Delhi District Court
State vs Munshi Ram Etc. on 15 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. ARCHANA SINHA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 76/95
P.S Mukherjee Nagar
State V/s Munshi Ram Etc.
1. S.No. of the case : 239/3/03
2. Date of Institution : 28.06.95
3. Date of Commission of offence : Since 02.12.1991
4. Name & Add. of Complainant : Kehar Dass S/o Sh. Lal Chand
R/o H-24, NPL, Kingsway
Camp, Delhi.
5. Name & Address of Accused : 1). Munshi Ram S/o Sh. Hari
Singh, R/o Village Sarai
Aurangabad, Bahadurgarh,
Haryana.
2). Chandrawati W/o Munshi
Ram, R/o Village Aurangabad,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
3). Tejbir Singh S/o Munshi
Ram, R/o Village Aurangabad,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
4). Jagbir S/o Munshi Ram,
R/o Village Aurangabad,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
5). Jasbir Singh S/o Munshi Ram
R/o Village Aurangabad,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
6). Rajbir Singh S/o Munshi
Ram, R/o Village Aurangabad,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK
2
7). Dalbir Singh S/o Baje
Ram, R/o Village Poothi,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
8). Rajo W/o Sh. Dalbir
Singh, R/o Village Poothi,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
6. Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
7. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date on which Judgment : 14.11.07
has been reserved
9. Date of Delivery of the Order : 15.11.07
10. Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, the prosecution case against the accused persons was that one Guddi, the daughter of the complainant was married to one Rajbir Singh on 02.12.1991 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The accused Munshi Ram was the father in law of the complainant and accused Chandrawati was the mother in law of the complainant. The other accused persons mentioned in the FIR were Tejbir, Jagbir, Jasbir, Dalbir and Rajo and these were the other members of the family of the accused Rajbir Singh, who were the other in-laws of Guddi. On complaint of the complainant, FIR No.76/95 was registered with P.S Mukherjee Nagar against the eight accused persons and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the Incharge investigation of P.S Mukherjee Nagar against all these eight accused persons for the offences alleged U/s 498A/406 IPC, on which the cognizance was taken by the predecessor court on 28.06.95 against all the accused persons.
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 3
2. Further, vide detailed order dt. 08.11.95 passed by the predecessor court of Sh. Shiv Charan, the then Ld. MM, Delhi, the charges were directed to be framed against the accused Rajbir, the husband of the complainant, Munshi Ram, the father in-law of the complainant and Smt. Chandrawati, the mother in-law of the complainant and rest of the five accused persons namely Tejbir, Jagbir, Jasbir, Dalbir Singh and Rajo, were discharged for both the offences alleged against them and thus, the trial had commenced only against the three accused persons as, on the charges framed against them, the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, the prosecution examined total number of ten prosecution witnesses.
Out of these ten prosecution witnesses, PW-1 SI Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ct. Gurvinder Singh, PW-6 H.Ct. Rajender Singh and PW-10 SI Narender Singh were the police officials.
Out of these police officials, PW-1 SI Balbir Singh was the formal witness being the duty officer (D.O) who came to the witness box to authenticate the registration of FIR, whereas PW-2 Ct. Gurvinder Singh and PW-6 H.Ct. Rajender Singh were the police officials who participated in the investigation only for recovery of the dowry items during investigation and came to the witness box to prove the list of dowry items seized in their presence but nothing to say about the other facts regarding this case.
Thus, these witnesses are also treated as formal witnesses but circumstantial evidence to prove that the some of the alleged dowry items were recovered in their presence from the FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 4 possession of the accused Munshi Ram.
Similarly, PW-10 SI Narender Singh was the Investigating Officer (herein after referred as IO) of this case, who came to the witness box to prove the recovery of dowry items and formal arrest of the accused persons during investigation and also regarding the other procedure adopted by him for recording of statements of the witnesses and preparation and collection of the documents during the course of investigation.
