nobody spoke to them and they went back after 15 - 20 minutes. She claimed that it is only after they were gone her in- laws started complaining about less cash, clothes and jewellery. Thus, as per the complainant no demand was made in presence of her father State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 77 of 91 Shri Pradeep Juneja (PW48).
J. Incident dated 19.10.2014
65. Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her testimony recorded on 10.12.2019 has testified that on 19.10.2014, all three accused persons arranged a card party at farmhouse and asked her to invite her parents and brother to keep a social face where her family came with gifts but accused misbehaved with them and they were not received well in the said party; her parents remained there for half an hour/one hour; they were taunted by maternal uncle Sushil Arora saying that why she is still at her matrimonial house and not thrown out so far and maternal uncle Sushil Arora also misbehaved with her father by hurling vulgar abuses and expressed anger for insufficient dowry brought by Complainant. Shri Pradeep Juneja (PW48) has deposed that on 19.10.2014, he alongwith his family was invited by Ritika on telephone to attend the card party at the farmhouse but they were not given due regards in the said party and Ritika was not allowed to interact with her parents.
66. However, in their cross-examination, both the star witnesses have admitted that they enjoyed food and drinks in the said party. It is surprising that how come Shri Pradeep Juneja (PW48) dined and enjoyed drinks in a party wherein the maternal uncle of accused Anshuman Narang was hurling vulgar abuses and desired that complainant should be thrown out of her matrimonial home. The conduct of the star witnesses casts a shadow of doubt upon their version of the incident.
K. Incident dated 21 - 22.10.2014
67. Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her testimony recorded on 10.12.2019 has testified that on 21/22.10.2014 morning, she was told by accused Anshuman Narang to divorce her due to insufficient dowry; he demanded that Complainant Ritika should agree for divorce by mutual consent failing which he threatened her of having close connections and State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 78 of 91 nexus with higher police officials, politicians and persons of command and asked her to get out of his life on the same day. On that day, she was asked to get ready for pooja at the factories in Okhla; despite her repeated requests to accused Rachna Narang, she refused to give her jewellery; accused Anil Narang objected to her coming to the pooja without wearing any jewellery for which they misbehaved with her; when she returned home, she also received a call from accused Anil Narang who addressed her in very vulgar language in the presence of accused Rachna Narang and Astha Narang for about one hour and also spoke vulgar words against her family, friends and relatives and he also asked her to leave her matrimonial home at the earliest and accused Rachna Narang asked Anshuman Narang to keep the entire telephonic conversation a secret, even from his own grandparents.
68. Perusal of the above-said portion of testimony of the complainant would reveal that the allegations levelled are vague, general and omnibus allegations and fails to pass muster the test laid down by Hon'ble superior courts in the matter of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors, Richhpal Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Anr, State of HP V Nikkur Ram and Ors (Supra). Further, Complainant Ritika testified that on 23.10.2014, on the occasion of festival of Diwali, her father-in-law gifted her a Gold and Polki necklace. It is baffling that if the accused persons wanted to divorce the complainant why they gifted her such an expensive gift.
L. Incident dated 27.10.2014
69. Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her testimony recorded on 06.01.2020 has testified that on 27.10.2014, she came back to her parental home and accused Anshuman sent him a threatening message Ex. PW3/CN. Perusal of the said message would reveal that as such there is no threat discernible in the said message and accused Anshuman appears to be making one last effort to resolve the issues State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 79 of 91 amicably.
Other incidents of harassment:-
(I) Restrictions on the freedom of movement of the complainant, (II) Compelling the complainant to do household chores, (III) Coercing the complainant to loose weight, (IV) Meeting at the trade fair and other meetings,
70. Complainant Ritika (PW3) has also alleged that there were restrictions on the freedom of movement of the complainant, she was compelled to do household chores and she was coerced to lose weight.
