Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh & Ors. on 29 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Rakesh & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93
P.S. : Kanpur
U/S : 498A/323/504/506 IPC
CASE ID: 02403R0496302003
JUDGMENT
1.DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 30.07.1994 2.SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : Nil. 3.DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 27.01.1993 till 27.05.1993. 4.NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Smt. Snehlata
5.NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : 1. Ravi Prakash (Husband) S/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
2. Ram Murti (fatherinlaw) R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 1/26
PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
3. Smt. Kiran(motherinlaw) W/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
4. Rakesh (Devar) S/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
5. Seema S/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/S 498A/323/504/506 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 2/26
8. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED: 21.05.2013
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquittal
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 29.07.2013 And State Vs. Rakesh & Ors.
FIR No. 347/93P.S. : K.M. Pur U/S : 406 IPC CASE ID: 02403R0074902003 JUDGMENT
1.DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 08.08.1994
2.SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 19/2/03
3.DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 27.01.1993 till 27.05.1993.
4.NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Smt. Snehlata
5.NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : 1. Ravi Prakash (Husband) S/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 3/26
Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
2. Ram Murti (fatherinlaw) R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
3. Smt. Kiran(motherinlaw) W/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
4. Rakesh (Devar) S/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P.
5. Seema S/o Ram Murti, R/o 75/69, Ranjit Purwa, Dhankuti, PS Badshahi Naka Kanpur Nagar, U.P. State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 4/26
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/S 406 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
8. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED: 21.05.2013
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquittal
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 29.07.2013 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose off the case FIR no. 347/93, registered at Kotla Mubarak Pur, Delhi and FIR no. 82/93 registered at police station Kanpur, U.P. The allegations in these two cases arise out of the same transaction. The complainant in both the cases is Sneh Lata. The accused persons are Rakesh, Ram Murti, Ravi, Kiran and Seema. Ravi Prakash is the husband of the complainant. Ram Murti and Kiran are her parentsinlaw. Rakesh is the brotherinlaw and Seema is the sisterinlaw. Ram Murti and Kiran expired during the trial and proceedings against them stood abated vide order dated 19.04.2004 and 19.01.2013 respectively. Hence, present judgment shall not determine the guilt/innocence of these two State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 5/26accused persons.
2. In the FIR no. 82/93, police station Kanpur, which is prior in time, accused Rakesh, Ravi and Seema have faced the trial, while in the FIR bearing no. 347/93, police station Kotla Mubarak Pur, accused Rakesh has faced the trial.
3. The first FIR bearing no. 82/93 was registered at police station Kanpur on the basis of complaint received at police station on 14.07.1993. It is alleged that the complainant Sneh Lala married to accused Ravi Prakash according to Hindu Rites on 27.01.1993. She reached at her matrimonial house in Kanpur on 28.01.1993. Since then, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention started giving physical and mental torture to the complainant for bringing less dowry and also for not bringing the money received towards Kanyadaan. Husband would slap her and hit her with kicks and fist blows after tying her hands and legs at the instigation of other accused persons. On 15.05.1993, accused Ravi and Rakesh demanded money for purchasing a scooter from the complainant and threatened that if the demand was not fulfilled, she would be killed. She was also beaten up by them when she showed her inability to fulfill the demand and they said that she will face dire consequences for her denial to fulfill the demand. She State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 6/26intimated her father. On 20.05.1993 her brother Damodar came to Kanpur but all the accused persons misbehaved with him and did not allow him to meet the complainant. She was locked in a room. She heard abuse hurled at her brother. On 27.05.1993, the accused motherinlaw and sisterinlaw pulled the hairs of the complainant and hit her. Fatherinlaw exclaimed that they should beat her and he will get another wife for his son. Thereafter, the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house. While she was going to the railway station, accused Ravi Prakash followed her and told her that she will not get a train at central railway station and she should go to Govind Puri. He took her to Govind Puri station and kept torturing her on the way. Even at the station, he started giving her mental torture due to which she lost her balance and fell in front of approaching train and a part of her left leg was cut under the train. Her husband fled away from the spot after seeing the accident and she became unconscious. She was in the hospital when she regained her consciousness. Her parents were informed by her inlaws after two days and they threatened her not to tell anything to the police. All the medical expenses were paid by the parents of the complainant. On 11.07.1993, fatherinlaw again threatened the brother of the complainant after which they approached the police.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 7/26
4. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the complainant left for Delhi on 27.07.1993 and lodged another complaint at the police station Kotla Mubarak Pur with respect to which the FIR bearing no. 347/93 was registered. She raised similar allegations in FIR no. 347/93 which was lodged on the basis of complaint dated 2.08.1993. However, regarding the incident of 27.05.1993, she alleged that her husband had pushed her towards the approaching train due to which her leg got cut. She further averred in the said complaint that her husband and her inlaws refused to keep her at Kanpur after which she asked them to return her Istridhan but they did not return. After few days, her fatherinlaw sent two people at Delhi to whom also the demand of Istridhan was raised but they refused to return. The list of dowry articles was also submitted with this complaint by the complainant.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in FIR no. 82/93 was filed before the Court of Ld. ACMM Kanpur on 30.07.1994 against all the the five accused persons. Court took cognizance of the offence on the same day and all the accused persons were summoned. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to them on 22.03.1995. A prima facie case for the offences punishable u/s 498A/323/504/506/34 IPC was made out against all the five accused persons. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 8/26persons on 12.06.1995 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Similarly in case FIR no. 347/93, police station Kotla Mubarak Pur, charge sheet was filed on 08.08.1994 against all the five accused persons and copy was supplied to the accused persons on 06.03.1995. On 07.09.1995, Ld. Predecessor Court observed that a prima facie case for an offence punishable u/s 406 IPC was made out against all the accused persons. Charge was accordingly framed against them on 07.10.1995. Against the said order of charge, accused persons preferred a revision petition before the Ld. Sessions Court. Vide order dated 20.05.1996, Ld. Sessions Court discharged the accused Kiran, Rakesh and Seema of the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC and maintained the order of charge qua the accused Ravi Prakash and Ram Murti.
7. Trial commenced in both the aforesaid cases at Kanpur and Delhi respectively. However, on 11.01.1999, the case FIR No. 82/93, police station Kanpur was transferred to this court by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 31.08.1999, Ld. Predecessor Court directed that common evidence be recorded in both these matters as the allegations arise out of the same transaction and hence, common trial commenced in both these cases.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 9/26fifteen witnesses. Out of these fifteen witnesses, seven are public witnesses and remaining eight are police officials.
9. Seven public witnesses, examined by the prosecution are the complainant, her father, her two brothers, her relatives and persons who attended her marriage. PW2 Nand Lal and PW3 Damodar are the brothers of the complainant. PW6 Trilok Chand is her maternal uncle. PW7 is the complainant herself. PW14 Hari Kishan is her father. PW4 Sunil Chabra and PW5 Pandit are the formal witnesses who had participated in the marriage function of the complainant.
Public witnesses :
10. Complainant has been examined as PW7. During her examination she reiterated the contents of her complaint on oath. She identified her complaint lodged before CAW Cell Delhi as well as the complaint lodged at Kanpur, which are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively. She also identified the list of dowry articles which is Ex.PW3/A and the seizure memo of the articles produced by her father in law in the Police Station which is Ex.PW9/A. She further specifically deposed that she had demanded her articles back from her father in law on 27.07.1993 but he refused to return. She also deposed that her father in law did not return her State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 10/26jewelery and some household articles during investigation though everything else was returned. She also improved on her complaint Ex.PW7/B by deposing that her husband and brother in law also joined in beating her on 27.05.1993 and her husband had pushed her before the approaching train at Govind Puri Railway Station, Kanpur but she did not inform anyone initially as she was scared of her father in law who used to keep company of Police officials. Further, she deposed that all the accused persons threatened her in the hospital and therefore she did not reveal about the involvement of her husband in pushing her to any one. However, the accused persons stopped visiting her after some time in the hospital and therefore she disclosed the entire incident to her father. It was further deposed by PW7 that on 17.07.1993 three unknown persons had threatened her brother and on 18.07.1993 her father in law had threatened her and her brothers after which matter was reported to the Police. She deposed that her father in law said that she be taken back to Delhi otherwise her second leg would also be broken. On 27.07.1993 when she she was discharged from the hospital, her elder brother informed her husband but he refused to keep her so she was brought back to Delhi and an intimation Ex.PW7/C was given to the Police. She further identified seizure memo Ex.PW1/A vide which the OPD ticket of State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 11/26Safdarjung Hospital (Ex.PW7/E), invitation card (Ex.P1), photo of marriage and her discharge slip from the hospital (Ex.PW7/D) were seized. She further deposed that on 15.05.1993 after she was beaten up by the accused persons, she wrote a letter to her father in the afternoon which is Ex.PW7/F (also Ex.P11). She identified the medical documents of Safdarjung Hospital as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and the documents pertaining to the proceedings initiated after her accident at Kanpur which are Ex.P12 to Ex.P26.