Thus, he was not the material witness to prove the circumstances in which the investigation was proceeded with and also to prove the documents either prepared/collected by him and also to prove the recovery of dowry items and arrest of the accused persons but he was nothing to say about the factum of allegations made by the complainant against the accused persons for the offences alleged. Thus, this witness is treated as the witness of circumstantial evidence but not as the direct evidence to prove the allegations against the accused persons.
Whereas PW-8 Guddi Devi was the alleged victim/girl and daughter of the complainant regarding whom the complaint was lodged and thus, was the material star witness of the prosecution on whose shoulder the case of the prosecution basically rests to prove the allegations against the accused persons.
However, PW-3 Kehar Dass, the complainant being the father of the victim/girl Guddi, PW-4 Pawan Devi, being the sister of the complainant and PW-5 Ajeet Singh, being the maternal uncle and a relative of the complainant; PW-7 Kanwal Singh being the known friend of the father of the girl Guddi and PW-9 Ramesh Ranga, being the neighbourer of the matrimonial house of the victim/girl, were the other public witnesses who were produced as PWs for proving the FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 5 allegations against the accused persons but these witnesses were not the direct evidence either regarding the alleged harassment or mal- treatment to the complainant or for the demands of dowry or for demand of stri-dhan/dowry items or refusal of such dowry items. Thus, these witnesses are the witnesses of circumstances and are treated as circumstantial evidence.
4. During trial, apart from the above ocular evidence, number of documents were produced. This list includes complaint Ex.PW-3/A, copy of FIR Ex.PW-1/A, list of dowry articles Ex.PW-2/A and seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B, bail bonds and personal bonds of the accused persons Ex.PW-10/C,D and E. That is all for the prosecution evidence.
5. Statement of the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein when all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused one by one, they denied all of them as incorrect and stated that they are innocent and the witnesses have deposed against them being the interested witnesses and they have been falsely implicated.
It was further submitted by the accused persons that the complainant Guddi was having an affair prior to her marriage with some other person and due to his reason, she did not want to live with her husband/accused Rajbir and that after leaving her matrimonial house, she re-married again with the same person with whom she was having a love affair.
6. In support of their defence, the accused produced two defence witnesses namely Ram Kumar and Khushi Ram.
DW-1 Ram Kumar was one of the member of the FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 6 'panchayat' of the village of the accused, who participated in the 'panchayat' for settling the issues between the parties and DW-2 Khushi Ram was the neighbourer of the accused Munshi Ram.
7. I have heard final submissions from both sides.
Ld. APP on behalf of the State has argued that the prosecution has examined total number of ten prosecution witnesses and out of these ten prosecution witnesses, PW-8 Guddi, the girl and PW-3 Kehar Dass was the complainant and was the father of the girl and both have supported the prosecution case for the allegations alleged against the accused persons and that the alleged contradictions came on evidence in the compliant, were due to lapse of 13 years and that one witness Ramesh Ranga, examined as PW-9, was the independent witness in whose presence the dowry items were returned back, was won over and turned hostile, but not affected the prosecution case.
It was also submitted by Ld. APP that recovery of dowry articles by the police from the possession of the accused shows that the complainant was not able to take her dowry items back on her own on her demand and thus, apart from the allegations of harassment caused to the complainant, due to which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house, even the allegations regarding the non-return of her stri-dhan were proved by the prosecution.
It was also submitted on behalf of the State that for the incidents of harassment in the matrimonial home of the complainant, no public person could be produced as independent witness as it was not possible for any public person to be present as an eye-witness for such incidents.
It was also submitted that specific demand for Rs.15,000/-
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 7 for the purchase of scooter was proved through the ocular evidence of PWs and the fact that the sister of the complainant Pawan Devi, also could not survive the matrimonial life in the house of the accused persons, itself is a fact that gives circumstantial evidence to prove that the behaviour of the accused persons were not good with the complainant.
