Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Kumar &Ors. on 23 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Vinod Kumar &ors.
FIR NO: 129/2006
P. S. Kapashera
ID No. 02405R0965052007
Date of institution of case :07.05.2007
Date on which case reserved for judgment :26.02.2014
Date of judgment :23.04.2014
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. V.S. Rana, Ld Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 10.03.2002 onwards
b) Offence complained of : U/S 498-A/406/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Neeru d/o Sh.
Bhim Singh r/o Village
Bharthal, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : (i) Vinod Kumar(Husband)
local & permanent residence s/o Ram Kumar
(ii)Patasi Devi (Mother-in-Law)
w/o Sh. Ram Kumar
(iii) Ms. Neelam (Sister-in-Law)
d/o Sh. Ram Kumar
all r/o RZ-126, X Block,
Shahid Rajesh Gill Marg, New
Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New
Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : Accused are falsely
implicated.
f) Final order : Accused are convicted .
FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 1/24
St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. On the complaint of complainant Smt. Neeru , FIR was lodged against accused persons namely Vinod Kumar, Ram Kumar, Smt. Patasi Devi, Ms. Neelam, Smt. Sudesh, Smt. Mukesh, Vijender Singh and Shri Krishan u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC on 16.04.2006.
2. Vide order dated 29.03.2011, the Ld. Predecessor court discharged accused persons namely Smt. Sudesh(sister-in-law), Smt. Mukesh(sister-in-law), Shri Kishan(mausa sasur), Vijender Singh(mamia sasur) and Ram Kumar(father-in-law) from the offences u/s 498-A IPC & 406 IPC. However, the charge u/s 498- A IPC was framed against the accused Vinod Kumar(husband of complainant), Patasi Devi(mother-in-law) and Neelam(sister-in- law) and charge u/s 406 IPC was framed against accused Vinod Kumar only on 26.09.2011.
3. The prosecution has examined five witnesses on its behalf to prove its case.
4. Pw1 is HC Priyavrat who has exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex.
Pw1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. Pw1/B.
5. Pw2 is complainant Smt. Neeru who has stated in her examination-in-chief that her marriage with accused Vinod Kumar was solemnized on 10.03.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 2/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
and her father had given sufficient dowry articles as per his capacity and spent about Rs. 6 lacs in marriage. Pw2 stated that soon after marriage, on 17.03.2002, her mother-in-law told her that no gold earrings were given to her Dadi saas and no T.V. trolly was given in the marriage and her father-in-law told her that no car was given in marriage and he wanted to see Vinod sitting in car, so when she went to her parental house, she disclosed these facts to her parents, on which her father sent tops(gold ear rings) for dadi saas and T.V. trolly but her father could not afford to give a car. She stated that when she returned back to her matrimonial house, she told her in-laws about the inability of her father to give the car on which her father-in-law and mother-in-law stated that nothing substantial was given in the marriage.
6. Pw1 further stated that her sisters-in-law Mukesh, Sudesh and Neelam used to say "humne ghar key bahar garage gari khari karney key liye banwaya hein, terey baap ne shadi mein koi gari nahi dee". Pw2 further alleged that her father-in-law and mother-in- law used to say that their reputation in the society had been degraded because of this marriage. Pw1 alleged that this harassment and taunting kept on and when she was blessed with a female child, her in-laws fought with her and her husband was also unhappy due to birth of a girl child.
7. Pw2 has further deposed that in April 2002, her father-in-law FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 3/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
had taken Rs. 6,000/- from her which was given to her as Muh Dekhai, on the pretext that he will invest it in some place and it would get double in October 2005, but he has not returned the money to her till date. She stated that on pilia ceremony of the child, sufficient articles were given by her parents but those articles were not liked by her in-laws and all her in-laws taunted her for not giving good articles and not giving car.
