Delhi District Court
Fir No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State vs . Surender Pal. on 31 January, 2015
FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No.205/03
PS- Sangam Vihar
UID No: 02406R0768182005
STATE
Versus.
SURENDER PAL
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Date of Institution of case : 06.09.05
b) Date of Judgment : 31.01.2015
c) Offence complained of :498-A /406/34 IPC
d) Name of accused, :(1) Surender Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Mahender Pal
R/o H. No. 284/13, Tuglakabad
Chhuria Mohalla, Near
Bengali Colony
(2) Sheela Devi
W/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o284/13, Tuglakabad
Chhuria Mohalla, Near
Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 1 of 20
FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal.
Bengali Colony
(3) Nirmala Devi
D/o Sh.Mahender Singh
R/o Jila Bulanshahar, Village
Post Aacharkala, U. P.
(4) Mahender Pal Singh
S/o late Sh. Khubi Singh
R/o 284/13,, Tuglakabad
Chhuria Mohalla, Near
Bengali Colony
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Surender Pal, Nirmala Devi, Mahender Pal and Sheela Devi have been sent to face trial on the allegations that they had subjected to her cruelty in-connection with demand of dowry and stridhan articles of the complainant Pinki with their common intention refused to return on demand and Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 2 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. thereby committed offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. A complaint was filed in this respect by complainant Smt. Pinki on the basis of which FIR was registered. Accused persons were apprehended and later on they were released on bail. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court by the IO upon which cognizance of the offence was taken by the court.
2. Charge for offence punishable u/s 498- A/406/34 IPC was framed against the Mahinder Pal and charge for offence punishable U/s 498-A/406/324/34 IPC was framed against accused Surender Pal Singh and charge for the offence punishable U/s 498/34 IPC was framed against the accused Nirmal Devi vide order dated 16.08.2010 passed by this court which were explained to the accused persons in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. Prosecution Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 3 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. has produced six witnesses. The statements of all accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in this false case and he opted to lead defence evidence and produced two witnesses in their favour. Final Arguments were heard and matter was reserved for orders.
Record has carefully been perused.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
4. PW-1 Smt. Gayatri who deposed that in the year 1996, she get married with one Sh. Surender Pal as per Hindu rituals and customs. In her marriage, she was gifted articles by her family member and her-in- laws. She submitted the list of sridhan before the police officials. After marriage, she started living at Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 4 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. Sangam Vihar. During the marriage she was blessed with the child. Her husband namely Surender Pal father-in-law, Mahender Pal mother-in-law Sheela Devi, Usha, Netra Pal Singh and Ashu @ Netra Pal, Lucky and Nirmala harassed her in her matrimonial house. After bringing more dowry. After some time, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house and her in laws kept her son. After some time when she was living her parental house one Jagender who is her-in-laws reached at her house and told her that her husband namely, Surender Pal was getting marriage. Then, She reached her matrimonial house where she requested her in-laws to give her child upon this, they abused her. Then, She went to PS Sangam Vihars to make a complaint where police officials get conducted her medical examination. She also filed a complaint before a CAW Cell, Amar Colony where she submitted her medical report and list of articles. Her complaint is Ex- PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. the list of Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 5 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. stridhan articles is vide memo Ex-PW1/B bearing her signature at point a. The photographs of the marriage is Ex-PW1/C bearing my signature at point A.
5. PW2 ASI Praveen who deposed that on 17.04.2003, he was posted as HC at PS-Sangam Vihar as a duty officer between 9.00AM to 5.00PM. On that day, at about 4.30PM, he received a rukka duly endorsement by the SHO of PS for registration of the FIR. Then, he registered the FIR, copy of the same is Ex-PW2/A bearing his signature at point A(OSR). He also made endorsement on the complaint. After registration of the FIR, she gave the copy of the FIR and rukka to Ct. Manoj to handover the same to the Inspector Women Cell.
6. PW-3 Sharda who deposed that on 03.11.2002, she was working as SI at CAW Cell, Amar Colony. During that time, she received the complaint Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 6 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. regarding harassment made by complainant Pinki @ Gayatri Devi. She conducted the enquiry in this case and made an efforts to settle the matter between them but despite her efforts no settlement could be done. Thereafter, she made her recommendation for registration of FIR. Same is Ex-PW-3/A which bears her signature at point A. At present, the record of the aid case file at this stage by the order of ACP. Copy of the order is marked as A.
7. PW-4 Rajesh Kumar who deposed that complainant is daughter of his elder brother. On 12.12.1996, she got married with one Surender Pal Singh as per Hindu rites and customs. After two years of marriage, she blessed with male child. He used to visit at the matrimonial house of the complainant Gayatri where she saw that the behaviour of in-laws used to harass and gave her beatings. After some time they taken back to complainant at her parental house. Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 7 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. She did not tell him as to why she was harassing in her matrimonial house.
8. PW-5 SI Satish Bhati who deposed that on 02.04.2003, he was posted at PS-Sangam Vihar as SI. On that day, he was received a complaint duly marked by SHO for registration of FIR. On the basis of order u/s 156(3) CrPC, he got FIR registered on 17.04.2003. During investigation, he made an efforts to arrest the accused persons but they could not arrested despite his efforts. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS in the month of August 2003 and he handed over the case file to the MHC(R).
