Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

St. vs Alok Narang Etc. on 17 January, 2011

                                                    St. Vs Alok Narang etc.
                                                  FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala
                                                  U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC


     IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST­02), DELHI  

SC No. 271/1/10

State 

              Versus 

1. Alok Narang 
   S/o Madan Lal
   R/o B­69, Janta Colony
   Shivaji  Vihar, Delhi. 
2. Madan Lal Narang
   S/o Late G. Narang
   R/o B­69, Janta Colony
   Shivaji  Vihar, Delhi.
3. Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang 
   W/o Madan Lal Narang
   R/o B­69, Janta Colony
   Shivaji  Vihar, Delhi.

  Case arising out of : 
                           FIR No. 63/08
                           P.S. : Khyala
                           U/s : 498A/406/307/34 IPC
Date of FIR                     : 31.12.2008
Date of Institution             : 26.08.2009
Date of Final Arguments         : 12.01.2011
Judgment reserved on            : 12.01.2011
Date of Judgment                : 13.01.2011


SC No. 271/1/10                                             Page 1 of 38
                                                                       St. Vs Alok Narang etc.
                                                                    FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala
                                                                    U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC


JUDGMENT

1. The case against the accused Alok Narang, Madan Lal Narang and Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang for the offence under section 498A/406/307/34 IPC has been committed to the court of sessions. Whereas the accused persons have been facing the trial for the said offence since September 2009.

2. Factum Matrix :­ The complainant Richa Narang was married with the accused Alok Narang on 03.02.2006. It is alleged by the complainant Richa Narang that after the marriage, the accused persons started harassing, beating and maltreating her for demand of dowry. Whenever she go to her parents' house, the assailants raised demands of dowry. She had lodged a complaint against the accused persons before the present occurrence took place for beating etc. After the complaint, she remained in her house for about four months. Thereafter, the accused Alok Narang visited to her parental house and assured that in future they will not beat her and he will stop taking liquor. After the assurance of the accused Alok Narang, she had came back to her matrimonial house along with her minor son in August, 2008.

There was peace and harmony for a period of one month. But thereafter again, the accused persons started torturing, beating and maltreating her and did not allow to meet her child. Her son was always in custody of her grand mother i.e. Geeta Rani @ Usha SC No. 271/1/10 Page 2 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Narang. The complainant was also not allowed to telephone to her parents' house. On 26.02.2008 at about 08:00­09:00 AM, she has gone at first floor to take her son from her mother­in­law, as her son used to stay with her grandmother. Her Saans accused Usha Narang told her that how she dared to take the child (Meri Saans Ne Kaha Bachcha Le Jaane Ki Teri Himmat Kaise Hui). Thereafter, Usha Narang made take complaint to her son Alok Narang who started beating her (complainant Richa Narang). Thereafter both accused Alok Narang and Usha Narang also beating to the complainant. PW­2 Richa Narang raised alarm and after hearing the alarm, the accused Madan Lal reached on first floor and he also joined in the beating along with the other two accused persons. The accused Madan Lal Narang told them to kill her (complainant Richa Narang). Thereafter, all the three accused persons throw her at ground floor/road from the first floor. She received the injuries and lost her consciousness. She regained her consciousness in Flex Hospital, where her ankle of the right foot was operated. She also sustained injuries on the back and now she is using a belt due to the injuries caused by the accused persons. She stated in her deposition in court that " Meri Saas Mujhe Pasand Nahi Karti Thi, Wo Apne Ladke Ki Doosri Shadi Karna Chahti Thi Aur Isiliye Wo Mujhse Chhutkara Chahte the Aur Inhe Dahej Bhi Chahiye Tha Aur Isi Karan Inhone Mujhe Pareshan Kiya". Her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded in the hospital on 31.12.2008 which bears her signature at point A. The photocopy of the complaint SC No. 271/1/10 Page 3 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC dt. 22.04.2008 is Ex.PW2/B which bears her signature at point A. Five photographs of the marriage was collectively Ex.PW2/C1 to C5 and the marriage card is Ex.PW2/C6. It is further stated that the accused persons did not return her complete dowry articles which were given to them at the time of marriage, her jewelery, fridge, washing machine and other articles are lying with the accused persons. Some jewelery was returned to her before the court. The list of articles is Ex.PW2/D. PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh received the DD No.24B vide Ex.PW1/A on 31.12.2008 regarding beating of a lady which was endorsed by him. He along with Ct. Devender reached at Flex Hospital where he recorded the statement Ex.PW2/A of Richa Narang and made endorsement vide Ex.PW10/A, prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Devender to get register the FIR vide Ex.PW10/B. On 04.01.2009, the brother of Richa Narang produced the photographs of marriage and marriage card and the same were seized vide Ex.PW9/C. On 31.12.2008, Gurcharang Singh brother of Richa Narang handed over the medical documents to ASI Rajender Singh and same are seized vide memo Ex.PW9/B. The medical record of Tagore Hospital is Ex.PW9/A. During the investigation, PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh also prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW10/D and also got recovered the articles vide Ex.PW2/DC. The list of balance articles as provided by the complainant is Ex.PW2/D. The accused persons were arrested by PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh vide memo SC No. 271/1/10 Page 4 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B and their personal search memo are Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D. The arrest memo of Geeta Narang is Ex.10/C. After completion of the investigation, the case file was sent to the court for judicial verdict.