8. In her further examination-in-chief dated 20.10.2012, Pw2 stated that on 11.01.2013, her mother-in-law called her mother on telephone and asked her to arrange articles for Pilia ceremony of the child, due to which her brother came to her matrimonial house alongwith articles like ladies suit, grocery items, toys etc. but her brother was not entertained properly in her matrimonial house and he was not even served glass of water. She further stated that in February-March 2003, when she opened her trunk, she found that around 55 suits were missing and when she inquired from her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law rebuked her and also got her assaulted through her husband.
9. Pw1 further alleged that she was brutally beaten by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and dragged out of house on 02.04.2003. She further deposed that on 03.05.2003, she was again beaten up by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law Neelam and dragged by hair. She stated that she was constantly harassed FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 4/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
for not fulfilling the demand of car and when she complained to her father-in-law, he instead of helping her, directed his wife and daughter to do away with her and not to spare her. Pw2 further stated that on the occasion of Bhaiyaduj in 2003, she visited her parental house and on 03.11.2003, her father got operated and she was willing to stay at her parental home but her husband did not allow her to stay there. She stated that in December 2003, her husband told her to get her bank account transferred from Bijwasan to Najafgarh and when she refused, he assaulted her and threatened to do away with her.
10. Pw2 alleged that in April 2004, her husband and father-in-law told her to do job at school, so she joined Neelam Model School, Najafgarh as Teacher and her husband started taking away all her salary. She further alleged that during July 2004, her husband demanded Rs. 5 lacs for bringing material for his auto spare parts shop which he was running at Najafgarh and when she refused, her Mama sasur and Mausa sasur also pressurized her to arrange the amount from her parents. She stated that she narrated the incident to her father but he was not in position to pay the amount and when she informed her husband about this he rebuked her and brutally assaulted her on 08.08.2004 and again on 09.08.2004 she was thrown out of the matrimonial house alongwith her daughter on 09.08.2004 and since then she is residing with her FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 5/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
parents. She stated that she was forced to leave the matrimonial house barehanded and thereafter she moved complaint before CAW Cell which is Ex. Pw2/A. She exhibited the list of stridhan articles as Ex. Pw2/B and stated that during the period when she left matrimonial house and till filing of complaint, she did not ask for dowry articles from accused persons.
11. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel dated 20.03.2013, she stated that she left her matrimonial house on 09.08.2004 and she stayed continuously in her parental house till 04.09.2010. She admitted that her husband had filed suit u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in September 2005. In her further cross- examination dated 03.07.2013, Pw2 stated that she does not remember the date, month or year when the complaint was prepared by her through her Advocate and when it was filed before CAW Cell. She admitted that she had never filed any oral or written complaint before any authority prior to the filing of present complaint. She denied the suggestion that she was living in matrimonial house with all peace and dignity due to which she did not file complaint prior to present complaint. She denied the suggestion that no incident of beating had occurred on 08.08.2004. She denied the suggestion that her marriage was solemnized in a very simple manner and no dowry articles were given by her parents. She stated that she does not remember any FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 6/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
incident between March 2002 to 08.08.2004. She stated that she cannot tell where she was living in the month of January 2003, April 2003, May 2003, November 2003, December 2003, January 2004 to July 2004. She stated that she cannot tell when the marriage of her sister-in-law Smt. Sudesh, Mukesh and Neelam were performed and with whom it was performed. She stated that on 05.01.2003 it was pilia ceremony and her nanad Neelam and Sudesh were in her matrimonial house. She stated that ceremony was performed peacefully.
12. In her further cross-examination dated 06.07.2013, Pw2 stated that she cannot tell the period during which she stayed in her matrimonial house after Piliya ceremony in January 2003. Pw2 further stated that her sisters-in-law visited to her matrimonial house in the month of February 2003 during the period January 2003 to 30.04.2003 and used to visit intermittently but she cannot tell the exact date and month.