Record reveals that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 07.07.2014 and she finally left her matrimonial home on 27.10.2014. Within a brief span of about three months she remained on honeymoon for a period of about 20 days. She has further admitted that she used to drive to her gym. She further claimed that she was even made to join a job. From her testimony, evidently, she also stayed back in her parental home during this brief span only. From the testimony it can also be discerned she took the car, at least on one occasion, to meet her friends. Under these circumstances, the allegations regarding the restrictions on movement seems to be unfounded.
71. The allegation that the complainant was compelled to do household chores is very vague and general. Further, complainant in her testimony has admitted that there was a maid who used to cook food for her also and there were other servants also in the matrimonial home thus the uncorroborated allegation sounds a little unbelievable. Still further, as per the complainant, all the three ladies in the house i.e. complainant, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law were employed and the above said household chores performed by the complainant may be taken as her contribution in the household. The allegation seems to be more on account of the difficulties faced by her during the transition from daughter State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 80 of 91 to a daughter-in-law.
72. As far as the allegation regarding the harassment on account of losing weight is concerned, the complainant has herself admitted that she had joined a slimming centre even before her marriage. The so- called harassment appears to be the assistance rendered by the accused persons to help the complainant achieve her goal of losing weight.
73. Besides the above allegations, the complainant has also alleged that accused Anshuman Narang misbehaved with her during her meeting with him in the trade fair. She has also alleged that in the last reconciliation meeting she was beaten up by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and she was thrown out of the farmhouse. The allegations levelled are too general and vague and cannot be believed for want of corroboration. The same are taken on record only to be rejected.
74. Perusal of the record would reveal that there are gaping holes in the prosecution version. The complainant Ritika (PW3) is inconsistent, self-contradictory and at times blatantly mendacious before the court. Further, Material contradictions in the version of the complainant Ritika(PW3) and her father Shri Pradeep Juneja (PW48) also casts a shadow of doubt upon the prosecution version. It is virtually impossible for the court to discern as to when the complainant and her father were truthful before the court and when they were lying. It would also be worthwhile to observe here that record reveals that complainant Ritika (PW3) used to testify only after going through the testimony recorded on earlier occasions. Under ordinary circumstances the conduct seems to be perfectly normal but in the case at hand complainant Ritika evidently misused this privilege to improve, embellish and fill in the lacuna in her testimony recorded before the court. I am constrained to draw this inference because in ordinary circumstances, if the witness had narrated about an incident then on the next date the witness would continue further with his sequence of events and the already narrated incidents State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 81 of 91 would hardly find a mention in the subsequent portion of the testimony. However, in the case at hand after narrating an incident, on the next date the witness repeated the same incident on the next date of hearing, often improving, embellishing and even attempting to fill in the gaps noticed in the testimony after going back home. The Learned predecessor while recording testimony of Shri Pradeep Juneja (PW48) on 30.11.2019 has specifically observed that : "(Again, the witness persists on his condition to depose, on the aspects already recorded, stating that he wants to fill up the lacuna of the details, which he could not get recorded on the last date of hearing, he insists that he will not depose in the absence of his lawyer......................)". Further, the complainant and her father had attempted to cover up the anomalies in their version by attempting to shift the blame upon the investigating officers (alleging that they failed to record their complete version), the doctor medically examining complainant Ritika (claiming that she advised complainant Ritika not to go for internal medical examination), the learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of the complainant under section 164 Cr.P.C(claiming that the learned Magistrate asked the complainant to be brief and thus the complainant has not divulged complete facts in her statement) so much so, that they even had complaints against the learned predecessors of this court. There is absolutely no palpable reasons to believe that the entire system was working against the complainant in complicity with the accused persons.
75. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of State vs Vishesh Chaudhary & Ors. Crl. A. 627/2010 D.O.D 11 August, 2015 has observed as under :-
"...34. These improvements made by PW-1 and PW-2 discredit these witnesses, and their testimonies with regard to the allegations of dowry demand cannot be accepted per se. It would also be seen that the said testimonies with regard to dowry demand are not specific enough, and there are variations with regard to their particulars. Also, there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the dowry demands, apart from the statements of PW- 1 and PW-2, which have been challenged in their cross- examination.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 82 of 91
35. Mere receipt of gifts at the time of marriage from the parents of the bride cannot be assumed to be on account of demand for dowry. It is customary that the bride, the groom, and the in-laws of the bride being given gifts at the time of the marriage by the family of the bride. Gifts are customarily exchanged on both sides on the occasion of marriage. Such gifts may be given voluntarily, out of love and affection and happily. There is no basis to assume that whenever such gifts are given, they are so given as a result of a demand for dowry. Demand of dowry by itself, even otherwise, does not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. It is the subjecting of the bride/wife to harassment, i.e. physical or mental torture to compel her to bring dowry or to punish her for not bringing dowry that tantamounts to cruelty, which is punishable under the law. In the present case, apart from making bald allegations that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental harassment soon after the marriage till the time of her death for bringing less dowry or for not getting more dowry, there is no evidence led by the prosecution to substantiate either the demand of dowry or the subjecting of the deceased to physical or mental harassment leading to cruelty, which can be stated to have driven the deceased to take her own life..."
Thus under these circumstances, it would not be legally permissible to act upon the inherently weak and tainted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Let us now examine the last point for determination :
(4) Whether accused persons have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 IPC?
76. The essential ingredients for establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 and punishable under section 406, IPC with sentence for a period up to three years or with fine or with both, are:
(i) entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or dishonestly using State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 83 of 91 or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do so in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
77. Let us now examine the prosecution case with regard to the abovesaid ingredients.
Perusal of the material available on record would reveal that the complainant Ritika(PW3) has been quite inconsistent in her allegations regarding the entrustment of her Stridhan articles.
78. In paragraph no. 17 of her complaint (Ex. PW3/BE) complainant Ritika has alleged that "Before going to honeymoon all the cash and jewelry was taken by the accused No. 2 (accused Anil Narang)and 3 (accused Rachna Narang) on pretext of keeping the same in safe custody (even when the complainant-sic came back from the honeymoon, she was deprived of using the same and the same has been kept in safe custody of accused No. 3's bank locker/room locker since marriage of the complainant and the accused No. 1)". However, In paragraph no. 20 of the complaint (Ex. PW3/BE) complainant Ritika adds the name of accused No. 1 Anshuman Narang and claims that "The Accused no. 1, 2 and 3 had taken away the entire cash and jewellery which was given to the complainant on the function, festivals and different occasions before the marriage, at the time of marriage and thereafter also". Further, In paragraph no. 31 of the complaint (Ex. PW3/BE) complainant Ritika again deletes the name of accused No. 1 Anshuman Narang and claims that " That all the gold, diamond, silver jewellery, cash, costly articles given to the complainant before the marriage, at the time of marriage and thereafter were taken away by the accused No. 2 and 3 on the pretext of keeping the same in the safe custody leaving just 3-4 State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 84 of 91 daily wear jewellery/small gifts.....The accused No.2 and 3 are retaining the entire jewellery and cash of the complainant... "
However, in her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC (Ex. PW 12/C) She makes no mention of entrustment of cash and jewellery to accused No. 1 or 2 or any other person and confines her allegations only qua her mother-in-law . She simply claims that "...Mera saara cash aur Jewellery mother in law ke paas hai (all my cash and jewellery is with my mother-in-law) ...".