3. Framing of Charge :­ On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, charge under section 498A/406/307/34 IPC was framed with the allegations that on 03.02.2006 to 26.12.2008 at unknown time at house no. B­69, Janta Colony, Shivani Enclave, New Delhi, the accused Alok Narang, Madan Lal Narang, Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang in furtherance of their common intention subjected Richa Narang to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. The complainant Richa Narang was entrusted with the dowry articles/istridhan detail mentioned in the complaint and list of dowry articles which were retained by them and were not returned to the complainant on her demand. On 26.12.2008 at about 09:00AM at B­69, Janta Colony, Shivani Enclave, New Delhi, all the above said accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused dangerous injury on the person of Richa Narang by throwing her from the roof of first floor of above said house that in case of her death they would have been liable for committing for murder. The charge was read over to the accused persons for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution Witnesses :­ SC No. 271/1/10 Page 5 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses and out of them, PW­2 Richa Narang, PW­3 Darshan Singh, PW­4 Gurcharan Singh and PW­8 Meena are public witnesses. PW­7 Dr. Manish Aggarwal is expert witness who proved the MLC and other are police officials including PW­1 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, PW­5 HC Raj Kumar, PW­6 Ct. Puran Singh, PW­9 Ct. Devinder and PW­10 ASI Rajinder Singh. PW­4 R.P. Saluja proved the record of Tagore Hospital vide Ex.PW4/A.

4. Material Witnesses :­ The prosecution examined PW­2 Richa Narang complainant as a material witness. She has deposed in her examination the story as narrated in the preceding paras of the judgment. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons she stated that on 19.04.2008 marriage of his brother was solemnized. His father had given Rs.5,000/­ as gift along with the customary gifts to her in­laws. But the accused persons told that Rs.5,000/­ not enough, if she wants to live peacefully bring Rs.50,000/­ from her father. When she told to her in­laws that she refused. Thereafter, the accused Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang got her beaten through the accused Alok Narang and she made a complaint to this effect on 22.04.2004 vide Ex.PW2/B. It is denied that the contents of Ex.PW2/B are written after discussion with her father and brother. It is admitted that she is not made any complaint Ex.PW2/B to the police station Rajouri Garden but the same was given to police station Khyala. It is denied that she has stated SC No. 271/1/10 Page 6 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC before the doctor at Tagore Hospital that she has fallen from the stairs. She does not know who took her to the Flex Hospital. She has not given in writing to the police for requesting for not taking any action on complaint dt. 22.04.2008. She cannot tell when she was discharged from the hospital. She cannot tell when her statement was recorded. She did not tell the doctor upto 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008 that she has been thrown from the railing as she was in acute pain. It is denied that during 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008, she compelled Alok Narang and his family member to execute a document to transfer the house in her name which is in th name of her father­in­law. It is further denied that when they did not consider her threat, then she lodged a false complaint Ex.PW2/A to pressurize them. It is admitted that she mentioned in her compliant that the accused persons had broken the lock of his almirah. She did not make any complaint regarding entrustment of Istridhan or demand of dowry personally. A complaint Ex.PW2/D on which it is written that her in­laws has kept precious articles which is written by her handwriting. She had received RS.75,000/­ vide receipt Ex.PW2/DB at the time of hearing of the bail application of the accused persons. It is denied that this amount of Rs.75,000/­ was given to her for her treatment & Istridhan. She does not know that on the date of incident a carpenter was repairing the stool in the lobby leading to the stair case. It is denied that on 26.12.2008, her son was with his grandfather and sitting his shop at ground floor. Her mother in­law had caught hold of her two hands.

SC No. 271/1/10 Page 7 of 38

St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC The left leg was caught hold by her father­in­law and the right leg was by her husband at the time of throwing her. The suggestions made by the defence counsel with respect to the charges had been denied.

PW­3 Darshan Singh is the father of the PW­2 Richa Narang made the repetitions of the allegations made in the complaint and stated that his daughter has told regarding beatings given to her for demand of dowry and her daughter has given a complaint to the police. Her daughter was discharged from the Flex Hospital on 01.01.2010 and lodged the complaint to the police. He has demanded the articles of Istridhan. Prior to the application Ex.PW3/A, no other application had been moved for return of Istridhan to her daughter. Some gold articles were also returned vide Ex.PW2/DA and also received Rs.75,000/­ in cash from accused persons vide Ex.PW2/DB. It is denied that her daughter told the doctor that she had received the injuries due to fallen from the stairs.

PW­ Gurcharan Singh brother of the complainant has been dropped from the list of witnesses by the prosecution with the contentions that the said witness is of repetitive nature.

PW­8 Meena Devi cousin sister of the complainant Richa Narang stated that on 26.12.2008, she heard the noise of the people shouting that "Ba hu Ko Chat Se Gira Diya". There was a lot of crowd in front of the house of Richa Narang. She has not seen any incident occurring with Richa Narang and she had gone to the house only after hearing the noise. The parents and the other relatives of Richa Narang SC No. 271/1/10 Page 8 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC has not come in her presence. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons it is admitted the she cannot say whether in case of fall of close relative. She does not recollect the telephone number of Sunny @ Gurcharan Singh. She had gone 2­3 times in the house of the complainant. Everybody was happy. It is denied that she has stated by the father­in­law that she has fallen. She does not know whether Richa Narang has fallen from the stairs as she has not seen anything happening and she has never noticed any dispute.

5. Expert Witness :­ PW­7 Dr. Manish Aggarwal of the Tagore Hospital proved the admission of the complainant/injured Richa Narang PW­2 on 26.12.2008 at Tagore Hospital. He prepared the MLC on 31.12.2008 and opined the injuries as ' grievous' on the spine and ankle, MLC is Ex.PW7/A. In the cross examination, he has admitted that the patient not told at any stage during 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008 that she has fallen from the stairs before the preparation of the MLC. The patient was discharged on 01.01.2009 at 03:30 PM but officially discharged on 31.12.2008. The injuries sustained by the patient are possible due to fall from the stairs.