13. In her further cross-examination of same date after lunch on 06.07.2013, Pw1 stated that her husband used to leave for shop at about 8 a.m. in the morning and used to return back in the evening at around 8 p.m. on daily basis. She stated that herself, her mother-in-law, two children of her elder sister-in-law and her sister-in-law used to stay in the house. She stated that she cannot tell the details of the articles brought by her brother in Pilia FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 7/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
ceremony and she had already submitted the list on record. She stated that on 02.04.2003, she was in her matrimonial house and her brother was in parental house and her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were present in the matrimonial house. She denied the suggestion that on 02.04.203, her husband was busy at his shop and her sister-in-law was in her matrimonial house. She admitted that her father-in-law was employed in CRPF in April 2003 but she denied the suggestion that her father-in-law was posted outside and did not visit the house on 30.04.2003. She denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law had gone to her parental house in the month of January 2004 and she stayed there.
14. Pw2 admitted that she was neither having JBT degree for Junior Teacher nor B.Ed. Degree till the time she left the matrimonial house. She stated that she had joined the job of Teacher in a school at Najafgarh but she cannot tell the address and name of the society which is running the school. She denied the suggestion that there is no school by the name of Neelam Model School in Najafgarh area. She stated that she cannot produce any appointment letter issued by the school to her. She denied the suggestion that she was not having love and affection towards her husband and she was not interested to live with him and she left him by her own and thereafter lodged false case FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 8/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
against him and his relatives. She denied the suggestion that her husband had gone out of station in connection with business and remained outside in the entire month of July 2004. She denied the suggestion that the story pertaining to the payment of Rs. 5 lac is false and fabricated. She denied the suggestion that her husband and father-in-law alongwith relatives visited her parental house on 15.08.2004 to take her back. She further denied the suggestion that from August 2004 to December 2004, accused persons with their relatives and respectable persons of society had visited her parental house 20 times to take her back but she refused to join the company of her husband. Pw2 voluntarily stated that nobody had approached her from matrimonial house to take her back. Pw2 admitted that she had not contacted accused persons within this period but stated that she had no telephone number of accused persons.
15. Pw2 further stated that on 28.08.2004, her husband, father-
in-law, mother-in-law and one neighbour Sh. Jagdish Malik had visited her parental house but voluntarily stated that they misbehaved with her and her parents. She stated that she has no knowledge about the fact that a Panchayat was held on 20.09.2004 in the office of MLA, village Bamnoli or in the said Panchayat, her father and relatives were called but they refused to send her back to matrimonial house. She stated that she is not FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 9/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
aware in which department her father was employed.
16. Pw2 further stated that she cannot tell about the expenses incurred in her marriage and she cannot tell any detail about the stridhan and list of dowry articles as she is not aware about the same. She denied the suggestion that part of the items mentioned in list of recovered articles mark A were belonging to her in-laws. She further denied the suggestion that list of dowry articles Ex. Pw2/B is totally false or that same has been fabricated by her. She stated that she cannot say anything about the fact that the rates mentioned against each article is fabricated and without any support of bill. She admitted that she never had any bill issued by concerned shopkeepers in respect of articles mentioned in Ex. Pw2/A.
17. Pw2 admitted that her sisters-in-law were married and were living in their respective matrimonial homes. She denied the suggestion that her sisters-in-law were having no interference in affairs of her matrimonial home. She further denied the suggestion that her sister-in-law Neelam never misbehaved with her and never beat her. She denied the suggestion that her husband always behaved with her in respectful manner and extended all love and affection. She denied the suggestion that her husband never tortured and beat her and never demanded any dowry in shape of any article or cash. She further denied the suggestion FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 10/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
that she left her matrimonial house without any maltreatment and demand of dowry by accused persons. Pw2 stated that she does not want to live with her husband since he has already married second time and has two children from second marriage. She stated that she has not made any complaint against her husband regarding his second marriage. She denied the suggestion that she is leveling false allegation of bigamy against her husband.