11. During cross examination, she deposed that she came to her parental house twice. Once in February 1993 and again in March 1993. For the first time she stayed at her parental house for 2 weeks and for the second time she stayed for 7 to 10 days. Her husband and brother in law took her back for the first time and they stayed at her parental house for a day. For the second time her husband took her back and he stayed for one day. She further deposed that she used to call up her sister while she was staying in her matrimonial house but she did not disclose about the atrocities being committed upon her as accused persons used to be around. She did not identify the letters Mark A to Mark D written by her father. She admitted when she was in the hospital at Kanpur between 27.05.1993 to 27.07.1993 all her relatives used to visit her and further deposed that her father came to see State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 12/26her in the hospital after two days of the accident. It was also deposed by her that the complaint Ex.PW7/B was typed by her father and she signed it after reading the same in the hospital. The accused persons used to visit her till the police recorded her statement and thereafter they stopped visiting. She admitted the letter Ex.PW7/DX1 written by her sister Mala and was confronted with her statement Ex.PW7/B where she had only alleged that the accused persons demanded cash but in her deposition before the court she stated that the accused persons used to demand cash and scooter. She also admitted that she did not write in her complaint that her husband also hit her on 27.05.1993 or that she was beaten and locked up on 20.05.1993 when her brother visited her. She also deposed during her cross examination that the message of her discharge from the hospital was sent to her father in law by her father through the relative of a patient on 27.07.1993 and that she did not remember the name of the lady to whom letter was given for posting the same on 15.05.1993. It was also deposed by her that her father was sick when she visited her parental house and therefore she did not inform him about the atrocities but did not disclose as to what illness she was suffering from. She admitted the receipts of medical bill Mark P1 to Mark P40 produced by the accused persons but denied that her in laws had paid the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 13/26bills. She admitted that her father in law did not visit the hospital after 18.07.1993. She further deposed that the two persons from Kanpur had come after 7 to 10 days of her arrival at Delhi to whom she had raised a demand of her stridhan but they refused. However, she could not tell the names of such persons and also the date when they approached her in Delhi. She further admitted that she did not speak to her father in law or husband before leaving Kanpur on 27.07.1993. It was also admitted by her that she did not visit her in laws house between 27.05.1993 till 12.08.1993 neither she spoke to them on phone.
12. PW3 Sh. Damodar, is the brother of PW7. He deposed that his sister married to accused Nand Kishore on 27.01.1993. She came to the parental house after 15 to 20 days of marriage and her husband took her back. She did not inform anything about the atrocities as her father was ill. On 20.05.1993 he went to Kanpur but he was not allowed to meet his sister and the accused persons demand scooter. On 29.05.1993 he was informed that his sister had met with an accident and was admitted in Halet Hospital, Kanpur. Hence, he went there and met the accused persons. The accused persons used to attend his sister for initial few days but later on they stopped coming. On 17.07.1993 he was attacked by 3 unknown persons who State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 14/26threatened him of dire consequences, if he did not take his sister back to Delhi. On 18.07.1993 father in law said in the hospital that nothing was given in dowry and therefore the complainant shall not be kept in the matrimonial house. A report was lodged and an intimation was sent by him to his father after which his sister gathered the courage and told his father that she was pushed by her husband before the approaching train and she did not disclose it earlier as she was under a threat. On 27.07.1993 accused persons refused to keep his sister and 2 persons came from Kanpur at Delhi but they did not agree to keep the complainant. He further deposed that on 05.12.1993 accused Rakesh was arrested and certain articles of stridhan were returned during investigation. He also identified a list of stridhan Ex.PW3/A.
