Delhi District Court
Fir No.118/99 Ps-New Friends Colony ... vs Radhey Shyam & Ors. on 24 September, 2014
FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO. 118/99
PS- New Friends Colony
UID NO.02406R0062072000
STATE
Versus.
RADHEY SHYAM
JUDGMENT U/s 355 Cr.P.C.
a) Date of offence : 29.04.1998 onwards
b) Date of Institution of case : 22.03.2000
c) Date of judgment : 24.09.2014
d) Offence complained of : 406/34 IPC &
S.4 Dowry Prohibition Act
c) Name of accused, : (1) Sh. Radhey Shyam
S/o Sh.Moti Lal Rungta
R/o H.No.-8, Ramesh
Niwas, Worden Road,
Mumbai
(2) Ms. Sudha Rungta
W/o Sh.Ramesh Rungta
R/o 34, Shakar Mahal,
5th Floor, Sphia College
Lane, Breach Candy,
Mumbai-400026
(3) Ms. Sulochana Rungta
W/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 1 of 39
FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
R/o H. No.-8, Ramesh
Niwas, Worden Road,
Mumbai.
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e) Final Order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. The FIR was filed against accused Sh.
Radhey Shyam (Father in law), Sudha Rungta (Sister in law/Jethani) and Sulochana Rungta (Mother in law), Vineet Rungta (Husband) and Ramesh (Jeth)
2. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act & 498A/406 IPC were taken against accused Sh. Radhey Shyam (Father in law), Sudha Rungta (Sister in law/Jethani) and Sulochana Rungta (Mother in law) and Vineet Rungta (Husband) and Ramesh (Jeth) upon charge Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 2 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
sheet filed by the IO and they were summoned accordingly.
3. Accused Vineet Rungta was declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated14.07.2006 and the trial proceeded against the remaining accused.
4. Accused Ramesh was discharged for all offences. Accused Sulochana was Charged for offence punishable u/s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accused Sh. Radhey Shyam (Father in law), Sudha Rungta (Sister in law/Jethani) and Sulochana Rungta (Mother in law) were jointly charged for offence U/S 406/34 IPC, vide order dated 12.05.2008. The Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 3 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
5. Prosecution examined Seven witnesses. Statement of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead any independent evidence in defence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. Final Arguments were heard and matter was reserved for orders.
7. Record has carefully been perused.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
8. Radika Jain (victim) was examined as PW-1. She deposed that she got married with Vineet Rungta on April 1998 at Delux Surya Sofital Hotel, New Delhi at the insistence of the In-laws. Prior to marriage, a rokka ceremony was organized by her family at her house and Rs.2,50,000/- were Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 4 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
given to her in-laws by her parents. The accused persons informed that they would bring for about 40-50 hosts in the marriage and they will live for about one week. However, on the asking of her parents, the stay of her in-laws in Delhi was reduced to four days. At the time of marriage, the in-laws demanded that gold/silver coins be given to the guests of the marriage and give one valuable saree with cash of Rs.501/- to Rs.5001/-. At the time of pheras, her parents were asked to give one shawl and Rs.5000/- to her father in law, which were duly given her parents. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial house, where on the next date her mother in law asked her to handover all the jewellery articles as she was supposed to go abroad. Then, she gave all her jewellery articles to her mother in law. PW-1 Radhika Jain further stated that in her marriage, 12 set of ornaments including diamonds and other jewels like rings were also Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 5 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
given. Besides jewellery, clothes were given in the marriage. She left for USA with her husband. Her husband did not talk to her in the flight and even during her stay with him in the USA, the marriage was never consummated. She was treated cruelly by her husband. None of her in-laws visited her at USA during her stay there, though her mother visited her once. Thereafter She came back to Delhi from Boston alone. After arrival of her at Delhi, She filed a complaint before Women Cell along with list of stridhan, the same is Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively. She relied on photographs as Mark P1-P5. After arrival of her at Delhi, she requested her mother in law to return her Stridhan i.e gold ornaments. Her mother in law assured her to return the same but failed to do so.