8. To counter the submissions on behalf of the accused persons, Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Kuldeep Sehrawat have vehemently countered the submissions on the State submitting that the complainant Sh. Kehar Dass, the father of the alleged victim Guddi was working in Delhi Police and was posted and has already served in P.S Mukherjee Nagar and the complaint was lodged by him on 13.01.95 on which the present FIR was registered for the offences punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC dt. 02.04.95 with P.S Mukherjee Nagar though the matter pertains to State of Haryana being the matrimonial house of the complainant was in Haryana and due to that reason, the divorce petition was filed by the complainant against the accused Rajbir at Distt. Sonepat (Haryana) from where she has obtained the decree of divorce on 01.04.97 and that, there was delay of 3 months in recording of FIR.
It was also argued that the complaint was lodged with ulterior motives by the father of the complainant and without jurisdiction of the matter with P.S Mukherjee Nagar and that it was the abuse of his post with Delhi Police.
It was further submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that except the statement of the girl Guddi, all other witnesses examined were either the witnesses of recovery of dowry articles from the house of the accused persons or for other facts but not connected with the FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 8 allegations to attract the offences punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC and thus, for proving the allegations U/s 498A/406 IPC except the girl Guddi, no direct evidence was produced, as the testimony of other witnesses were within the category of 'hear-say' evidence, being these witnesses produced the narrated versions given to them by the girl Guddi.
In this regard, the reliance is placed on the authorities on such law and observations made therein on this point.
It was further submitted that the complainant resided in her matrimonial house only for a few days i.e 15 days or a month or so and during that period, the accused was working at the place of Kurukshetra having a large distance from her matrimonial house, situated at two different places in the State of Haryana and the complainant had admitted that she has never joined her husband's place of work and her husband only used to visit her matrimonial home at weekends only. Thus, the presence of the accused Rajbir who was the husband of Guddi, in the matrimonial house was only for 1-2 days and the complainant has not specifically alleged that during weekends on specific date, any specific incident of harassment has been caused to her.
It was further argued that the complainant has made vague allegations without any specific role attributed to any of the accused facing trial for any kind of specific harassment caused to her.
It was further argued that no specific date and period has been mentioned during which, the stri-dhan was entrusted upon by the complainant to the accused persons and there is no mention regarding the demand of dowry items by the complainant from the accused at any point of time and thus, mis-appropriation of dowry articles could not be proved against the accused persons.
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 9 It was further argued that no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage and thus, the seizure memo shows the recovery of dowry articles cannot itself prove that the same were belonging to the complainant.
It was pleaded by the Ld. Defence counsel that the dowry articles recovered by the police from the house of the accused, were belonging to the accused persons and not to the complainant.
It was further argued that specific demand of amount of Rs.15,000/- for the purchase of scooter is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses produced in this regard did not have corroborative version regarding the presence of number of persons in whose presence, demand was made or an amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid, also that there is no averment that for non- fulfillment of particular demand, some harassment was caused to the complainant.
Thus, it was argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove any allegations for any of the offences alleged against the accused persons regarding any of the accused with specification of date, events and manner.
Thus, it was requested, on behalf of the accused persons that treating the allegations vague in nature, a benefit of doubt be given to the accused persons for both the offences alleged against all the accused persons.
9. I have gone through the evidence consisting of ocular as well as documentary evidence placed on record in the light of rival contentions of both the parties, on the point of law as well as facts. I have also carefully considered the observations made on the point of law for both the offences alleged against the accused persons that are FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 10 relied upon by both the parties.
It was observed that for proving the offences punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined total number of 10 prosecution witnesses but out of these 10 prosecution witnesses, only one prosecution witness Smt. Guddi the alleged victim/girl who was examined as PW-8 could have been treated as direct evidence regarding the allegations made against the accused persons that could attract the provisions of offences punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC as the other witnesses produced in the court were either the police witnesses who investigated the circumstances only after the complaint, when the victim Guddi had already left the matrimonial house where the occurrences were allegedly occurred, to attract any kind of allegations regarding both the offences or there were the witnesses who were the relatives of the victim/girl to whom only the complaints/narrations were produced.