18. Pw3 is Sh. Bhim Singh who is father of complainant Neeru.
He stated in his examination-in-chief dated 26.10.2013 that he married his daughter Neeru to Vinod Kumar on 10.03.2002 and sufficient articles were given in marriage but within one week of marriage, his daughter told him that she was being illtreated in her matrimonial house on account of dowry and gold ear tops and T.V. trolly were demanded from her by Vinod and his parents and her father-in-law had demanded a car. Pw3 stated that he sent T.V. trolly and gold ear tops through his son Deepak but could not afford car. He stated that his daughter had told him that her father- in-law had taken Rs. 6,000/- from her in April 2002 on the ground that he would invest the money in a scheme and it would get double within three and half years but the money was not returned to his daughter thereafter.
19. Pw3 further stated that on 16.12.2012, his daughter was blessed with baby girl which further aggravated the situation and FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 11/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
his daughter was harassed more severely thereafter. He stated that in July 2004, accused Vinod and his parents put a demand of Rs. 5 lacs and car to him also and he requested them that he could not afford the same but they did not mend their ways due to which, a Panchayat was also organized and MLA Vijay Lochab, who is relative of accused persons also tried to intervene but the accused persons were adamant on their demands and in August 2004, his daughter was dragged out of the matrimonial house for non-fulfillment of the demands. Pw3 stated that all the jewelery and other articles were kept by in-laws of his daughter and not returned despite request and since then, his daughter has been residing with him alongwith the child. He stated that he had given copy of bills of jewelery articles to the police which are Ex. Pw3/A & Ex. Pw3/B(original seen and returned). The exhibition of the bills was objected by the Ld. Defence counsel on the ground that photocopy of the same was not handed over to the police at the time of investigation and moreover the witness was not author of the bills.
20. In his cross-examination dated 28.10.2013, Pw3 Bhim Singh stated that he was employed in Ministry of Commerce in year 2002 and retired on 31.03.2012. He stated that he had visited matrimonial house of his daughter 2-3 times between March 2003 to August 2004. He stated that he cannot tell the name of FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 12/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
shopkeeper and the address of the shop from where T.V. trolly was purchased and volunteered that his son Deepak had purchased the same. He stated that the ear tops were purchased by his wife on 25.02.2002 and he cannot tell the name of jeweler and address of his shop. He stated that his daughter had told to his wife on telephone for the demand of T.V. trolly and ear tops on 12.03.2002. He admitted that father-in-law of his daughter was in BSF but stated that he cannot tell when he had resumed his duty after marriage. He stated that he cannot tell whether the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was given by his daughter to her father-in-law or not.
21. Pw3 admitted that neither he nor his daughter ever filed any complaint to the police or any other authority against accused and his parents between the period 10.03.2002 to 08.08.2004 during which his daughter stayed in her matrimonial house. He admitted that accused Vinod alongwith his parents and some relatives visited his house after 08.08.2004 to take back his daughter but voluntarily stated that they did not approach him to take back his daughter to matrimonial house but to quarrel with them. He denied the suggestion that they had not made any complaint earlier since his daughter was staying peacefully in the matrimonial house. He stated that on 08.08.2004, his daughter had come to his house by her own alongwith her daughter. He admitted that documents Ex. Pw3/A and Ex. Pw3/B are rough bills. He admitted that he did not FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 13/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
give any bill or proof in support of dowry articles to the police except Ex. Pw3/A and Ex. Pw3/B. He denied the suggestion that he had submitted wrong list of dowry articles. He denied the suggestion that in-laws of her daughter had never demanded Rs. 5 lacs or any dowry articles from her. He admitted that his daughter was gifted with gold as well as silver ornaments by her in-laws at the time of her marriage, including mangalsutra, four bangles, necklace, ring, tikka, tagri, chutki and pajeb. He denied the suggestion that all the ornaments are in possession of his daughter and himself. He admitted that the statement given by him is based on the information given by his wife and his daughter and not as per his personal knowledge.