9. Sh. Prem Kumar/ father of complainant was examined as PW-2. He deposed that her Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 6 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
daughter Radhika was married to Vineet Rungta on 29.04.1998 at Surya Hotel, New Delhi as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. They made elaborate arrangement for the marriage and pre-marriage functions and spent much beyond their means. He deposed that he gave jewellery sets including rings, bangles etc. and dowry articles were given to accused Sulochna Rungta, Radhey Shyam Rungta and Sudha Rungta. At the time of Vidai ceremony in marriage, her daughter was staying with her husband and her in-laws in a hotel where he booked one room. Her daughter's was taunted by her in- laws by saying that her parents were Kanglas and expected that she should have brought atleast 50 lakhs more. He further deposed that when his daughter stayed in Bombay, the in-laws including two sisters in law, mother in law and father in law of her daughter used to taunt her for not getting sufficient dowry. After the marriage, Radhika and her Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 7 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
husband had to go America as her husband was working in USA. He also paid Rs.50,000/- for re- arranging air tickets so that Radhika and Vineet could fly together to USA. Radhika's mother also went to USA and some incidents are stated to have occurred in her presence also but as her father does not have any personal knowledge about those incidents, his testimony, to this extent has to be excluded from consideration. He deposed, accused persons did not return the dowry articles given to them in the marriage.
10. Smt. Karuna Jain Mother of Radhika Jain was examined as PW-3. She deposed that she got married her daughter in the year 1998 dated 29.04.1998, with one Vineet Kumar Rungta. The ceremony of roka was performed on 08.02.1998 prior to the marriage. In the marriage of her daughter, she have gifted stridhan including 4 sets Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 8 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
of diamond, 4 diamond bangles, one diamond ring, 4 pearls bangles, one set of pearls and gold set, one diamond emerald set, one set of gold including other ornaments. The said articles were handed over to the mother in law, father in law, sister in law (Sudha Rungta) and her husband. She further stated that on the next day of marriage, her daughter and her husband went to her matrimonial house at Bombay and parents of Radhika were also invited in the reception of marriage. When parents of Radhika reached there, they saw that no one were helping her daughter to dress-up, Radhika started crying and told to her husband and her in laws taunted her when she reached at her matrimonial house by saying that "kaise kanglo ke ghar bhiya diya hai , koi bhi saman nahi diya hai". When parents of Radhika gave some envelope containing money to her in-laws but they taunted to Radhika by saying "itne kam paise diye hai". After reception Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 9 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
ceremony of marriage, mother of Radhika and her father came back to Delhi. On the next day i.e., on 06.05.1998, her daughter came to Delhi at her house and told her all of jewellery articles including gold, silver diamond were kept by her mother in law by saying that he will bring the same to Boston, USA when her daughter will be settled in the Boston with her husband. After four month in September 1998, mother of Radhika went to the Boston to met her daughter. Radhika told her mother that accused Vineet not allow Radhika to talk with anyone and whenever Vineet used to outside, he locked Radhika inside the room and even did not allow to use the phone and not give her money for her expenses. Radhika told her mother that Vineet also forced Radhika to do the work of Kabadi to collect used furniture kept on road. Accused Vineet Rungta also told her mother to give him 500 dollars per month as maintenance of Radhika as well as one house in the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 10 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
Boston. Her mother also get to know that Vineet Rungta advertised in News paper to get marriage with a rich girl showing that he was bachelor. After Radhika and her mother came back to Delhi Radhika's family filed a complaint in CAW Cell in Delhi. They asked accused persons to return the Stridhan articles but they refused. The list of stridhan articles was submitted in the CAW Cell.
11. SI Annu was examined as PW-4. She deposed that on 25.02.1999 she was posed at PS New Friends Colony as Duty Officer from 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM. On that day at about 11:40 AM she received rukka brought by Constable Raju Punia sent by SI Madhu for registration of FIR. After receiving rukka, she registered the present FIR under Section 406/498A IPC and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Constable Raju Punia to be handed over to SI Madhu. She made Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 11 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
endoresement on the Rukka which is Ex.PW4/B bearing her signatures at point A. She also signed the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW4/A bearing her signature at point A.
12. Smt. Aruna Jain (Maasi/ Tai of Radhika) was examined as PW-5. She deposed that Radhika got married with Vineet Rungta on 29.04.1998 as per Hindu rites and Customs. In roka ceremony they have gifted Rs.51,000/- and 11 coins of gold and Rs. 1100/- to every person who attended the roka ceremony from the side groom. Prior to marriage, when she visited the accused house at Mumbai, they have demanded to give them Rs.2,50,000/- in the occasion of Tika. The accused persons also demanded that Radhika's family have to give a gold coin and silver coin to each of the relative of the accused person. On the occasion of Tika they gave 51 gold coin alongwith 51 silver coin as well as Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 12 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
clothes to the side of groom.