13. During cross examination he deposed that Ex.PW3/A was prepared at the time of marriage, a few days before Sagai. It was a typed list and it was handed over to accused Ram Murti i.e. the father in law whose signatures were obtained in tokan of receipt. It was also deposed by him that no copy of the list was kept by him and that he can produce the receipts of articles given to the complainant at the time of marriage. He further deposed that he was informed about the accident of his sister after 2 days and she remained in the hospital for around 2 months, after which she was brought to State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 15/26Delhi. It was also deposed by him that he did not speak to the accused persons after coming to Delhi but two persons from Kanpur had approached him. However, he could not tell the date and time when these persons from Kanpur approached him. He also did not tell the names of these two persons. He showed unawareness to the letters written by his father and admitted that no demand for return of dowry articles were made after coming to Delhi. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which is Mark PW3/DA, regarding giving and non return of articles, return of broken articles and entrustment. He denied that the list Ex.PW3/A was a false and fabricated list or that the accused persons were falsely implicated.
14. PW5 i.e. Pandit deposed that he had performed the marriage of the complainant Sneh Lata and accused Ravi Prakash on 27.01.1993. This witness was not crossexamined by the defence.
15. PW4 deposed that on 27.01.1993 he had arranged tent for the marriage of the complainant and received Rs. 14,000/ as remuneration. He proved the receipt of remuneration which is Ex.PW4/A. He also deposed that he had seen the dowry articles consisting of clothes, double bed, packed almirah, sofa and utensils which were lying for being handed over to the grooms family. He also deposed that certain articles were packed and hence, State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 16/26he could not see what the packets contained. This witness was not also crossexamined by the defence.
16. PW6 Trilok Chand deposed that he is the cousin mama of the complainant and he attended the marriage on 27.01.1993. He presented a sewing machine and clothes to the complainant. He further deposed that the parents of the complainant had presented the dowry articles and gold in his presence and a list was prepared in the handwriting of the father of the complainant, which was signed by him and other persons in the marriage at the time of Phera at about 9.00 to 9.30 P.M. He also deposed that only one copy of the list was prepared which was given to the accused and he did not read the list before signing the same. He further deposed that he does not know whether articles of Istridhan were returned to Sneh Lata.
17. PW2 Nand Lal deposed that his sister married to Ravi Prakash on 27.01.1993 and on 04.12.1993 he went to Kanpur alongwith the police officials and his brother Damodar but found that the house of the accused persons was locked. Neighborers told that the accused persons had gone to attend a marriage. They returned to the railway station and met the accused Rakesh there who tried to flee away after seeing them but was apprehended and arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/A. State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 17/26During crossexamination, he deposed that the list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage but he does not know who prepared it. He deposed that it was signed by Ramdhan and Shiv Charan who are his neighborers. He further deposed that he came to know about the accident of his sister after three days of the incident and further stated that the complaint was lodged by his sister as the accused persons refused to keep her. He was questioned about the two persons who allegedly had come from Kanpur and to whom demand for return of Istridhan was made to which he deposed that he does not know who had come, when they had come and further he was unable to tell their names. He admitted that inlaws of his sister never came to Delhi after her return and complainant also did not speak to them on phone etc.
18. PW14 i.e. Hari Kishan is the father of the complainant, who deposed that he had sent his son on the occasion of Bada Amavashya to Kanpur with gifts after around a month of marriage but the accused persons threw away the gifts and accused Kiran abused his son. After the accident of his daughter when he reached in the hospital, father in law said, "paisa diya hota to ye na hota". He deposed that his daughter had told him that the accused persons would kill her and son was threatened but no action was State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 18/26taken by the Police. He admitted the letters Mark A to Mark D deposing that he had sent the same.
