Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalit Prasad & Ors. on 1 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANKITA LAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01, MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors.
FIR No. 415/02
P.S. : Sarojini Nagar
U/S : 406/498A/34 IPC
CASE ID: 02403R03198332005
JUDGMENT
1.Date of Institution of case : 23.05.2003
2.Serial Number of the case :529/2
3.Date of Commission of offence :25.09.1998 to 2000
4.Name of the Complainant : Smt. Mithlesh W/o Sh. Lalit
Prasad R/o C943, Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi.
5.Name of the accused persons : (i) Lalit Prasad S/o Sambhu Lal
(ii) Sambhu Lal S/o Sh. Fakira
(iii) Deepak S/o Sambhu Lal
(iv) Yamuna Devi W/o Sambhu Lal
(v) Dharampal S/o Sambhu Lal
All R/o H.No. H293, Sriniwas
Puri, New Delhi
(vi) Lata W/o Sh. Rajesh
FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 1/15
6. Offfence Complained of : U/S 406/498A/34 IPC
7. The Plea of the Accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which Judgment Reserved : 25.07.2014.
9. The Final Judgment :Acquittal
10.The Date of Final Judgment : 01.08.2014.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 03.03.2000 lodged by Smt. Mithlesh against her husband Sh. Lalit Prasad and her in laws. The allegations are that the complainant married to the accused Lalit Prasad on 21.06.1999. After marriage, she came to know through her husband that he is having illicit relations with another girl. It is alleged that on the very next day of marriage, mother in law of the complainant had taken away all her jewellery articles and other household articles. It is alleged that the complainant was beaten up by all the accused persons for the demand of a plot of land from her parents. It is further alleged that on 02.09.2001 her husband, her brother in law, motherinlaw, sister in law gave severe beatings to her, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. She was medically examined at MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad vide MLC dated FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 2/15 03.09.2001 Ex. PW 1/B. She was also thrown out of her matrimonial home on the said day after the beatings and since then, she has been residing with her parents.
2. On filing of the complaint, compromise proceedings were initiated by the CAW Cell. During the proceedings, the complainant filed a list of Istridhan. Efforts of compromise were failed and the matter was recommended for registration of the FIR.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court on 23.05.2003 and all the accused persons were summoned. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments were heard on the point of charge and vide order dated 04.10.2006, Ld. Predecessor Court observed that a prima facie case for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 was made out against the accused persons. Charge was accordingly framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution examined total six witnesses in support of its case. Out of these, PW 2 ie. the complainant is the public witness and remaining five are police officials.
6. PW 1 ASI Nirmala deposed that he was working as duty officer FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 3/15 on 02.10.2002 and he registered the FIR in the present case. He proved the FIR which is Ex.PW 1/A.
7. PW 2 Smt. Mithlesh reiterated the contents of her complaint Ex. PW 1/C on oath. She also proved the list of dowry articles which is Ex.PW 1/A to PW 1/A3. The list of admitted articles given by her brother in law is Mark A. She further deposed that all the articles of her Istridhan are in the possession of her in laws. She proved her MLC dated 03.09.2001 as Ex. Pw 1/B, Xray Slip dated 02.09.2001 of MMG Hospital as Mark B, MLC dated 02.09.2001 as Mark C and MLC dated 30.02.2001 as Mark D. She had also proved copies of letters written by the accused to his girl friend as Mark E to Mark H, which are in some other regional language.
8. She was crossexamined by Ld. defence counsel during which she deposed that her marriage was performed at Jalalabad, UP and after marriage she was taken to her matrimonial house at Sikanderabad at Khatriwada where they remained for about 23 days and thereafter, she was brought to Delhi at Mohammadpur Village. She has deposed that in the year 2001 she left her matrimonial house from Delhi and never visited her matrimonial home. She has denied the suggestion that all her istridhan articles were handed over to her in CAW Cell but she had not accepted the same and also denied that she had asked her husband to live separate from FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 4/15 her in laws. She has denied that the letter given by her to the police regarding affair of her husband cannot be understood by her as the same was not in Hindi language. She has denied that she had not given any description of injuries in her complaint as no such incident had happened with her and also denied that all the descriptions in her medical document regarding the injuries are false. She, however, admitted it to be correct that after she left her matrimonial house, there were no talking terms between her and her in laws.
9. PW 3 Inspector V. Sachdeva had deposed that on 23.09.2002 he was posted at CAW Cell, Nanakpura and he recorded the statement of complainant and thereafter, he had called the parties but no compromise could be effected. Thereafter, he recommended the case for registration of FIR. The examination in chief of the said witness could not be completed as original complaint given at CAW Cell and CAW Cell proceedings were not on record. However, no efforts were made to examine the said witness.
10. PW 4 ASI Savita posted at Parliament Street had deposed that she had only cut parcha12 and filed the challan in the court.
11. PW 5 SI Raj Kumar from CAW, North East has deposed that on 02.02.2010 he was posted in PS Sarojini Nagar and received the case FIR no. 415/02 and he wrote one case diary and handed over the further FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 5/15 investigation to CAW Cell, South West District.