She further deposed that they gifted jewellery to Radhika and her husband and utensils made of silver. She deposed that after Fera ceremony of marriage, the parents of Radhika gave jewellery articles to Sulochana Rungta, Radhey Shyam Rungta and Sudha Rungta. After some days, Radhika came back to her parental house and told her parents that she was taunted on the pretext of dowry by her in-laws. Radhika also told them the all her jewellery was taken away by Sulochana Rungta. She further deposed that Radhika's family gave Rs. 50,000/- to Vineet Rungta so that he may come to Delhi and the, go to the USA with Radhika Jain. After some days, Radhika's mother visited to USA and lived there for about 10-12 days and when she came back she told her family that Radhika was being tortured by her husband and her husband not Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 13 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
allowed her to talk with anyone and not give her daily expenses. Accused Vineet Rungta told to Radhika's mother that he will not bear her expenses and demanded that a house should be purchased for his residence because he was earning enough to purchase a house and car. She deposed that she also came to know that Vineet Rungta pushed Radhika Jain so that she fell down and she got injuries on her leg. She further stated that no incident of beatings happened between Radhika Jain and her husband in her knowledge. Vineet Rungta took away Radhika's jewellery when she came back from USA. She further deposed that she telephoned Sulochana Rungta to settle the matter but she refused, she directed that they have to follow the instructions of Vineet Rungta. Thereafter, Radhika Jain never returned back to her matrimonial house. Accused Vineet Rungta demanded a share in the property of parents of Radhika Jain. Radhika Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 14 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
Jain told PW-5 Aruna Jain that her husband also demanded a house in Boston, USA and a car. In the month of November 1998, PW-5 Aruna Jain and Radhika Jain requested Sulochana Rungta to return her jewellery articles but she denied. Thereafter, in the month of January 1999, they have filed a complaint against the harassment of Radhika Jain and in view of the complaint FIR was registered. During investigation, Photographs, marriage invitation card and bills of jewellery articles was handed over by Radhika's family.
13. SI Madhu Sankla was examined as PW-6. She deposed that on 25.02.1999, she was working as SI at CAW Cell, Amar Colony. On that day, investigation of this case was marked to her, after registration of FIR. During investigation, she recorded the statement of witnesses and on 01.04.1999, arrested the accused persons, namely, Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 15 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
Radhey Shyam Rungta and Sulochana Rungta. In the year 1999, She also formally arrested Ramesh and Sudha Rungta in this case and in this case as they were on anticipatory bail. On 01.04.1999, she alongwith Radhika Jain also conducted a formal search of the house of the accused and in-laws of the complainant to recover the dowry articles of the complainant but no articles could be found her search memo already is Ex.PW1/C bearing her signatures at point B. After completion of investigation, she handed over the case file to the SHO.
14. Sh. Vijay Motwani examined as PW-7 He deposed that he know Mr. P.K. Jain father of Radhika Jain since 1978. He attended the wedding of his daughter Radhika. When he went to USA to visit his sister around 1998, P.K. Jain/ father of Radhika Jain gave him a suitcase to be delivered to Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 16 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
his daughter who was staying in New York after her marriage. He called her husband and asked him to take the suitcase from him from the place where he was staying. He spoke to Radhika also but they did not come to take the suitcase. As he was left the suitcase with her sister and called them again to collect it from her. During his interaction with Radhika and her husband, he found their behaviour very cold. When he came back to Delhi he came to know that there was some problem in the marriage as disclosed to him by Radhika's parents. They told him that there was some Psychiatric problem with the boy.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
15. Vide order dated 12.05.2008, the accused Radhey Shyam, Sulochana and Sudha were charged with offence U/s 406/34 IPC whereas Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 17 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
accused Sulochana was additionally charged u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (here in after referred to as DP Act). Formal charge was framed on 29.07.2007. The accused went in appeal against the order of charge which was finally dismissed by the Court of Ld. ASJ vide order dated 24.01.2011.