Official Witnesses:
19. PW1 Ct. Raghubir Singh proved the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW8 Ct. Sulekh Chand proved Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 which are documents pertaining to enquiry conducted at CAW Cell. PW8A Ct. Dalbir Singh proved the arrest of accused Rakesh on 04.12.1993 while PW9 Ct. Bharam Singh proved the arrest of accused Ravi and Ram Murti vide memo Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C, and also the seizure memo of articles of stridhan i.e. Ex.PW9/A. PW10 SI Rita proved the FIR Ex.PW10/A and PW11 SI J.P. Singh proved the seizure memo prepared on 15.01.1994 which is Ex.PW9/A vide which the articles of stridhan produced by accused Ram Murti were seized. PW13 Inspector Hari Singh also proved the arrest of accused Ravi and Ram Murti, as well as accused Seema and Kiran vide memo Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively.
20. PW12 SI Ishwar is the IO of the case. He deposed about the steps of investigation undertaken by him and proved the personal search memo of accused Rakesh i.e Ex.PW2/A, complaint Ex.PW7/A, list of dowry articles Ex.PW3/B and seizure memo of documents Ex.PW1/A. During cross State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 19/26examination he deposed that no list of stridhan was handeds over to him and original postal receipts of letters were also not handed over and hence he did not verify the same.
21. After completion of evidence, entire incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons on 29.07.2013, which were denied by them and the accused persons alleged false implication. No evidence in their defence was led by the accused persons.
22. Final arguments have been heard and record perused.
23. In the present case, the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable u/s 498A/323/504/506/34 IPC and in addition, accused Ravi Prakash was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC.
24. Section 498A IPC which punishes cruelty extended to the wife by the husband and his relatives. This cruelty can be physical or mental cruelty of such nature as is likely to cause grave injury on the person of the wife or as is likely to drive her to commit suicide, or else, it can be a cruelty in the form of demand of money or valuable security and consequent harassment for coercing the wife or her relatives to fulfill the said demand.
25. Section 406 IPC punishes criminal breach of trust. Entrustment of property and its misappropriation by the accused are the essential State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 20/26ingredients of this Section. Section 323 IPC punishes hurt caused voluntarily to the person of a human being while Section 506 IPC punishes criminal intimidation.
26. As observed above, to bring home the guilt for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was a demand and consequent harassment. The witnesses of the prosecution specifically deposed that cash for purchasing a scooter was demanded on 15.05.1993 from the complainant and on her refusal to fulfill the demand, she was beaten up. PW7 i.e. the complainant deposed that she wrote a letter to her father on the same day narrating about the incident but this fact was not stated by her in her complaint. She did not specify as to how much money was demanded by the accused persons. PW14 i.e. the father of the complainant did not lodge any complaint against the accused persons after receiving the alleged letter. PW7 deposed that she had posted the letter through a lady but she did not disclose the name of that lady. It was also deposed by her that she did not disclose about the demand of the accused persons to her father earlier as he was ill but she did not disclose what illness did he suffered from. In fact, PW14 admitted that he used to write letters to the accused persons. These letters are Mark A to Mark D and none of the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 21/26letter reflects that there was any strain in the relationship of the two families prior to the incident of 27.05.1993.
27. The second allegations raised by the complainant that the brother was abused by the accused persons on 20.05.1993. The brother i.e. PW3 also deposed about this fact and further stated that the accused persons had demanded scooter from him. However, it was not disclosed to the Court as to what action was taken by the brother after coming to know of the harassments faced by his sister. There is no averment that he made any complaint either to his father or before any other authority. No action admittedly was taken against the accused persons prior to 14.07.1993. PW14 deposed that his son had complained to him about demand of scooter by the accused persons when he went to Kanpur on Bada Amavasya which fell a month after the marriage of his daughter with the accused Ravi Prakash. However, if this statement of the father is taken to be true, there would be no explanation to the letters written much after one month of marriage by the father to the father in law reflecting that everything was fine at both the ends and there were no tensions in the relationship of the two families. A letter written by the sister of the complainant which is Ex.PW7/DX1 also reflects that the relationship prior to the incident of 27.05.1993 were normal. There is State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 22/26a contradiction in the testimony of PW3 and PW14 about the date and time when the alleged incident of demand of scooter from the brother occurred.