22. Pw4 is Sh. Deepak i.e. brother of complainant Neeru who stated that his elder sister Neeru got married to Vinod Kumar on 10.03.2002. He stated that he visited matrimonial house of his sister and saw that she was not treated properly in the matrimonial house on account of dowry. He stated that he used to visit his sister on festivals and used to give articles and gifts to her. He further stated that in September 2002, he gave one music system, T.V. trolly and gold ear rings to his sister but he again said that T.V. Trolly and gold ear rings were given on 17.03.2002. Pw4 further stated that in July 2004, a demand of car and Rs. 5 lacs were raised from his sister by her in-laws and accused Vinod told FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 14/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
that unless their demand was fulfilled, they would keep on beating his sister and the parents of accused Vinod were adamant on demand of car.
23. In his cross-examination dated 30.10.2013, Pw4 Deepak stated that he is Graduate and employed in TCS. He stated that his sister stayed in her matrimonial home till 17.03.2002 and she came back to the parental house on 17.03.2002. He denied the suggestion that his sister lived peacefully in the matrimonial house with all due respect. He admitted that no complaint was ever filed by his sister, his parents or himself against accused from March 2002 till August 2004. He stated that accused Vinod had filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights and divorce against his sister in 2005 and when his sister received summons of the said suit, thereafter she filed present complaint in November 2005.
24. Pw4 further stated that he cannot tell the name of the shopkeepers and the address of the shops from where T.V. trolly and ear tops were bought. He denied the suggestion that he was unable to tell the name of the shopkeepers since no such items were ever bought. He stated that he cannot tell the exact month when he visited the matrimonial house of his sister. He denied the suggestion that accused and his parents never demanded any dowry from his sister and false allegations had been leveled in complaint against accused persons. He denied the suggestion that FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 15/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
accused never demanded any car or Rs. 5 lacs from his sister.
25. Pw5 is IO/Retired SI Nanak Chand who stated that on 16.04.2006, investigation of the present case was handed over to him and on 22.05.2006, dowry articles were taken into possession from the house of accused Vinod on the identification of the complainant and his father vide memo Ex. Pw5/A. He stated that complainant gave list of remaining articles to him which is Ex. Pw5/B. He further stated that accused persons got anticipatory bail due to which he formally arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. Pw5/C to Ex. Pw5/E and released them on bail and after recording statement of witnesses and completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet.
26. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel dated 30.10.2013, Pw5 stated that complainant never produced any proof of ownership of the recovered articles mentioned in memo Ex. Pw5/A or remaining articles mentioned in Ex. Pw5/B. He admitted that no investigation was conducted in respect of articles from the concerned shopkeepers since he had not got the address of the shops from the complainant. He admitted that no documents including document Ex. Pw3/A and Ex. Pw3/B were given to him by the complainant or her parents. He admitted that the keys of almirah and box were found in possession of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not commit any FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 16/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
cruelty upon the complainant.
27. After closure of P.E, statement of accused persons was recorded in which they stated that they are innocent and preferred to lead Defence Evidence and brought two witnesses on their behalf.
28. Dw1 is Sh. Shankar Lal who stated in his examination-in-
chief dated 22.01.2014 that he is employed in Ministry of Commerce and Industries and the father of complainant namely Bhim Singh was also employed in same department. He stated that father of complainant asked about some suitable boy for marriage of his daughter and he told him about accused Vinod and thereafter father of complainant and his elder brother made necessary inquiries about Vinod and his family and were finally satisfied and marriage was solemnized on 10.03.2002. Dw1 stated that he attended the marriage and it was a very simple and normal marriage and both the sides were very happy and satisfied. He stated that he used to visit matrimonial house of the complainant occasionally and met her on several occasions but complainant never made any complaint to him against accused persons about any illtreatment or demand of dowry. He stated that when he specifically asked the complainant regarding conduct and behaviour of the accused, complainant gave satisfactorily reply.