Thus, PW-8 Guddi was the only direct evidence to prove the allegations of alleged cruelties caused to her or for alleged mis- appropriation of her stri-dhan at the hands of the accused persons.
10. But, before appreciation of evidence on record, it is worthwhile to reproduce the provisions and the necessary ingredients which were to be proved by the prosecution to appreciate the law on the point of allegations, alleged against the accused persons.
Section 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. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
a). any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 11 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
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.
11. The plain reading of the section shows that whoever being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be held guilty for an offence punishable U/s 498 A IPC and for proving cruelty, the legislative intentions are clarified by way of explanation defining cruelty two fold; one is 'willful conduct' on the part of the accused persons that was likely to drive the woman who commits suicide or cause grave injury or danger to the life or limb and second is of harassment to the woman with a view to cocercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her to meet such demand.
12. For the purposes of the present case, as the case is not connected with any kind of suicide or injury or danger to the life and limb of the complainant, explanation (b) of the section 498 A IPC is applicable, as the complainant has raised allegations regarding harassment caused to her in the hands of the accused in view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demands of dowry.
Thus, for proving and offence punishable U/s 498 A IPC, the prosecution had to establish :
Firstly, that there was an unlawful demand of property or valuable security of dowry;
Secondly, the harassment for non-fulfillment of the same or to coerce the complainant to meet such demand and;
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 12 Thirdly, that the prosecution has to establish the specification of the specific demands and the persons who made such demands and that the demands were unlawful and that the complainant was harassed for non-fulfillment of such demands and/or to coerce her to meet such demands.
13. Now on coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is observed that the allegations were made initially in the form of complaint lodged by one Kehar Das, the father of the two girls Guddi Devi and Pawan Devi and the complaint was made regarding both the daughters of the complainant i.e Guddi and Pawan Devi who were married on same day on 02.12.91, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies with two sons namely Rajbir and Tejbir respectively, who were the sons of the accused Munshi Ram and as per the complaint, it was alleged that at the time of marriage of these two daughters, the complainant Kehar Das had given the dowry items in the marriage of his daughters as per his ability and affordability and the complainant alleged in his complaint that the husbands of his daughters and relatives of their husbands started demanding more dowry after marriage and he has specifically mentioned in his complaint regarding further demand of dowry of two fridge, two scooter and the expenses of teacher training along with two gold rings for husbands of his daughters and he alleged that his daughter Guddi was harassed for bringing more dowry and that in this regard, his daughter Guddi made a complaint to him, being the father. He also alleged that in case of non-bringing of more dowry, she was threatened to be killed.
The complainant also informed by way of complaint Ex.PW-3/A that he tried to settle the matter with the help of relatives and even the village 'panchayat' and also gave an amount of FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 13 Rs.15,000/- cash through one Kamal and got purchased one second hand two wheeler scooter but the girl Guddi was left at her parental home after harassment for dowry.
Thus, the complaint connects the allegations regarding one daughter Guddi of the complainant for causing harassment to her at the hands of her husband and relatives of her husband, for not bringing sufficient dowry and this complaint, resulted in the registration of present FIR bearing No.76/95 for which the accused persons namely Rajbir, the husband, Munshi Ram, the father in law and Chandrawati, the mother in law of the girl Guddi, are facing trial for the offences punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC. It was specifically mentioned that another girl Pawan did not say in her matrimonial home, even for one day.