Further, complainant Ritika (PW3) in her examination in chief dated 07.02.2019 has testified that " After reaching back at the farmhouse, all the said articles received by me and Anshuman from my parents were taken by his parents(accused No.2 and 3), grandmother and his sister on the pretext of keeping the same in safe custody. Believing them, I handed over all the articles to them. Jewellery and cash given to me at the time of grahparvesh was also in their possession". Herein, she adds the name of the grandmother and sister of accused Anshuman Narang. Thereafter, on the same date she has deposed that "The jewellery articles and cash Rs. 3,10,000/-were taken away by my mother- in-law who gave it to her daughter". Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her examination in chief dated 14.08.2019 claimed that "Rest of my stridhan and valuable approximately valued at Rs. 1.65 Crore is still lying with my husband Anshuman Narang, father-in-law Anil Narang, mother-in-law Rachna Narang and sister-in-law Astha Narang". During the course of her further examination, complainant Ritika (PW3) has once again opted to omit the name of accused Anshuman and adds the name of her sister in law. She has testified in her examination in chief dated 29.08.2019 that " My articles i.e. jewellery, cash and other expensive articles used to be in possession of my mother-in-law, father-in-law and my sister- in -law and whenever I demanded from them for my use, they State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 85 of 91 refused to hand over the same. I used to repeatedly request my abovesaid in-laws to give my articles to me, but they did not handover to me. They used to give my jewellery only when I had to go with them in their social circle or function and thereafter they used to take the same back from me on my return." Complainant Ritika (PW3) in her examination in chief dated 11.09.2019 reiterated that "Whatever articles my parents got on Karvachauth, or had given before marriage and after marriage was always in possession of my mother in law, father in law and my sister in law, and this branded clutch was also taken back by my mother in law after Pooja of Karvachauth".
79. In a decision reported in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"...It is always a question of fact in each case as to how property came to be entrusted to the husband or any other member of the family by the wife when she left the matrimonial home or was driven out therefrom. No absolute or fixed rule of universal application can be laid down in that behalf. It requires to be established by the complainant or the prosecution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, as to how and in what manner the entrustment of the stridhana property or dominion over her stridhana came to be made to the husband or any other member of the family or the accused person, as the case may be..."
80. Evidently, in the case at hand, the complainant Ritika is inconsistent in her version regarding the entrustment of dowry articles to the accused persons. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Gunwant Raj & Ors v. Madhu Sharma, Criminal Misc. No. 8243-M of 1989 decided on 14.12.1990: 90 SCC Online P&H 1002: (1991) 1 CH LR 245 has observed as under:
"...12. Mere general allegations in the complaint either concerning entrustment of articles of dowry constituting istridhnan to all the accused, or their refusal to return such articles of dowry to the complainant wife at a later stage, would not per se be sufficient to make out a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under section 405 or 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 against any State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 86 of 91 particular accused. In the absence of clear, specific and unambiguous allegations concerning entrustment of specific articles of dowry to any particular accused, and, in the absence of further allegations against him that he had dishonestly or with mala fide intention retained the same and had refused to return those articles to the wife for whose exclusive use such articles were allegedly entrusted to him, no prima facie case for commission of such offence would be made out against that particular accused. Normally in cases relating to commission of offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 a particular accused can prima facie be said to be responsible only for his individual acts and cannot be fastened with joint, or, vicarious liability..."
81. Similarly, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the matter of Junali Gogoi v. Girin Buragohain, Crl. A. No. 78 of 2004 decided on 23.12.2011 has observed as under :
"...It is manifestly clear from the evidence of the complainant- appellant as also from the evidence of PW 3 that the allegations of entrustment for specified property by the complainant-appellant could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. A vague allegation of misappropriation in respect of some of the items by holding them back of which admittedly, the complainant-appellant is not sure, would not constitute criminal breach of trust. Entrustment of such articles cannot be said to have been established by cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the very pre- requisites of entrustment of property and misappropriation of the accused opposite party are lacking in the instant case. In view of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the acquittal of the accused opposite party by the learned trial court do not call for any interference..."
82. Considering the blurred and inconsistent testimony of complainant Ritika, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent and convincing to prove the entrustment of dowry articles to a particular accused. The evidence available on record is sketchy in nature and fails to inspire confidence. The prosecution has failed to provide a convincing answer to the question that 'who' exactly, out of the above- mentioned persons i.e. Accused Anshuman Narang, Accused Anil Narang, Accused Rachna Narang, Sister-in law Astha Narang or Grandmother Bimla Narang, was entrusted with the dowry articles?
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 87 of 91
Even the claim regarding a joint entrustment cannot hold ground in the teeth of continuously shifting stand of the complainant regarding entrustment of her dowry articles. Not only the 'entrustment', even the question of 'misappropriation' seems to be mired in mist and haze with no clear and clinching evidence to pinpoint the liability of the person misappropriating the dowry articles.
83. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed heavy reliance upon the list Ex. PW 3/B1 to contend that several dowry articles, as reflected in the said list, though admitted by the accused persons has not been returned back to the complainant. For the above mentioned reasons, regarding the lack of clear-cut evidence relating to entrustment and misappropriation clearly pinpointing the liability, even the said list is of not much use. For similar reasons reliance can also not be placed upon the testimony of Sh. Yashpal Sachdeva (PW 43), which can at best be used only for corroboratory purposes.
84. Further, SI Krishan Kumar (PW16) in his cross examination has admitted that accused Anshuman Narang had filed an application before Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Crl. MA No. 1976/2016 in respect of return of the dowry articles to the complainant as she had refused to acknowledge and accept the same. Thus, under these circumstances, the requisite mensrea to commit the offence of breach of trust also appears to be missing.
85. Be that as it may, in the absence of any clear, specific and unambiguous allegations concerning entrustment/ misappropriation of specific articles of dowry to any particular accused one cannot be fastened with joint, or, vicarious liability. Further, I concur with the learned defence counsel that the instant proceedings are not civil proceedings for the recovery of dowry articles and liability in criminal proceedings ought to be strictly State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 88 of 91 construed.
86. Further, there was a seriously contested dispute between both the parties regarding three jewelry articles namely diamond bangles, maang tika and earrings. The complainant claimed that the above said jewelry articles were part of her stridhan and the same were not returned back to her by the accused persons. However, the accused persons claimed that there were two sets of these jewelry pieces and one of the same was taken away by the complainant while the second was retained by them as it belonged to them.
87. Vinod Anand, owner of Jewel Valuer and Design (PW19), examined on behalf of the prosecution, belies the claim of the complainant in this regard. He voluntarily testified in his cross examination that he had seen the jewelry one month before the date of preparation of his observation report (Ex.PW19/A) i.e. 05/03/2017. The complainant admittedly left her matrimonial home on 27.10.2014 and thus the disputed jewelry articles could not have been shown to Vinod Anand in the month of February 2017, unless they were in possession of the complainant herself. Though it can be argued that the observation report (Ex.PW19/A) makes a mention of necklace, earrings and Maang Tika and it makes no mention of the bangles therein but the testimony of Vinod Anand sufficiently exposes the mendacity of the complainant's claim. Learned defence counsel, during the course of argument has fairly conceded that the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs deposited by the accused persons, in compliance of the court directions, maybe awarded to the complainant. The contention of defence that no man, having deposited a substantial sum, would like to gamble with his liberty for a piece of bangles, no matter how so ever costly they may be, seems to bear force. Further, the testimony of the complainant fails State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 89 of 91 to inspire confidence and thus it would not be appropriate to act upon the same.
88. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Syed Ibrahim vs State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 601 has observed that if chaff cannot be separated from the grain, the evidence is required to be rejected in toto. Thus, considering the inherent nature of the prosecution evidence, witnesses fail to inspire confidence and accused persons cannot be convicted based upon such tainted testimonies.
89. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It has been held in case of "Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court :-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
90. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt.
91. Accused Anshuman Narang, Anil Narang and Rachna Narang are hereby acquitted for the charges levelled against them. It is hereby directed that Rs.40 lakhs deposited by the accused persons shall be released in favour of the complainant and the disputed bangles, Maang Tika and earrings shall be retained by accused Rachna Narang. Ordered accordingly.
State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors
FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 90 of 91
92. All three abovementioned accused persons are directed to furnish PB/SB in the sum of Rs 50,000/- each in compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in Section 437A CrPC.
93. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to both the parties.
94. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
DHARMENDER Digitally signed by DHARMENDER
RANA
RANA Date: 2021.04.30 22:39:34 +05'30'
Announced in the open court ( Dharmender Rana)
On 30th of April, 2021. ASJ-02: NDD: PHC: NEW DELHI State vs. Anshuman Narang & Ors FIR No. 985/17 Page no. 91 of 91