6. Formal Witness :­ PW­1 Ct. Sanjay Kumar is the DD writer who recorded the DD No.24B dt 31.12.2008 at about 07:05PM, he receive the information from control room. Copy of the DD no. 24B is Ex.PW1/A. SC No. 271/1/10 Page 9 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC PW­4 R.P. Saluja proved the medical record of the patient Richa Narang from Tagore Hospital which is Ex.PW4/A. PW­5 HC Raj Kumar gone on 17.01.2009 along with ASI Rajender Singh at B­69, Janta Colony, Shivaji Enclave and brought the accused Alok Narang and his father Madan Lal to police station and they were also taken to DDU hospital for their medical examination.

PW­6 Ct. Puran Singh was posted at police station Khyala on 31.12.2008. At about 07:05PM, she received the information from PCR that the sister of the caller is admitted in the Flex Hospital vide Ex.PW1/A. PW­9 Ct. Devender remained with the investigating officer during the course of investigation and stated regarding the documents prepared during the course of investigation as well as seized the photographs of marriage and marriage card etc. PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh is the investigating officer who stated regarding the manner in which the investigation was conducted and documents prepared during the course of investigation as well as the arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, he filed the challan in the court.

7. Statements of the accused persons :­ The statement of the accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused persons admitted that the marriage of accused Alok Narang and PW­2 Richa Narang, solemnized on SC No. 271/1/10 Page 10 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC 0302.2006 and one son born out of this wedlock. The rest of the incriminating evidence has been denied as false and incorrect or for want of knowledge except the arrest of the accused persons with the contentions that that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons also led defence evidence and examined three witnesses in their defence.

8. Defence Evidence :­ The accused persons examined DW­1 Mohd. Akram who is a carpenter who stated that he was working in the gallery near the stairs and shouted "La dki Gir Gai, Ladki Gir Gai" from the stairs. He went to the spot and in the meanwhile Alok Narang and his parents came and took her to the hospital. In the cross examination by Ld. APP for state he stated that he did not make call at 100 number regarding the occurrence.

DW­2 HC Lalit Tomar stated that no complaint filed by Richa Narang has been received in the police station Rajouri Garden on 22.04.2008 and 23.04.2008. The complaint Ex.PW2/B was never received in the police station. The receipt of the complaint is Ex.PW2/B is nothing but a fraud.

DW­3 Mohd. Shaeed stated that he was repairing a stool in the house of the accused persons. At about 09:00­09:20 AM, the wife of Alok Narang slipped from the stairs and fell down. He raised an alarm, the people who sell garlic and are staying just opposite the house of the accused persons rushed to the spot. Alok Narang who SC No. 271/1/10 Page 11 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC reached the spot had took the injured in a car to hospital. Accused Madan Lal Narang immediately closed the shop and also rushed to the hospital.

9. I have heard the submissions and carefully gone through the material on record.

Ld. APP for state submitted that the prosecution brought on record all the incriminating material during the deposition of the public witnesses including the complainant and their testimony is trustworthy, believable and corroborative to prove the allegations made in the chargesheet. The charges against the accused persons are proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also admitted fact that the complainant PW­2 Richa Narang sustained injuries fall from floor of the matrimonial house. It is alleged that she has been harassed, beaten etc. for demand of dowry and for one reason or the other. A part of the dowry articles have not been handed over to the complainant PW­2 Richa Narang. The testimony of PW­2 Richa Narang and other supportive evidence brought home the charges against the accused persons. The same has been corroborated by the deposition of PW­3 Darshan Lal as well as other witnesses. In these circumstances, the accused persons are liable to be convicted as per the charges framed against them.

10. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the prosecution is not able to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. So far as with respect SC No. 271/1/10 Page 12 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC to the offence under section 307 IPC, the incident took place on 26.12.2008, the case was registered on 31.12.2008 after due deliberation and consent of the parents of the complainant. PW­2 Richa Narang stated that on 26.12.2008, she had gone to take her son from her mother­in­law. Her mother­in­law told her how she dared to demand for the child. Complainant got her beaten through her husband Alok Narang. She was beaten by her mother­in­law also. Later on, Madan Lal Narang also reached and joined Alok Narang and Usha Narang in beating her. Thereafter, all the three accused persons threw her at ground floor/road from the first floor. She received injuries on her back. Thereafter, she lost her consciousness and regained consciousness in the Flex Hospital. PW­2 Richa Narang stated that she cannot confirmly stated when her statement was recorded by the police, it might be before 01.01.2009. She did not tell the doctor from 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2006 that she had been thrown from the railing as she was in acute pain and doctors were prescribing the injections. She does not recollect how many times her statement was recorded by the police upto 31.12.2008.

It is further submitted by defence counsel that PW­3 Darshan Lal reiterated in the cross examination that the police has given one day time for taking her to the matrimonial house. It is denied that she has gone on 31.12.2008. It is further submitted that PW­2 Richa Narang stated that her statement was recorded before 01.01.2009. She does not know how many times her statement was SC No. 271/1/10 Page 13 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC recorded before 31.12.2008. PW­3 Darshan Lal stated in his cross examination that police has come in the hospital on 30.12.2008. The police has given one day time. On the other hand PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh stated that he had not given 24 hours to the accused to get Richa Narang discharged and taken her to home. Police seized the matter on 31.12.2008 and it is not explained when the police came in the hospital on 30.12.2008. The complainant stated that she was thrown from the railing of the first floor. In Tagore Hospital, she has stated that she had fallen from the stairs. On Ex.PW9/A it is mentioned that patient admitted in the hospital with history of fall from stairs and sustained injury to her back. The patient was regularly examined from 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008 by the doctors and in Ex.PW7/A mentioned that on 31.12.2008 evening, the patient alleged about injury being sustained because of fall from height by others. Earlier version was fall from stairs accidently. The defence witnesses produced by the accused persons stated that the complainant Richa Narang has fallen from the stairs.