14. When this complaint made to the police, was compared with the depositions of the complainant Kehar Dass examined as PW- 3, then it was observed that PW-3, the complainant had deposed in the court that after marriage on 02.12.91, his daughter Guddi came back after 10-15 days and complained regarding demand of more dowry by the accused persons but his depositions did not mention anything regarding the complaint made by his daughter Guddi for harassment or cruelty at the hands of accused persons for non- fulfillment of dowry demands. However, this aspect is clearly mentioned in the complaint of the complainant Ex.PW-3/A. Thus, to this extent there are clear 'omissions' in the testimony of this witness on material facts as these facts of beatings/cruelties were reported in his complaint.
Further, it was observed that the complainant in his testimony did not mention anything regarding the threats for killing the FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 14 girl for non-bringing of more dowry, as reported in the complaint and thus, the testimony contains on this vital point of manner of cruelty. The 'omissions' affects the credit of the testimony of the complainant in view of observations made in a case titled as Jaskaran Singh Vs. State cited as 1997 SCC (Crl) 651 (HC), wherein it was observed that :
'When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contractions, exaggerations and improvements, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness' It was observed that regarding the factum of demands of more dowry, the witness has reproduced the narration of his daughter in this regard, when he deposed that she complained that 'all the members of her in-laws family used to make demands of dowry'. Thus, on this aspect, the evidence of this witness comes within the category of 'hear-say' evidence, inadmissible in law, in view of the observations made in a case titled as Sanganna Narasimulu V/s State of Andhra Pradesh cited as 2005 Cr.L.J 4168, wherein it was observed that :
'the evidence of mothers and sisters of the complainant are not direct witnesses of the alleged cruelty (occurrence), their evidence based on their communication with the complainant (deceased) who complained of.....and thus, their statement is a weak piece of evidence as the deponent cannot be subjected to cross examination for such version.....such statement becomes hear-say, hence, inadmissible in evidence'.
15. Further, it is observed that the complainant PW-3 also deposed that during 'panchayat' at Village Sarai, all the three accused persons demanded teacher training expenses, colour T.V, fridge and FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 15 one golden ring but the factum of demands of dowry as mentioned in the testimony of this witness was not specific, with specific date and time and the witness admitted that he did not remember the specific date on which such demand was made and even it was not made clear that who demanded what.
Thus, in the testimony of the complainant, the specific role is not attributed to each accused regarding specific demand of dowry and to this extent, the allegations and versions are found vague in nature as it is a well settled principle of law as settled in a case titled as Dharam Pal V/s State cited as 1997 (3) CC Cases 1 (HC), wherein it was observed that, 'to attract the provision of section 498 A IPC, the allegations made should be specific and not vague..., the provision of law requires that the deceased (complainant) should have been subjected to cruelties and harassment for demands of dowry and not vague and stray taunts for bringing less dowry'.
Thus, these allegations mentioned in the testimony of the complainant are found not specific and vague and thus, are not proved against any of the accused persons.
16. Further, the complainant has deposed in the court that in the month of March 93, he had given a cash of Rs.15,000/- for the purchase of scooter to the accused Munshi Ram in the presence of his son in law Raghubir Singh but in his complaint, Ex.PW-3/A, he has specifically reported that an amount of Rs.15,000/- cash was given to the accused persons through one Kanwal along with second hand two wheeler scooter. Thus, not only the presence of the person was in contradiction as the name of the person present was Kanwal mentioned in the complaint but in his testimony, it was mentioned as FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 16 Raghubir Singh but also the contents of the fulfillment of demand was also not corroborative as in the complaint it was reported that cash of Rs.15,000/- along with second hand scooter was sent through Kanwal whereas in the testimony it was testified that an amount of Rs.15,000/- for the purchase of scooter was given to accused Munshi Ram.