12. PW6 Retired Inspector Uma Rani, the IO of the case deposed that on 07.10.2002 investigation of the present case was conducted by him after registration of FIR. She conducted investigation during which she seized copy of wedding card of the complainant and other documents and prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW 6/A and formally arrested the accused persons.
13. During cross examination, she has admitted it correct that marriage card and other documents are photocopies. She has also stated that she cannot tell in which language document Mark G and H are written and admitted that she had not obtained the translation of these documents. She had also stated that she had personally not gone to verify the medical documents of the complainant.
14. After completion of evidence, the entire incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 25.04.2013 which were denied by them and they led the defence evidence. Accused persons have examined two witnesses in their defence.
15. DW 1 Sh. Kishan Chand has deposed that he is working with accused Lalit Prasad since 1997 and accused Lalit Prasad is his friend. He has deposed that accused Lalit Prasad had told him that his wife was suspecting him of having an affair with some other woman in their FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 6/15 department. He has also deposed that accused Lalit Prasad had told him that his wife wants to live in a separate house and that she had threatened him that if her demand will not be fulfilled then she will implicate him and his family members in a false case.
16. During cross examination, he has stated that six other persons were working with accused Lalit Prasad. He has stated that he had not attended the marriage of accused Lalit Prasad and Mithlesh. But he had attended the reception party given by the accused Lalit Kumar.
17. DW 2 Sh. Kali Charan has deposed that he had attended the marriage of accused Lalit Prasad and that the marriage was performed in a very simple way and no dowry articles were given to the accused. He has further deposed that the relation between accused Lalit and his wife was not cordial as his wife wanted to live separately. He has deposed that in 2001 he alongwith 45 persons went to the parental house of complainant at Jalalabad for compromise but no compromise took place. Thereafter, they apprehended that some persons from the side of complainant were planning to beat them. Therefore, they left from Jalalabad.
18. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he has stated that no hot talk between accused and complainant took place in front of him and that complainant never claimed to live separately in front of him. FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 7/15 He has also stated that no dowry articles were given to the accused persons by the relatives of complainant in his presence. He has further stated that complainant hardly remained in her matrimonial house for about 78 months.
19. Thereafter, DE was closed.
20. I have considered rival contentions and perused the record.
21. Ld. APP for the State argued that the accused should be convicted of the offences charged as all the witnesses of the prosecution have supported its case. Ld. defence counsel, on the other hand, argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of the PW complainant and same cannot be relied upon and the allegations have not been corroborated by the PWs.
22. In the present case, accused has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC.
23. Section 498A IPC punishes cruelty extended to the wife by the husband and his relatives. This cruelty can be physical or mental cruelty of such nature as is likely to cause grave injury on the person of the wife or as is likely to drive her to commit suicide, or else, it can be a cruelty in the form of demand of money or valuable security and consequent harassment for coercing the wife or her relatives to fulfill the said demand. FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 8/15
24. Section 406 IPC punishes criminal breach of trust. Entrustment of property and its misappropriation by the accused are the essential ingredients of this section.
25. It is thus clear that prosecution has to prove that there was a demand of money or valuable security from the complainant which she could not fulfill and the accused harassed her in order to coerce her to fulfill the demand.
26. There are six accused persons in the present case against whom allegations of section 498A/406 r/w section 34 of IPC and offence U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been alleged. It is clear from the records that complainant had admittedly stayed only for about 89 months in her matrimonial home since the date of her marriage i.e 21.06.1999. From the complaint and deposition made by the complainant, there are no specific allegations of any cruelty committed upon her during the said stay of 89 months. The complainant has only vaguely stated that on the first night of her marriage, her husband had informed her that he is having an affair with another girl and thereafter, all the accused persons had given beatings to her and were demanding a plot of land from her. It has not been specifically mentioned by the complainant as to who had given her beatings and of what nature. No evidence was also led to corroborate the said allegation. Further, FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 9/15 the allegations are general and vague without any specific date and time of the demand allegedly raised by the accused persons. The complainant has, however, mentioned one incident dated 01.09.2001 when she was given beatings by all the accused persons. As per complaint Ex. PW 1/C, the complainant had alleged that on 01.09.2001 all the accused persons have given beatings to her and sent her back to her parental home and also asked her parents to give a plot of land in the name of accused persons. However, in her cross examination as PW 2, she had clearly stated that she had left her matrimonial home in the year 2000 and thereafter, she never visited at her matrimonial home at Delhi. She had voluntarily stated that she had gone to her matrimonial home on 01.09.2001, but on the same day she had returned back to her parental home. She had nowhere clarified as to why she had gone to her matrimonial home on the said day, on which she alleged that the incident occurred whereby she was beaten by her in laws.