It is further submitted by defence counsel that PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh stated that section 307 IPC was added after the opinion obtained from the prosecution department. During the course of trial, PW Gurcharan Singh who is brother of the complainant and remained associated with the investigation was dropped by the prosecution as witness of repetitive nature. The complainant was admitted in Tagore Hospital by accused Alok Narang and other family SC No. 271/1/10 Page 14 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC members and patient herself in the history mentioned that she has fallen from the stairs accidently. On the nature of injury observed by the doctor, the patient was shifted from Tagore Hospital to the Flex Hospital. The version of PW­7, DW­1 and DW­3 has been supported and corroborated with respect to the manner in which the injuries has been sustained by the complainant. The manipulation has been done by the police, on the instance of complainant Richa Narang. The counsel for the accused persons also relied upon Satbir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana (P&H High Court) DB Criminal Appeal No.207­ (DB) of 1993. The Hon' ble High Court has held that " in her initial statement recorded by the Magistrate, she did not involve accused in any manner. In a belated statement recorded by the SDM, she implicated the accused persons. There is possibility of manipulation at instigation of her parents. Prosecution case infested with infirmities. Conviction recoded not sustainable."

For the offence under section 406 IPC, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that PW­3 Darshal Lal father of the complainant stated that no application prior to Ex.PW3/A had been moved for the return of Istridhan of her daughter. On 15.03.2009, part of Istridhan was returned vide receipt Ex.PW2/DC. Some gold articles were also returned vide Ex.PW2/DA. Rs.75,000/­ were also received but they were not received in lieu of medical expenses and balance Istridhan. PW­2 Richa Narang did not make any complaint regarding entrustment of her Istridhan, demand or refusal personally. Therefore, SC No. 271/1/10 Page 15 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC the charges under section 406 IPC cannot be proved and counsel for the accused persons also relied upon

(i) Raj Kumar Khanna Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 2002 (61) DRJ 365 (DB) Delhi High Court,

(ii) Rishi Anand Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2002 (62) DRJ 511 (SC).

For the offence under section 498A IPC, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons contended that PW­2 Richa Narang in her cross examination stated that on 19.04.2008, marriage of her brother was solemnized. Her father had given Rs.5,000/­ as gift along with customary gifts to her parents in law. The accused persons told that Rs.5,000/­ is not enough. If she wanted to live peacefully she should bring Rs.50,000/­ from her father. When she refused then her mother­ in­law got her beaten through Alok Narang and she also made a complaint Ex.PW2/B at police station Khyala. The accused persons also did not allow her to meet her son to use the telephone as they wanted to solemnize second marriage and get rid from her. The complaint Ex.PW2/B is false and manipulated. PW­2 Richa Narang admitted that she did not give any complaint in police station Rajouri Garden. PW­3 Darshan Lal stated that on 22.04.2008 they left the matrimonial house and in the night they reached at police station Rajouri Garden where his daughter had given a complaint in the night. However, in the cross examination he stated that they went to the house of his niece Meena and the report was written in the house of SC No. 271/1/10 Page 16 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Meena and handed over to police station Rajouri Garden. This is nothing but improvement in his version.

It is further contended that PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh stated that the brother of Richa Narang had handed over him a complaint dt. 22.04.2008 allegedly made in the police station. He had not made any verification of this complaint Ex.PW2/B whether the same has been given in police station Rajouri Garden. He has not prepared any seizure memo regarding taking of complaint Ex.PW2/B. Therefore, the complaint Ex.PW2/B is concocted, fraud and manipulated and no complaint was filed on 22.04.2008. PW­8 Meena categorically stated that everyone was happy in the function and there was no complaint of anybody. Therefore, the charges framed against the accused persons are not sustainable. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons also relied upon :­

(i) Savitry Devi Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors. 2003(69) DRJ 6,

(ii) Ran Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana 2008 (1) Crimes 310 (SC)

(iii) State of H.P. Vs Ajinder Singh 2010 (4) Crimes 370 (H.P.). In these circumstances, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted from the offence under section 498A/34 IPC too.

11. In view of the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and material placed on record, the depositions made the PW­2 Richa Narang before the court stated that on 26.12.2008 at about 08:00­09:00 AM, she had gone to take her son from her mother­in­ SC No. 271/1/10 Page 17 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC law. Her Saas told her that how she dared to take the child (Meri Saas Ne Kaha Bacha Le Jaane Ki Teri Himmat Kaise Hui). She told her son (Alok Narang) and thereafter her husband Alok Narang started beating her. Thereafter, both the accused Alok Narang and Usha Rani @ Geeta Narang both started beating her. In the last para of the cross examination it is stated that "my mother­in­law had caught hold of my two hands. The left leg was caught hold by my father­in­law and the right was by my husband at the time of throwing me" . It is denied that she is deposing against the accused persons at the behest of her father and brother.

In the complaint Ex.PW2/A, Richa Narang stated that "...J o Unhone Kaha Ki Yah Rojana Ka Kissa Khatam Kar Do. Iske Bad Teeno Ne Usko Marna Pitna Shuru Kar Diya Aur Isi Doran Inhone Milkar Mujhe 1st Floor Ki Chhat Se Railing Ki Taraf Le Jakar Dhakka De Diya. Main Niche Sadak Par Giri Aur Kaafi Chot Aai..."

The deposition made before the court and the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigating made a lot of improvements as well as contradictions. The witness has not stated in Ex.PW2/A the manner in which the accused persons caught hold her and threw from roof. But in the cross examination on behalf of accused persons, she has made improvement and contradictions. The incident was taken place on 26.12.2008. The PW­2 Richa Narang was admitted in the Tagore Hospital on 26.12.2008 and discharged on 29.12.2008. She was medically treated by Dr. A. Kapoor (Medicines).