29. Dw1 further stated that complainant left her matrimonial FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 17/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
house and did not return back due to which he was requested by Vinod and his father to accompany them to the parental house of complainant to take her back and on 19.09.2004 he accompanied accused Vinod, his father Ram Kumar and 3-4 other respectable persons of the society to the house of the complainant at village Bharthal and they requested the complainant and her father to accompany them to matrimonial home of complainant and complainant agreed to join the company of the accused after one week but she did not return to the matrimonial house. He further stated that when the complainant did not return to the matrimonial house, accused Vinod again requested him to accompany him to parental house of the complainant again, so he again went to parental house of the complainant alongwith Ram Kumar Dahiya, Ram Kumar Chillar i.e. father of accused Vinod, accused Vinod and his mother and requested complainant to join matrimonial house and she agreed to join the matrimonial house within 15 days but again she did not join the matrimonial house. He further stated that on 21.08.2005, he was again contacted by the father of accused Vinod to accompany them to parental house of the complainant and a Panchayat was organized at the house of MLA Vijay Lochab in village Bamnoli, Delhi and it was agreed between the parties that complainant will join accused persons at her matrimonial house but lateron he came to know that complainant FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 18/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
had not joined accused persons at her matrimonial house.
30. Dw2 is Sh. Jagdish Malik who stated that he is resident of same colony as accused persons and he knows accused persons. He stated that he also knows complainant and her father since complainant is wife of accused Vinod. He stated that he had attended marriage of accused Vinod and it was very simple ceremony and he used to visit house of accused on several occasion and meet complainant and accused there but she never made any complaint against the accused to him. He stated that he had also accompanied accused Vinod and his relatives to go to the parental house of the complainant in November 2004 and they requested complainant to return back to the matrimonial house but complainant did not return. He stated that no specific allegations as to demand of dowry and illtreatment were leveled by the complainant or her parents against the accused in his presence.
31. After closure of defence evidence, case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
32. Perusal of the evidence of complainant Pw2 Neeru who is the main eye witness as well as victim of offence u/s 498-A IPC, reveals that complainant has specifically stated the date, month and year when accused persons had caused harassment to her FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 19/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and cash amount. Pw2 has specifically stated that on 17.03.2002 i.e. soon after marriage, her mother-in-law i.e. accused Patasi Devi had demanded gold ear rings for Dadi saas of Pw2 and a T.V. trolly and the same was given by her father . Complainant has also specifically stated that all the accused persons started raising demand of car soon after marriage and they kept on harassing her for the demand of car which her father was unable to give.
33. Complainant has specifically stated that on 02.04.2003, she was brutally beaten up by her husband, mother-in-law and sister in law Neelam and dragged out of the house and on 03.05.2003 also same treatment was given to her for not fulfilling the demand of car. Complainant has also specifically stated that from July 2004 onwards, her husband i.e. accused Vinod Kumar started demanding cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs from her for bringing material for his auto spare parts shop and on her inability to fulfill the demand, he harassed her and brutally assaulted her and threw her out of the house on 09.08.2004. The comparison of examination in chief of complainant with her original complaint Ex. Pw2/A reveals that complainant has categorically and substantially remembered the facts and incidents that occurred with her and perusal of her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel reveals that she has substantially withstood the test of grueling cross-
FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 20/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
examination and she has categorically denied the suggestions of Ld. Defence counsel that accused persons had never demanded any dowry or cash amount from her and never committed any cruelty upon her. Thus, Pw2 Neeru has substantially proved that all the accused persons used to harass her for demand of dowry and finally threw her out of the matrimonial house.