16. The law in this respect is as follows:
Section 405 of the IPC provides as under :- "Criminal Breach of Trust":
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any discretion of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust"
Explanation I: A person, being an employer ( of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 18 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or Not) who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation II: ' A person, being an employer, who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution do deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used to amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 19 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
17. S.406 IPC provides punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust.
18. The essential ingredient of offence of Criminal breach of trust are "entrustment" and its subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion by the accused to the detriment of the victim. In the light of this, I shall now examine the case of the prosecution.
19. In Amarpal and others Vs. State of West Bangal and Anr. 2007 CRI.L.J. 4150, it was held that the dishonest misappropriation or conversion to his own use or dishonest use or disposal of property is an essential ingredient so as to constitute and offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. It was further held that mere recovery of stridhan articles from the matrimonial house in the absence of any evidence showing that any such Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 20 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
articles belongings to the complainant had been misappropriate would not constitute an offence u/s 406 IPC.
20. The essential ingredient of section 406 IPC is "entrustment" of the property. The property which is the subject matter of the offence must have been entrusted the accused: a trust of some kind is necessary, and the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust can be committed must be either the property of some persons and the offender must hold such property on trust for such other person or in someway for his benefit.
21. To establish culpability of the accused U/s 406 IPC, the prosecution has to prove :
(i) That the alleged jewelery articles were entrusted to the accused persons.
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 21 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
(iii) The accused refused to returned such articles to the complainant upon demand or converted the articles for their own use without the consent of the complainant.
22. The case of the prosecution that 12 jewelery sets, two rings, diamond bangles, gold bangles, anklets and silver ware were handed over/ entrusted to the mother in law, father in law and sister in law Sudha at the time of the marriage itself. It is further the case of prosecution that on the next day of the marriage, the mother in law had taken the jewellery worn by the complainant and kept it in her own possession. The prosecution has further alleged that when the complainant came back to Delhi on 06.05.1998, she did not carry any of her jewellery with her. The mother-in-law is stated to have promised her that she would bring all the jewellery of the complainant to USA when she visits Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 22 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
there. The mother in law never happened to visit USA during the stay of complainant at Boston. The prosecution further alleged that the complainant had made a demand for returned of Stridhan on 08.10.1998 when she returned back to Delhi from Boston but the same were never returned to her.
23. In support of its case, prosecution has relied on the testimonies of PW-1/complainant, her father Sh. P.K Jain/ PW-2 , her mother Karuna Jain/ PW-3 and her Tai/Mausi Smt. Aruna Jain/ PW-4. While the other witnesses have not deposed qua entrustment of jewellry articles.
As to existence of the Jewellery and other dowry articles:
24. Before anything else, the prosecution was required to prove that the parents of the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 23 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
complainant had given 12 jewellery sets, two rings, diamond bangles, gold bangles, anklets and silver ware for that it is relevant to prove that these articles were in existence at the time of the marriage.
25. The prosecution has relied on the copy of Bills Ex.B1 to B21. Amongst these documents, only Ex.B15, which is the copy of the receipt dated 14.04.1998 of Jeweller Amar Chand Soni of Jaipur, relates to payment of making charges in respect of one gold set, ear rings and ring weighing approximately 252.160 gms, one Mathapatti weighing 56.460 gms, Kada Two piece weighing 33.960 gms, Moti payal 5.500 gms. The complainant is seen wearing this jewellery in the photographs of her marriage. Necessary implication being that these jewellery pieces were not entrusted to any of the accused persons atleast on the date of the marriage.
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 24 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
26. Ex.B-16 is the receipt dated 17.04.1998 of NIVI Gems and exports, Jaipur showing the purchase of Diamond cut stones weighing 14.60 Ct. and Emerald cut stones weighing 9.6 Ct. by Sh. P.K Jain.
27. Ex.B18 is the receipt dated 17.04.1998 of M.R International, Jaipur and shows the purchase of 9.50 Ct. of Cut Diamond by R.K Jain.
28. Ex.B14 is the photocopy of receipt dated 14.04.1998 showing the purchase of crockery by Karuna Jain weighing about 3321 gms and 4810 gms.
29. None of the Exhibits other that Ex.B15, relates to sale or purchase of any jewellery, much less the jewellery articles as alleged by the Prosecution. Even otherwise, the original receipts Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 25 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
were never brought on record by the prosecution. None of the jeweler from whom the above mentioned jewellery was allegedly purchased was cited as a witness to prove these receipts. Ex.B-16 and Ex.B18 only relates to purchase of precious stones and Ex.B15 relates to payment of making charges of Gold Jewellery. There is not even a single receipt showing purchase or making of any other jewellery.