SC No. 271/1/10 Page 18 of 38

St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC In the summary of Tagore Hospital it was mentioned in the discharge card that patient admitted in the hospital with the history of fall from the stairs and the patient was treated and necessary medicine given and referred for further treatment. On 29.12.2008, she was admitted in the Flex Hospital and remained with the same version but on 31.12.2008 it is alleged about the injuries being sustained because of " fall from the height by other people" . On the day of admission, the earlier version was falling from the stairs. The nature of injuries was opined as 'gri evous' . She was examined and medically treated by PW­7 Dr. Manish Aggarwal who proved the MLC Ex.PW7/A. Dr. Manish Aggarwal in cross examination stated that injuries sustained by patient are possible by falling from the stairs. The injuries sustained by Richa Narang are on the spinal and right ankle. It is alleged that she is beaten by the accused persons but there was no mark of injuries caused by beating by the accused persons on the body of the complainant Richa Narang. The injury as sustained on the ankle is possible due to slip away from ladder and the doctor has supported the version that the injuries sustained by Richa Narang are possible due to falling from the stairs.

Statement of PW­2 Richa Narang was recorded by the investigating officer PW­10 ASI Rajinder Singh on 31.12.2008. However, as per the medical record, she was conscious and oriented but there was no statement given prior to 31.12.2008. On the date of admission in the Flex Hospital, doctor has also given fitness certificate SC No. 271/1/10 Page 19 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC to record the statement of the complainant/injured. The PW­10 ASI Rajinder Singh has been in connected with the complainant and her brother but the complainant was never ready to give her statement before 31.12.2008. PW­10 stated that the accused Alok Narang was present in the hospital and section 307 was added after taking opinion from the prosecution department.

12. The FIR was registered under section 498A/323/34 IPC on 31.12.2008. The nature of injuries on the spinal cord was opined as grievous and asper the chargesheet, section 323 was converted into 325 IPC. On 02.01.2009, two defence witnesses who were the eye witness of the incident as they have seen the complainant falling on the ground floor. The DW­1 Mohd. Akram was living opposite the house of the accused persons and firstly reached at the spot. DW­3 Mohd. Shaeed is a carpenter who was doing the work of repair at the time of incident when the complainant fallen from the stairs. The presence of both these defence witnesses i.e. DW­1 Mohd. Akram and DW­3 Mohd. Shaheed at the spot has not been denied nor any suggestions made to these witnesses in the cross examination by APP to refute their presence. Rather the DW­1 and DW­3 in cross examination by Ld. APP for state denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused persons to save the accused persons from legal punishment. The DW­3 Mohd. Shaheed stated that there was three storey house where he was working as a carpenter and there was white colour whitewash. He used to sit in the R­Block, Raghubir SC No. 271/1/10 Page 20 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Nagar in search of carpender work. He had worked at the house of Alok Narang for three days. It was his second day of work at the house of Alok Narang. He did not lift the injured at the time of putting her in the car. He never worked at the house of Alok Narang prior to 26.12.2008. The upstairs are just at the entrance of the house. He was working near the stairs. It is denied that on 26.12.2008 he did not work as a carpenter or that due to this reason he is unable to tell the house number, location of the house, number of car etc. The public witnesses was admittedly gathered on 26.12.2008 at the time the injured fallen and immediately removed to the Tagore Hospital. The PW­10 ASI Rajinder Singh also informed through DD No.24B dt. 31.12.2008. There was no corroboration to the sole testimony of the victim/complainant. Even though, the eye witnesses who could have been corroborated her, were not cited as witness nor they were interrogated during the course of investigation except to the relatives, brother and father of the injured who were enmical or interested witnesses. The sole testimony of the injured who has deposed on 31.12.2008 after about four days of the incident. Even though as per the MLC she was fit for statement. The statement of PW­2 Richa Narang recorded in court is contradictory from Ex.PW2/A and in the manner as deposed regarding the incident. She has not been stated anywhere in her complaint Ex.PW2/A that who caught hold her legs and hands and the manner in which she has been thrown from the first floor. The statement made in the court is SC No. 271/1/10 Page 21 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC improvement and contradictory which could be afterthought due deliberation and concentration.

13. In case titled as 1991 Raj Crl. Case 86 (88), it was observed that " when the injured witness had changed the story substantially from time to time viz. firstly it was alleged that when the accused made an attempt to throw him on railway track, in front of engine, the injured collided with the boggi of train going that side and sustained injury on his leg, resulting amputation of lower part of his leg, but subsequently to prove injury on head, the story was developed that the accused struck with a stone on the head, it is highly unsafe to convict the accused on sole testimony of the said injured witness.

14. The medical evidence even does not corroborate the allegations made in the charge for the offence under section 307 IPC since PW­7 Dr. Manish Aggarwal in his cross examination stated that " ...the injuries sustained by the patient are possible fall from the stairs..." . The MLC Ex.PW7/A mentioned the patient was fit for statement on 29.12.2008 but there is no explanation given by the complainant/victim or by the investigating officer as to why the statement was recorded on 31.12.2008 on the day when the patient was discharged.