34. On the other hand, accused persons have brought two defence witnesses i.e. Dw1 Shankar Lal and Dw2 Sh. Jagdish Malik in their defence evidence and tried to show that the marriage between complainant and accused Vinod Kumar was very simple marriage and accused persons had never demanded any dowry from complainant and never caused any harassment to her, but defence witnesses have nowhere stated that they were present in the matrimonial house of complainant on the specific dates on which allegations of cruelty, harassment and beating have been leveled by complainant against accused persons. Both the defence witnesses are only known persons of the accused but they are not eye witnesses of any incident or happening that might have occurred in the matrimonial house of complainant, hence, their evidence cannot be stated to be best evidence as per rules of law of evidence. Hence, such evidence of general nature cannot superceede the specific evidence given by complainant.
35. The complainant Pw2 Neeru was the eye witness of incidents FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 21/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
that occurred in matrimonial house and her evidence given on oath is highly reliable as best evidence since she was herself the eye witness as well as victim of offence. Moreover, her statement has been duly corroborated by evidence of Pw3 Bhim Singh who is father of complainant and evidence of Pw4 Sh. Deepak who is brother of complainant. Pw3 Sh. Bhim Singh has specifically stated that in July 2004, accused Vinod and his parents had even put demand of Rs. 5 lacs and car to him also but he showed his inability to fulfill their demand and thereafter accused persons dragged his daughter out of the matrimonial house for non- fulfillment of the demand. Mere fact that complainant or public witnesses could not exhibit on record the bills of ear rings and T.V. trolly cannot make much difference to the case of prosecution in respect of offence u/s 498-A IPC, since mere demand of dowry coupled with harassment for non-fulfillment of the demand is sufficient to cover the case for offence u/s 498-A IPC.
36. Thus after evaluation of entire evidence on record as discussed above, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has reasonably proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for conviction of all accused persons for offence u/s 498-A IPC. Accused persons have failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the mind of the court in respect of the commission of offence. Therefore, all accused persons namely Vinod Kumar, Smt. Patasi FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 22/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
Devi and Smt. Neelam are found guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 498-A IPC.
37. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, complainant has not exhibited any bills of stridhan articles which might have been given in marriage by her parents and she has not specifically stated any date, time and year when she specifically handed over her stridhan articles, to which of the accused persons and when she demanded those articles back from the accused persons which they refused to return on demand. The complainant has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that she cannot produce any bill in support of the articles mentioned in list of stridhan articles and she cannot tell the details of expenses incurred in her marriage or the details of stridhan articles or articles given in pilia ceremony of her child by her parents. Neither the bills of articles have been duly exhibited nor any shopkeepers have been brought in witness box to prove that articles were purchased from them by complainant or her parents at the time of marriage.
38. IO/Pw5 SI Nanak Chand has also admitted that complainant had not handed over to him any bills of articles and not provided any details of shops from where the articles were purchased. Moreover, perusal of document Ex. Pw5/A which is seizure memo of the recovered stridhan articles reveals that most of the stridhan FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 23/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.
articles from serial no. 1 to 115 were recovered and returned back to the complainant during investigation. Though the complainant had furnished list of remaining articles to IO which is Ex. Pw5/B containing the list of jewelery articles etc. and Pw3 had exhibited two bills as Ex. Pw3/A and Ex. Pw3/B but the bills of jewelery articles have not been duly exhibited on record and the shopkeepers from whom the articles might have been purchased have not been brought into witness box. The witnesses have miserably failed to state on oath that from which shop they had purchased the jewelery articles and what was the amount of expenditure on articles and to whom of the accused persons those articles were entrusted specifically. Hence, in absence of proof of all the abovesaid details, ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 IPC cannot be proved to cover the case for offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s 406 IPC. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted from offence punishable u/s 406 IPC. Fix for hearing on quantum of sentence for offence u/s 498-A IPC on 26.04.2014.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 23rd April , 2014. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court Dwarka Courts: New Delhi FIR no. :129/06 PS: Kapashera Page no. 24/24 St vs. Vinod Kumar & ors.