As to entrustment of the alleged articles at the time of marriage:
30. PW-1 has deposed that the jewellery was handed over to the mother in law and two sisters in laws at the time of marriage itself but she has not deposed whether the jewellery was entrusted in her presence and, by whom it was so entrusted, and under what circumstances. She has Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 26 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
not deposed about her source of knowledge qua the alleged entrustment. In these circumstances, the testimony of Radhika does not prove anything about the factum of entrustment of jewellery at the time of the marriage.
31. PW-2 Sh. P.K Jain has deposed that he had handed over the jewellery to the mother in law, sister in law Sudha and also added the name of father in law Radhey Shyam which is an improvement to the testimony of PW-1.
32. While PW-3 deposed that there were four Diamond set, one Diamond and Emerald set, one gold set, four Diamond Bangles, four pearl bangles and one Diamond Ring which was handed over to the parents in law and Sudha and Ramesh. The addition of the name of Ramesh is an improvement and is in contradiction to the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 27 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
testimonies of the complainant and her father.
33. The Mausi/Tai Smt. Aruna Jain was examined as PW-5 and deposed that entrustment was done after the Fera ceremony. She also did not depose anything about the details of the alleged jewellery articles however, Exhibited copies of certain bills/ receipts as Ex.B1 to Ex.B21 but could not produce the originals of these receipts when they were demanded by the counsel for accused. She had deposed that the jewellery was handed over to the accused persons in a box at the time of marriage but has not been able to give any details of such jewellery.
34. No list of the dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage. There was a photographer at the venue who took photographs of the marriage till the Vidai Ceremony but there is not even a single Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 28 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
photograph of the alleged jewellery articles or of entrustment of any of the alleged jewellery articles by the parents of the complainant to the accused persons.
35. The IO SI Ms. Madhu has deposed that a search was conducted of the premises of the accused on 01.04.1999 in the presence of the complainant. However, no recovery of any such jewellery or article was made. She further deposed that the house of complainant was never searched in this regard.
36. The list of Stridhan articles filed on record was prepared and handed over to CAW Cell. There is no evidence of the same having being prepared at the time of marriage. Rather, the deposition of the witnesses make it probable that the same was prepared near about the time of filing the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 29 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
complaint dated 30.10.1998.
37. There are several contradictions betweeen the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 as to the entrustment of jewellery articles at the time of marriage. While PW-1 has no personal knowledge about the entrustment as it was not done in her presence, PW-5 has deposed that the alleged jewellery was given in a box after the Fera Ceremony and she was unaware about its contents. Further there is contradictions in the testimony of the father and the mother of complainant as to the description of the alleged jewellery articles and with respect to the names of the alleged recipients. As such, the prosecution has been unable to prove the entrustment of the alleged jewellry articles on the date of marriage and benefit of doubt has accrued qua this incident which necessarily goes in favour of the accused persons.
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 30 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
As to entrustment of the wearing jewellery by Radhika to accused Sulochana after marriage:
38. Except the complainant, none of the other witness including the parents of the complainant and her Tai/Masi have any direct of personal knowledge about entrustment of any of the Jewellery article by Radhika to her in-laws subsequent to the marriage. Their knowledge about the entrustment of the jewellery articles by the complainant after the marriage is solely based upon the information received by them from the complainant. Thus, Radhika is the only witness who can prove or disprove this fact. I shall now proceed to evaluate the testimony of Radhika in this regard.
39. In her complaint, the complainant Radhika had stated that her Vidaai took place on 29th night / 30th Morning in April, 1998. After the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 31 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
Vidaai Ceremony Radhika and Vineet stayed in the room booked by her in-laws at Surya Sofitel Hotel.
40. She has alleged that all the accused persons visited the Hotel to check upon them and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and stated that she should have brought alteast Rs.50 lacs more. At the Hotel, they are alleged to have asked her to handover her jewellery which she was wearing on the wedding day, for the purpose of safe keeping.
41. This witness has contradicted her own complaint during her deposition. When she deposed before the court, in her examination in chief , she stated that the mother in law asked her to handover the jewellery when she reached the matrimonial house.