15. The injuries as received by the PW­2 Richa Narang sustained could be possible from the fall from the stairs. The complainant maintained her statement from 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008 that she has fallen from the stairs which has been supported by SC No. 271/1/10 Page 22 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW7/A and with statements of PW­7 Dr. Manish Aggarwal, DW­1 Mohd. Akram and DW­3 Mohd. Shaheed. The manner in which the injured was thrown to the ground floor, she must have sustained injured on her upper portion also including head. The persons in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. also denied the allegations and the depositions of the complainant. The complainant PW­2 Richa Narang had also sufficient period of time to give thought and make story of her choice and her father i.e. PW­3 Darshan Lal had also told that she has received a telephonic message regarding the incident. PW Gurcharan Singh is the material witness though it is of alleged to be of repetitive nature as such been dropped by the prosecution. The circumstances as discussed above are quite weighty to infer the conclusion that the prosecution story is not free from doubts. During the grant of bail application on behalf of accused Alok Narang, the affidavit sworn by Jaswant Rana, neighbourer R/o R­639, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, that Richa Narang sustained injuries due to fall from the stairs and no quarrel took place. The sole statement of PW­2 Richa Narang complainant in which the prosecution relied upon invested that such infirmity has to create a doubt in the truthful character of the injured examined as PW­2 Richa Narang for the purpose to bring home the charge under section 307 IPC.

16. So far as with respect to the offence under section 406 IPC, it is contended that neither the dowry articles returned to the complainant, her fridge, washing machine and other gold articles were SC No. 271/1/10 Page 23 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC lying with the accused persons. The jewelery which was given at the time of marriage is also lying with the accused persons. Some jewelery articles were returned before the court. The PW­2 Richa Narang also submitted a list of articles Ex.PW2/D. The PW­3 Darshan Lal in his cross examination admitted that he has moved an application Ex.PW3/A for return of the Istridhan before the court and some articles returned on15.03.2009. Some gold articles were received vide Ex.PW2/DA and a sum of Rs.75,000/­ was also received but the said amount was not towards the medical expenses and the balance Istridhan. PW­2 Richa Narang in her statement admitted that she has not made any complaint regarding entustment of Istridhan, demand or refusal personally. In Ex.PW2/D it is written that her in­ laws had kept her precious articles with them mentioned in the list.

However, gold articles have been returned on 25.02.2009 vide Ex.PW2/DA, dowry articles have been returned on 15.03.2009 vide Ex.PW2/DC. A sum of Rs.75,000/­ has also been paid vide Ex.PW2/DB vide order dt. 27.02.2009 at the time of consideration of the bail application. The order dt. 04.03.2009 is concerned with the confirmation of the bail application of Alok Narang and Madan Lal Narang and also moved the anticipatory bail for the accused Usha Rani @ Geeta Narang. The counsel for the accused persons brought a sum of Rs.75,000/­ and dowry articles.

Vide order dt. 12.03.2009, granting of interim bail to Madan Lal a sum of Rs.75,000/­ was received without prejudice to the rights SC No. 271/1/10 Page 24 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC and list of articles were exchanged. As per the Superdaginama dt. 31.03.2009, part of the gold articles were received by Gurcharan Singh which were contained in the almirah. On 03.01.2009, PW­3 Darshan Lal gave a complaint to the SHO of PS Khayala vide Ex.PW3/A mentioning the list of dowry articles including LG Washing Machine, Fridge, Cash and gold.

17. In order to appreciate the merits of the case as urged by the counsel for the accused persons, let us have a glance on the provision of section406 and 498A IPC.

406 IPC, Punishment for criminal breach of trust :­ Whomever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,or with both.

498A IPC, 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.

For the purpose of this section, "c ruelty" 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 SC No. 271/1/10 Page 25 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC

(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.

The provision of section 498A was brought on the stature book because of the increasing number of dowry deaths. It is matter of serious concern. Causes of cruelty by husband and his relations which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the helpless woman concerned constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty.

18. The Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal Vs Prem Chand & Anr., 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 680 also had a chance to consider the object and purpose of introducing provisions of sections 498A/304B IPC and sections 113A and 113B in the Evidence Act and observed :­ "The degradation of society due to the pernicious system of dowry and the unconscionable demands made by greedy and unscrupulous husbands and their parents and relatives resulting in alarming number of suicidal and dowry deaths by women has shocked the legislative conscience to such an extent that the Legislature has deemed it necessary to provide additional provisions of law,procedural as well as substantive, to combat the evil and has consequently introduced sections 113A and 113B in the Evidence and Section 498A and 304B in the Penal Code."

SC No. 271/1/10 Page 26 of 38

St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana, 1998 (3) SCC 309, Apex Court observed that the courts must adopt that construction which "su ppresses the mischief and advances the remedy" .

19. In the present case, the complainant in her statement testified that on 22.04.2008, she has made a complaint Ex.PW2/B in police station Khayala. There was peace for one month after coming back to the matrimonial home on assurance of the accused persons. After some time they again started taunting, beating etc. her. She stated that "Y e Mujhe Mere Bache Se Nai Milne Dete The, Bache Ko Saas Ke paas Rakha Jaata Tha, aur Mujhe Mere Ghar Par Telephone Bhi Nahi Karne Dete The". She further told that her husband used to beat her. On 22.04.2008, she made a complaint Ex.PW2/B and after the marriage of her brother the accused persons started beating and mentally torturing her and because of the untoward behaviour of the accused persons, she has gone to her parents house several times. The marriage of her brother was solemnized on 19.04.2008 and her father has given RS.5,000/­ cash alongwith other customery gift, on this the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/­ and failing to pay the demanded amount, they started beating her. She has left the matrimonial house without any cloths or any other articles and her belongings were lying with the accused persons. This complaint was received in the police station on 22.04.2008 and marked to HC Raj Pal. The accused persons have examined DW­1 HC Lalit Tomar and SC No. 271/1/10 Page 27 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC proved the Ex.PW2/B where he stated that no such complaint received in the police station Rajouri Garden and in the cross examination admitted that he has deposed only as per the record produced by him. Therefore, the allegations of the cruelty not only started from 22.04.2008 but also prior to it, after solemnization of the marriage. The sole testimony of the complainant PW­2 Richa Narang who was living among the accused persons and has faced the harassment, torturing, beating and other atrocities. The conduct of the husband and in­laws immediately before and after the occurrence is material. The demand of cash amount accompanying with the harassment to the complainant to bring the ingredients of section 498A IPC.