27. Further, she had also mentioned in her deposition as PW 2 that after the said incident, she was medically examined for the said incident of 01.09.2001 vide MLC dated 03.09.2001 which is Ex. PW 1/B and other medical documents which are Mark B, C, and D. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that the said medical documents have not been proved as the doctor who had examined the complainant and had prepared the said FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 10/15 medical documents, had not been examined before the court. The arguments of counsel for accused is well founded as it is the matter of record that the said doctor has not been examined to prove the said medical documents. Moreover, in her complaint Ex. PW 1/C also she has not mentioned about any injuries or where she had got herself examined after the alleged incident of 01.09.2001. A bare perusal of the medical document Ex. PW 1/B which was prepared by Dr. Rajender Prasad of MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad dated 03.09.2001, it is mentioned that "no bony injuries" were seen. There is another medical document of CHC Muradnagar which is dated 02.09.2001, which gives the details of injuries suffered by the complainant. Copy of the said document is Mark 'C'. The original document of Mark 'C' has also been filed. However, the same is neither exhibited nor any witness has been examined to prove the same. Further, medical document Mark B also does not specify any injury upon the complainant but only advises XRay of certain parts of the body of the complainant. Document Mark B is illegible and no original has been filed. In view of these observations, the medical documents furnished by the complainant cannot be relied upon.
28. Moreover, the complainant has contradicted herself at several points in her examination in chief as PW 2. She had stated that she was turned out of her matrimonial home by her in laws on 01.09.2001 after giving FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 11/15 merciless beatings. However, as mentioned earlier, she had mentioned in her cross examination that she had gone to her matrimonial home on 01.09.2001 and the same day, she returned back to her parental house. In her cross examination, she had also mentioned that she does not remember as to who had given beatings to her on the day of the incident.
29. Further, from examination in chief, it is clear that she had mentioned certain specific articles which she had alleged were given as dowry/istridhan in her marriage. She has further alleged that all the said articles are in possession of her husband and in laws. Ld. Counsel for the accused had argued that the complainant has made a false deposition as in her present case, she has alleged that a scooter was given to her by her parents in her marriage. However, in her evidence by way of affidavit filed in a Domestic Violence complaint, she has mentioned that a motorcycle was given. The said evidence by way of affidavit is marked as P1 wherein the said fact has been mentioned in para 3 on sixth line. The complainant could not explain the said contradiction in her cross examination. She had also admitted that she had left her matrimonial home in the year 2001 and thereafter, did not go back and since then there are no talking terms between her and her in laws. She also denied that in her complaint given in D.V. Act Act in the year 2009 she had mentioned that she is still residing at her FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 12/15 matrimonial home. But when confronted with the said complaint, Ld. counsel for the accused pointed out that the said fact has been mentioned in para 3 page 5 column B of Mark P2, which is the complaint filed under D.V. Act. The complainant could not explain the said contradiction as well.
30. Moreover, in her examination in chief, complainant had also mentioned that she had demanded back her dowry articles but she had refused to take back the same as the same did not belong to her and were in broken condition. Perusal of the record shows that there was no further list of dowry/istridhan articles given by the complainant, even after she had refused to take the admitted articles from the accused persons. Thus, the complainant cannot now allege that the articles are in the possession of the accused persons or that the same have been misappropriated or converted by them for their own use.
31. The complainant had also alleged in her complaint that she had suspected the accused Lalit Prasad (husband of the complainant) having illicit relationship with another woman. Certain documents were also filed by her which are Mark E, F, G and H which she alleged were the photocopies of letters written by the girl friend of her husband who is still residing with her. The said letters are neither in Hindi or English language, nor there is any translation copy of the said document on record. No efforts were made by the FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 13/15 prosecution to file the translated copy of the documents. The said documents cannot, therefore, be relied upon.
32. Moreover, the deposition of DW 1 and 2 who were the colleagues of accused Lalit Prasad had clearly mentioned that there was no such lady, namely, Rita working in the said department. There is no rebuttal of the said witnesses as well. In fact DW 2 had also stated in his examination in chief that no dowry articles were given to the accused persons by the relative of the complainant in his presence when he had attended marriage of complainant with Lalit Prasad.
33. Perusal of the record shows that there was no public witness apart from the complainant examined by the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that it is also not clear who had investigated the present matter and he mentioned that PW 5 had stated in his examination that he was the IO for only one day. PW 6 had mentioned that she had done the investigation in the present matter after registration of FIR. Her role can only be seen to the extent of having arrested the accused persons as she had mentioned in her deposition that she proceeded on leave thereafter and the file was handed over to MHC(R). In her cross examination PW 6 has admitted that she cannot tell the language of documents Mark G and H and admitted that she did not obtain translation of the said documents. FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 14/15
34. On the basis of the entire material available on record, it is clear that the complainant had not only taken inconsistent stand but, in fact, she has contradicted herself at several points in her own deposition. Moreover, prosecution has also not been able to lead any cogent evidence to prove their case. The allegations and the testimony could not be corroborated by any material witness or cogent evidence.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. On the other hand, the defence has been able to rebut the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence brought on record satisfactorily. The accused persons are, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted of the offences charged.
36. Bail bond of the accused persons are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents, if any be also returned. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open court (ANKITA LAL) on 01.08.2014. M.M01/Mahila Court/South District New Delhi/01.08.2014 FIR No. 415/02 State Vs. Lalit Prasad & Ors. Page No. 15/15