28. PW7 further deposed that she was beaten by all the accused persons on 27.05.1993 and her husband pushed her before a train. She further deposed that she was unconscious and when she regained consciousness in the hospital, she was threatened by the accused persons so she did not disclose anything to the Police. However, her deposition is against the record prepared by the Railway Police after her accident wherein it is specified that the complainant was lying on the railway crossing and she was shouting that she met with an accident when she was crossing the Patri and a train crossed her leg. Her husband was not on the spot. She gave the same statement in the hospital. PW7 attempted to reason out for this conduct by saying that she was scared of her father in law who had high contacts with the Police but she did not specify as to how her father in law contacts with the Police. No source of his connection to the Police was disclosed. She further deposed that she did not tell her father about this incident as she was scared and when her father in law stopped visiting her after 18.07.1993 then she gathered the courage to tell her father. However, it is noticeable that first complaint was lodged by her on 14.07.1993 and State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 23/26admittedly this complaint was got typed by her father. As per the complainant, her father was not present during either of the incidents of demand and beating and she met him for the first time in the hospital after the beatings of 15.05.1993 and 20.05.1993. Hence, it can be presumed that she must have disclosed about these incidents to her father and then only he was able to get the complaint typed. It is inexplicable that she was not able to gather the courage to tell her father that the accused husband pushed her before the train but she narrated all other incidents to him. The ground raised by the complainant seems to be an after thought concocted in order to explain the improvements in her statement at every stage. This conduct of PW7 and of other witnesses shakes their credibility and raises a doubt upon the story of the prosecution.
29. The doubt is further strengthened from the medical receipts Mark P1 to P40 produced by the accused persons suggesting that they were taking care of the complainant in the hospital. What made the complainant lodge her first complaint on 14.07.1993 is not clear but the incidents of 17.07.1993 and 18.07.1993 appear to be a off shoot of this complaint. Admittedly the accused persons stopped visiting the complainant after 18.07.1993 when she had already lodged the complaint of 14.07.1993. State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 24/26Even otherwise the threats on 17.07.1993 were allegedly extended by three unknown persons and on 18.07.1993 by the father in law who has now expired. No role is attributed to accused Ravi, Rakesh and Seema with respect to the aforesaid two incidents.
30. Coming to the offence of Criminal breach of trust, the witnesses of the prosecution deposed that a list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage and it was handed over to accused Ram Murti who had signed in token of receipt. But this receipt also was not placed on record. On the contrary PW3 claimed that the list was prepared on the day of Sagai and it was a typed list while the Mama of the complainant i.e. PW6 deposed that the list was prepared at the time of Pheras and it was a handwritten list. These contradictions again raise a doubt on the fact as to whether the list was at all prepared.
31. There are no specific allegations of entrustment to either of the accused persons except with respect to the jewelery articles worn by the complainant at the time of accident, which were released to her father in law on superdari. Hence, entrustment, if any, can be presumed only against father in law who is no more. There are further no specific allegations of demand. Complainant deposed that she had demanded her articles back on State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 25/2627.07.1993 in her examination in chief but during her cross examination she admitted that she did not speak to her father in law after 18.07.1993 or on 27.07.1993 and it was her father who had informed her father in law that they were taking her back. She further admitted that she never spoke to the accused persons on phone after returning to Delhi and was unable to tell about the two persons who came to Delhi from Kanpur to whom articles were demanded. In the absence of specific allegations of entrustment to, and demand from, the accused persons facing the trial, the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC is also not proved.
32. In view of aforesaid discussions, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They are accordingly acquitted of the offences charged.
Pronounced in open court (JYOTI KLER)
on 29 July, 2013
th
M.M/Mahila Court/South District
New Delhi
State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 82/93 & 370/93| Page No. 26/26