It is not denied by the accused Alok Narang that he is in a habit of drinking and under the influence of alcohol he used to beat his wife PW­2 Richa Narang. PW­3 Darshan Lal testified that there was demands of dowry which they used to fulfill their demands. All the accused persons are residing under the one roof. The atrocities or cruelty with the complainant have occurred within the four walls of the matrimonial house. It is a matter of fact that the son of the complainant was remained in the custody of accused Usha Rani & Geeta Narang. There are allegations of physical and mental torture to the complainant Richa Narang. It cannot be discarded simply on the score of absence of corroboration of independent witnesses. Mere having no mark of beatings on the person of the complainant also not material one, since there is ample evidence to prove that there was SC No. 271/1/10 Page 28 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC harassment to the complainant Richa Narang by her in­laws and her husband. PW­8 Meena is living far away from the house of the accused persons and she herself admitted that she had gone only 2­3 times to meet her cousin sister Richa Narang. It is also a matter of facts that if any guest has come in the house, no such event being took place in their presence as all atrocities were taken place within the four walls of the house i.e. matrimonial home. One of the incidents pertaining to the offence under section 498A IPC Viz. the demand of dowry from the complainant while she was left by her in­laws to that house had taken place at the parents' house of Richa Narang and immediately they made a complaint to the police station. Copy of the complaint is Ex.PW2/B is placed on record.

20. In case titled as Renu 1991 Cri LJ 2049 (P&H), it is observed that Istridhan property remains to be of wife not only during the matrimonial home continues but even after its break. The husband is merely custodian of Istridhan and he cannot refuse to return it to wife. Dishonest misappropriation or conversion to use Istridhan property by husband would constitute offence under section 406 IPC.

The accused persons have not disputed the claim of the dowry articles including the fridge, washing machine and the other gold articles which have not been returned so far despite the demands. The articles or Istridhan appropriated by a mental act and dealing these properties of the complainant without right. The failure to account for the money proved to have been received by the accused or giving a SC No. 271/1/10 Page 29 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC false account as to its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. The mental act or intent to deprive the master of his property is the gist of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The similar view is impressed in the judgment titled as Emperor Vs Chaturbhuj Narain Choudhury AIR 1936 Pat 350.

21. So far as with respect to the section 498A IPC, the complainant who is the wife if the accused Alok Narang, after marriage was maltreated, harassed and abused with a view to extort more and more money and articles and she left the matrimonial home and went to the stay at her parents home and once upon the matter has been settled between the parties in view of the undertaking and the compromise and assurance given by the accused persons. The complainant again came at the matrimonial house. Even though she has been treated as exception and not given due respect. She has also been beaten by the husband but also by the other family members and her son was also been deprived from love and affection of the minor son who remained under the care and custody of the accused Geeta Narang. Same is also treated as a mental torture and cruelty upon the complainant.

22. In case titled as Mohd. Hoshan(2002) 7 SCC414: 2002 Cri LJ 4124, it is observed that "t he continous taunting or teasing the deceased by the husband and mother­in­law on one ground or the other amounted to mental cruelty drawing the deceased to end her life. In the instant case, out of 11 months of married life, the deceased was SC No. 271/1/10 Page 30 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC forced to live in her parents house and could live with her husband for a period of two months in different spells. The accused did not try to save the deceased although they were present when the burn injuries were caused to her. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of husband and mother­in­law for offence under section 306 and 498A IPC."

In the present case, the complainant father PW­3 Darshan Singh has gifted Rs.5,000/­ and customary articles to her in­laws but instead of accepting the said gifts, they demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/­ which tantamount to cruelty and harassment with a view to exercise to ask from her parents to fulfill the demands of the accused persons to stop maltreatment and harassment and for other issues.

23. In case titled as Chanda Lakshminarayana 1996 Cri LJ 2670 (AP); Reguri Sampath Reddy 1996 Cri LJ 1528 (AP); Chandrawati 1996 Cri LJ975 (Del); Alamuri Lalitha Devi 1995 Cri LJ 2127 (AP), where the accused harassed with demandsof additional money and gold and even deserted his wife on failure to meet his demands, he will be guilty of offence contemplated by section 498A, explanation (b). Where the wife was harassed, tortured, assaulted, never appreciated, loved or allowed to be happy, there was continuous and incessant harassment driving her to commit suicide, it was held, all this amounted to cruelty. Similar view was observed in case titled as State Vs Vasant Shankar Mhasane 1993 Cri LJ 1134 SC No. 271/1/10 Page 31 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC (Bom); Moti Lal 2004 Cri LJ 907 (SC); Sardar Khan 2004 Cri LJ 910: AIR 2004 SC 1695.

24. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and the authority cited, the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses including the complainant who made categorically allegations against the accused for kept holding the part of Istridhan, dowry articles as well as demand of cash and also harassed her with ulterior motive. The conduct of the accused persons tantamount to the offence of cruelty as well as withholding of the part of the Istridhan. It is sufficient to substantiate the prosecution case and the prosecution has been able to proved its case against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence under section 406/498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Alok Narang, Madan Lal Narang and Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang are hereby convicted for the offence under section 498A/406/34 IPC. 



Dictated & Announced                  (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM)
in the open court                       ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
today i.e. on 13.01.2011                      (WEST­02):DELHI




SC No. 271/1/10                                                            Page 32 of 38
                                                                  St. Vs Alok Narang etc.
                                                               FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala
                                                               U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC


     IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST­02), DELHI SC No. 271/1/10 State Versus

1. Alok Narang S/o Madan Lal R/o B­69, Janta Colony Shivaji Vihar, Delhi.

2. Madan Lal Narang S/o Late G. Narang R/o B­69, Janta Colony Shivaji Vihar, Delhi.

3. Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang W/o Madan Lal Narang R/o B­69, Janta Colony Shivaji Vihar, Delhi.