9. PW-6 SI Surveer Singh who deposed that in the year 2004, he was posted at ASI at PS-Sangam Vihar. During that time, investigation of this case wax marked to him. During investigation on 27.12.2004, he arrested accused persons namely Surender Pal, Netra Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 8 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. Pal Mohinder Pal,Lucky Usha Devi, Nirmala vide memos Ex-PW6/A to Ex-PW6/F which bears his signature at point A and released them on police bail as they were already on anticipatory bail. On 12.02.2005, he arrested Sheela Devi vide memo EX-PW6/G which bears his signature at point A. After completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and filed the same in the court.
10. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC r/w Section 281 CrPC was recorded wherein they stated that they are innocent and were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. They opted to lead defence evidence and produced two witnesses in their favour.
Defence witnesses deposed as as follows:
11. DW-1 Surender Pal Singh who deposed that Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 9 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. his marriage was solemnized with Pinky @ Gayatri Devi without any dowry articles and gifts on 13.11.1994 at Jai Guru Dharm parchrak Sanstha, Agra, Delhi Road Mathura U. P. He has not been committed any typ of cruelty and not demanded any type of dowry from his wife namely Pinky @ Gayatri Devi. He was blessed a son that due to this wedlock on 14.10.1996. After the birth of the child, his wife Pinky @ Gayatri Devi had illicit relation with one person namely Gudda who is residing adjacent his house. When she has gone to pick the child from the school, then she eloped from there with one Gudda on 26.02.2001. Thereafter, he had searched her everywhere but she did not meet. Then, he made a complaint in the PS-Sangam Vihar but police was also unable t search her. Finally, he had approached the brother of Pinky @ Gayatri Devi. Brother of Pinky namely Jaibir Singh was also unable to find his wife Pinky @ Gayatri Devi. Finally, Mr. Jaibir Singh made out the complaint U/s 97/98 CrPC Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 10 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. with regard to the illegal confinement of his wife Pinky@ Gayatri Devi before the ACMM Court Patiala House Court against the persons namely Gudda, Nisar and Pradeep Goel. He had objected peacefully the said act of feeling of his wife. She made false and fabricated complaint against him and her other family members. Since the date 26.02.2001, she had not joined him after made of his several request. The maintenance of his child Sajan Chauhan is being done by him. He has brought the photocopy of the marriage certificate, same is marked as DX and photocopy of written complaint made by brother of the complainant Jaibir Singh vide marked DY (running 8 pages).
12. DW-2 Master Sajan Chauhan who deposed that his mother name is Pinki @ Gayatri Devi (herein complainant). When, he was 3-4 years old and were studying in Nursey class in the School of Homly Pubic School at Sangam Vihar. On one day, his mother Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 11 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. asked him that she was going to purchase samosa from nearby. Then, she left him in the house and went to the market. Thereafter, she never returned back till now. Since then, he is living with his father and other family members of his father. All of his expenses are borne by his father namely Sh. Surender Pal Singh. No quarrel took place between his parents at his presence.
Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties. Carefully perused the record.
Reasons for the decision:
13. Accused Surender Pal is the husband of the complainant. Sheela and Mahender Pal are the mother in law and father in law respectively and Nirmala is the sister in law. They all have been charged for commission of offence U/s 498A/34 IPC Whereas only Surender Pal, Sheela and Mahender Pal have been charged for offence U/s 406/34 Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 12 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal.
IPC. Formal charge was framed against all accused accordingly.
14. To prove its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses, out of which complainant Pinky @ Gayatri/ PW-1 and her uncle Rajesh/ PW-4 are the only material witnesses examined by the prosecution. All other witnesses are witnesses of investigation.
15. Pinky @ Gayatri has deposed that the marriage was solemnized on 12.12.1996 and that the son was borne in the year 1998. This has been disputed by the accused. The complainant has not filed any documentary prove in respect of the date of marriage as alleged by her or as regards the date of birth of her son. During the cross examination, the witness was confronted with document Mark A which is a certificate issued by Baba Jai Guru Ji Ashram, Mathura, U.P which reflects that the date of marriage was 13.11.1994. The defence has also examined two witnesses I.e the accused Surender Pal and son Sajan Chauhan. The son has affirmed his date of birth to be 14.10.1996 which has Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 13 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. also been admitted by him during his cross examination as DW-2. If the proven date of birth of the son is 14.10.1996, it could not have been possible unless the parties got married at an earlier date.
16. The complainant has alleged that her father had given several gifts and articles at the time of marriage much beyond his means and that the accused always used to harass her with a view to coerce her to bring a car and cash. The complainant has alleged that she was beaten and thrown out of the house on 22.02.2002 with a view to coerce her to fulfill the alleged demand. The specific model of car and amount of cash which was allegedly demanded has nowhere come on record. No complaint was made at that time by the complainant before any authority in respect of this incident. PW-4 Rajesh, during his cross examination has contradicted the testimony of the complainant by admitting that the marriage was solemnized at Baba Jai Guru Ji Ashram, Mathura, U.P in a simple manner and no gifts or articles were given at the time of marriage.
Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 14 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal.
17. The complainant had alleged that one Joginder told her that accused was about to solemnize a second marriage, hearing which, she went to the house of the accused alongwith her Chacha Rajesh and brother Amit wherein she was beaten. The complainant alleged that due to beatings, she became unconscious and was taken to hospital by her uncle. This person Joginder who allegedly informed the complainant was not examined as a witness by the prosecution. The girl with whom the alleged second marriage of the accused Surender Pal was about to be solemnized has not even been named anywhere. While the complainant deposed that she became unconscious and suffered serious injuries on her head and got stitches, the MLC reflects that the complainant was conscious and oriented and her vitals were stable at the time of the medical examination, which was carried out at about 08:30 PM while the incident, as per MLC, took place at 08:00 PM. Moreover, the concerned doctor who examined the complainant was not called as a witness by the prosecution. No such fact of the complainant receiving any severe head injury is mentioned in the MLC. If the complainant received severe head injury and was Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 15 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. received stitches, she would have definitely required follow up treatment. No record of any follow up treatment has been placed on record. Further, the complainant has not stated in her statement U/s 161 CrPC that she lost consciousness and required stitches in her head due to the beatings given by the accused on 15.03.2002. Further, the complainant feigns ignorance as to whether the marriage of her sister-in law Nirmala was solemnized prior to her marriage or not but at a later stage she admits that the sister in law used to visit their house. How is it possible that the complainant was not aware this fact. There are several material contradictions in the testimony of PW1. From the deposition of PW1 read in the light of her statement under S.161 Cr.P.C, it is becomes apparent that she is not a truthful witness and was deliberately suppressing material facts with a view to implicate the accused persons. Her testimony is further contradicted by her own Chacha PW4.
18. PW-4/ Rajesh has deposed that he used to visit the complainant at her matrimonial house and the behaviour or the accused was not good towards the Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 16 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. complainant. He further deposed that all the accused used to harass her and beat her and did not state any specific reason for such harassment or beating. This witness is cross examined by the Ld. APP as well as by Ld. Counsel for accused. During cross examination, he admitted that at the time of marriage, no gifts and articles were given or exchanged. He himself had not purchased any dowry articles nor was he present at the time of any such purchase by anyone else.
19. This witness has admitted that Pinky had visited her parental house 8 to 10 times prior to the incident and the accused always came to call her back. Rajesh has never met the child Sajan till date. If the uncle alleges that he visited the matrimonial house of the complainant several times, it is improbable that he never met with the child Sajan even once. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this i.e uncle Rajesh/ PW-4 is deposing falsely in respect of his alleged visits to the matrimonial home of the complainant.
20. The accused has alleged that the Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 17 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. complainant had illicit relations with one Gudda who was their neighbour and had fled with him on 26.02.2001 and never returned. He is stated to have made a complaint in this respect at PS-Sarita Vihar. The brother of the complainant was duly informed, who had also filed application U/s 97/98 CrPC against Gudda, Nisaar and Pradeep Goyal, the same is Mark DY. From this document, the contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW4, and other evidence on record it is proved that Asha was not thrown out of the matrimonial home as alleged but she had left it voluntarily and no such incident of dowry demand and consequential beatings or harassment had taken place as alleged. Prosecution have failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 498A IPC as discussed above. The witnesses have contradicted each other repeatedly and thus, their veracity is punctured and cannot be relied upon to establish culpability upon the accused person. There are several other contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses which go to the very roots of the prosecutions case. When the main pillars of the case of prosecution have fallen, it would be futile to look to the pillars which stand and try and ascertain whether the Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 18 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. structure can be salvaged. Prosecution has further failed to show any proximity or chain of events to establish the fact that accused persons systematically committed cruelty against the complainant to bring home the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC. On the basis of documents on record and the contradictions as pointed out earlier, benefit of doubt goes in favour of all the accused . Accordingly, accused Surender Pal, Sheela, Mahender Pal and Nirmala are acquitted for offence under Section 498A/34 IPC.
21. Now coming to allegations in respect of offence u/s 406/34 IPC, there are no allegations of entrustment of dowry against to the accused persons. Even when the complainant deposed in the court, she did not alleged regarding the entrustment. As such, there is no evidence of entrustment of the streedhan to accused. There is no evidence of any demand of return of streedhan from them. There is no evidence of refusal to return the streedhan articles are their misappropriation or conversion by accused persons. In Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 19 of 20 FIR No. 205/03, Sangam Vihar State Vs. Surender Pal. these circumstances, the offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against any of the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Surender Pal , Sheela, Mahender Pal are acquitted for offence under Section 406/34 IPC
22. Bail bond of accused persons are further extended for six months as per section 437A Cr.PC.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Shivani Chauhan)
court on 31.01.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate
Manila Court,SED/Saket
New Delhi/ 31.01.2015
Pronounced in open court on 31.01.2015 Page no 20 of 20