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 32 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
42. It is an admitted fact that the accused persons did not have any house at Delhi. The necessary implication is that as per the deposition of the complainant, she was allegedly asked to handover jewellery articles at Bombay. As such there is a contradiction as to the place of entrustment of her wedding jewellery.
43. During her cross examination, she further contradicted her when she said she has taken all the jewellery articles to Bombay when she visited there.
44. If the statement of Radhika as to handing over the jewellery at Delhi is taken on the face of it, there is no explanation as to which jewellery articles she took alongwith herself when she visited to Bombay from Delhi. It is not the case the her parents gave her additional jewellery when she left Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 33 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
for Bombay.
45. PW-1 is the sole witness as to the alleged entrustment of her wedding jewellery. She has contradicted herself as to the place of entrustment of the jewellery articles as on one hand she has deposed that the jewellery was handed over to the mother in law at her matrimonial house i.e Bombay whereas in her complaint she mentioned the place of entrustment as Surya Sofitel Hotel at Delhi. Further, a raid was conducted at the premises of the accused persons, however, no recovery of any such article was effected. The house of the complainant was never searched for such jewelery article. In Sardar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1977 CRI. L. J. 1158, it has been held that mere failure or omission to return the property is not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 406 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the entrustment of Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 34 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
jewellery and a benefit of doubt has accrued which necessarily has to go in favour of the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused accused Sh. Radhey Shyam (Father in law), Sudha Rungta (Sister in law/Jethani) and Sulochana Rungta (Mother in law) are acquitted for offence U/S 406/34 IPC.
As to dowry demand:
"If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents of other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that that court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
46. PW-3/Mother of Radhika has, in her Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 35 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
cross examination admitted that no demand of dowry took place in Indian in her presence. She admitted that when the alleged demand were raised by Vineet at Boston during her stay, none of the in- laws of Radhika was present.
47. PW-2, the father of complainant deposed that he made elaborate arrangements for the marriage and pre-marriage functions and spent much beyond there means. He had deposed that the accused persons were unhappy with the arrangements made by him and had taunted their daughter for the same, however, he has not deposed anything about any specific dowry demands being raised by any of the accused person or their refusal to solemnize the marriage on his inability to fulfill any such demand. It is not his deposition that the gifts and jewellery articles were given in marriage as a consideration thereof, in pursuance of any specific demand by any Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 36 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
of the accused persons. It is not the case that the accused persons refused to solemnize the marriage, if he failed to fulfill any alleged demand.
48. Vineet was scheduled to fly to Boston from Bombay whereas Radhika was to fly from Delhi. The parents of Radhika wanted that both of them should fly together from Delhi and Vineet is stated to have told them that they need to spend Rs.50,000/- for the same if the tickets are to be rescheduled. The father had spent Rs.50,000/- for getting the tickets of Vineet rescheduled so that he could fly to Boston with Radhika from Delhi. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was spent by him so as to enable Vineet and Radhika to fly together from Delhi to Boston. This cannot be termed as a dowry demand under the law.
49. The complainant has deposed that her in-laws expressed their unhappiness over over the Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 37 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
arrangements made by her father and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and stated that she should have brought atleast Rs.50 Lacs more. She has nowhere deposed that the amount of Rs.50 Lacs was asked as consideration of marriage or that the accused persons maltreated her or refused to solemnize the marriage on account of non-fulfillment of their demand. The complainant was only taunted that her father should have spent atleast Rs.50 lacs more. No specific demand of any such amount was raised by any of the accused persons. This alleged taunt was made on the very next day after the marriage, however, the complainant was not treated with cruelty on any such account. Few days after the marriage, the marriage reception was celebrated at Bombay. The complainant came back to Delhi with her parents for the purpose of her Visa application and then flew to Boston with her husband from Delhi.
Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 38 of 39 FIR No.118/99 PS-New Friends Colony State vs Radhey Shyam & Ors.
50. It is settled law that mere taunting does not amount to cruelty or dowry demand for the purposes of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the absence of any cogent evidence with respect to demand of dowry, accused Sulochana Rungta is acquitted for offence U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Bail Bond and surety bond of the accused are further extended for six months as per S.437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Shivani Chauhan) court on 24.09.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate Manila Court,SED/Saket New Delhi/ 24.09.2014 Pronounced in open court on 24.09.2014 Page no 39 of 39