Case arising out of :

FIR No. 63/08
P.S. : Khyala U/s : 498A/406/34 IPC Order on Sentence Present: Sh. Subhash Chauhan, Ld. APP for state.
All the convicts on bail with their counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence and perused the material on record, the convicted Alok Narang, Madan Lal Narang and Geeta Rani @ SC No. 271/1/10 Page 33 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Usha Narang have been held guilty for the offence under section 498A/406/34 IPC, vide judgment dt. 13.01.2011.
Ld. APP for state argued on the point of sentence that the prosecution proved its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts under section 498A/406/34 IPC and submitted that the PW­2 Richa Narang has been harassed, maltreated and beaten for demand of dowry and her part Istridhan has been withhold by the convicts which is duly proved by the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated with the circumstantial evidence also.
It is further submitted that whenever the nature of crimes is detected and the offence brought home against the accused persons, the court must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment. Where the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty as a result of which the deceased has to suffer, pain and agony, maximum sentence may be awarded.
It is also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case tiled as Hem Chand, (1994) 4 SCC 148: 1996 SCC (Cri) 608, where the Apex Court observed that maximum penalty can be awarded only in rare cases. The legislature has by amending the Penal Code and the Evidence Act made penal law more stringent for dealing with and punishing offences against married women. Such stringent laws would have a deterrent effect on the offenders only if they are so stringently implemented to achieve the legislative intent. The practice of giving and SC No. 271/1/10 Page 34 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC demanding dowry is a social evil having deleterious effect on the entire civilized society and has to be condemned by the strong hands of the judiciary. Therefore, prayed that the maximum sentence may be awarded to the convicted persons.
Ld. Counsel for the convicted submitted that all the accused persons are belonging to very poor, respectable family background and living in the small house. The convicted Alok Narang is the only earning member in the family and having old ailing parent who are dependent upon him. If all the convicted will remain in the judicial custody, they are at the verge of starvation and likely to die. The convicted Alok Narang and Madan Lal Narang remained in judicial custody for about two months and there is no pro­active role played by the accused persons in the commission of the offence. The allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and withholding of Istridhan are motivated and prayed for taking lenient view and convicted may be released on probation bond. Ld. Counsel for the convict also relied upon :­
(i) Ramchandra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 234.
(ii) Bijender Vs State, 2000(2) JCC 537 (Delhi).

Keeping in view of the submissions of Ld. APP for state and Ld. Counsel for the convicted and material on record.

Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, SC No. 271/1/10 Page 35 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact and serous repercussions on social order and public interest cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or considerations personal to the accused only in respect of such offences will be resultwise counter­ productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by the required string of deterrence in built, in the sentencing system. Leniency in such offences would be really a case of misplaced sympathy. Where the acts which led to the conviction of the accused are not only shocking but outrageous in their contours.

In Kailash Kaur AIR 1987 SC 1368 : 1987 Cri LJ 1127 (SC) and Machhi Singh AIR 1983 SC 957 : 1983 Cri LJ 1457 (SC), it is observed that by the Supreme Court that severe sentence should be imposed on the perpetrators of gruesome murder of young wives who have killed them only for the purpose of extraction of dowry as such cases would fall within the category of rarest of rare cases. In some other cases, however, the Supreme Court has taken liberal view.

In the present case, the PW­2 Richa Narang has categorically made the allegations against her husband Alok Narang and her in­laws who had lust of money. The convicted persons have repeatedly committed cruelty and harassment on the deceased. The convicted simply denied this fact without any substance.

SC No. 271/1/10 Page 36 of 38

St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC In the instant case, both the parents of the convicted are old aged persons, they have very limited source of income. They are facing the prolong trial and accused Madan Lal Narang age about more than 60 years and also remained in judicial custody. The convict Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang is senior citizen and sick household lady.

It must be an eye opener to the offender and he must realize that he cannot get away merely by paying some amount as fine or by remaining in jail for some time. The mere fact that the accused is neither a habitual criminal nor do they have any criminal antecedents, is hardly an agreement available while dealing with matrimonial cruelty. The Supreme Court observed that it is virtually a matter of shame to civilization that indiscriminate attacks and violence are directed against married women for obnoxious and anti social demand of dowry and the accused are let off imposing free­bite sentence 'ti ll the rising of the court' or ' sentence already undergone' without verifying whether the accused has undergone any sentence. Result is violence against women continues unabated as law loses its deterrent effect.

In case titled as Surya Narayan Panda 1998 Cri LJ 3050 (Ori), it is observed that where the marriage between the husband and wife had been dissolved on the basis of a joint petition filed by the parties, as rancour between is subsided for conviction of the husband under section 498A the period of substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. In conviction of mother­in­law for the offence of cruelty, considering her age, her sentence was reduced to the SC No. 271/1/10 Page 37 of 38 St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC period already undergone provided she deposited a fine amount in addition to the sentence.

Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and to consider the convicted, all the convicted namely Alok Narang, Madan Lal Narang and Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang are sentenced to the period which they already undergone during the course of investigation, and trial and fine of Rs.50,000/­ in default of six months simple imprisonment to each of the convict under section 498A/406/34 IPC. The fine amount will be payable as compensation to the complainant Richa Narang.

I think the sentence awarded will meet the end of justice and also have a deterrent as well as reformatory way in the mind of the convicted. Copy of this order be given to the convicted free of cost forthwith. 



Dictated & Announced               (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM)
in the open court                     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
today i.e. on 17.01.2011                      (WEST­02):DELHI




SC No. 271/1/10                                                                Page 38 of 38