Therefore, these two versions are found distinguishably different making material contradictions impeaching the credit of the testimony of this witness and even on this aspect, when the other ocular evidence of PW-7 Kanwal was appreciated, then, further contradiction was found when PW-7 deposed in the court that Rs.15,000/- was handed over by the complainant Kehar Dass to the accused Munshi Ram in his presence at his residence (residence of the accused). Thus, even the place has been changed as the complainant Kehar Dass (PW-3) has deposed that this cash amount was given in his house i.e the complainant's house and PW-8 Guddi, victim/girl of the complainant in this regard has deposed in the court that it was on 09.04.94, the complaint was lodged against the accused persons at P.S Mukherjee Nagar and before that, her husband i.e. the accused Rajbir has come to H-24, at the parental house where her father had given him Rs.15,000/- for the purchase of a scooter in front of the complainant Kehar Dass.
Thus, it is observed that the complainant Kehar Dass in his complaint has reported the matter for an amount of Rs.15,000/- was sent through Kanwal Singh to the accused persons. In his testimony, he testified that an amount was given to the accused Munshi Ram in the presence of Raghubir Singh at the complainant's house and PW-7 Kanwal , testified in the court that this amount was given to accused Munshi Ram at the house of the accused Munshi Ram and as per deposition of PW-8 Guddi, this amount was given to the accused FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 17 Rajbir in the presence of Kanwal at her parental house i.e at the house of the complainant.
Thus, these versions have contradictions regarding date, month and year. As per PW-3, it was March 93, as per PW-8, it was April 94 and as per PW-7, it was during 'panchayat' that he attended and also the presence of 'Raghubir' was testified by PW-3 in his testimony and the presence of 'Kanwal Singh' was testified in the testimony of PW-7 and PW-8. Even the name of the accused to whom the amount was handed over was changed. As per PW-3 and PW-7, it was accused Munshi Ram and as per PW-8, it was accused Rajbir to whom the amount was paid.
17. Thus, the witnesses are found with material contradictions on this aspect and their versions are found non-corroborative on material points and it is a well settled principle of law that in case of material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case comes within the shadow of doubts and their testimony do not inspire confidence about the prosecution story.
The reliance is placed on Jandel Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003 (4) JT 558, wherein it was observed that :
"if vital improvements and contradictions are found in the testimony of the witnesses without any satisfactory explanation, thereby, the testimony of PWs- do not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon."
Thus, these three witnesses on this point are found not worthy as the credit of their testimony is impeached.
18. On appreciation of evidence on record, it was further FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 18 observed that from the evidence on record, the victim/girl Guddi has never reported or testified during trial that 'any dowry demand regarding the alleged cash of Rs.15,000/- for the purchase of scooter' was made by any of the accused persons to her and even there is no evidence on record that the girl Guddi was harassed for such dowry demands at the hands of the accused persons at any point of time.
It is a well settled principle of law that for attracting the provisions of section 498 A IPC, there should be specific demand of dowry from the accused persons to the complainant and mal- treatment or cruelty in consequence of non-fulfillment of such demand of dowry and that such demand of dowry, should be an unlawful demand, as discussed as above.
19. Further, it is observed that the direct evidence of the victim Guddi for whom the complaint was made, is produced by way of her testimony, when she was examined as PW-8 and she has deposed in the court that for about one month, after her marriage, the behaviour of her in-laws was proper but thereafter they started beating her saying that she has brought insufficient dowry and that all the accused persons started demanding more dowry. Thus, it was clear that for one month of her marriage, there was no demand or cruelty in consequence of demand, this fact is in contradiction to the complainant examined as PW-3.
Moreover, in her testimony, she has not given any specific event with any specific date attributing any specific role to any of the accused persons either for cruelty and harassment for demands of dowry or for making of more demands of dowry and to this extent, her allegations are found non-specific and vague, when she has testified that 'they started beating me and all the accused persons started FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 19 demanding dowry and 'somebody' used to say that she should bring colour TV and the 'accused persons' used to say that she should bring expenses for teacher training and that the 'accused persons' started beating her on 'various occasions'.
20. Thus, all these depositions mentioned above made by the bride Guddi are containing the allegations non-specific, vague without attributing any specific role of any of the accused and even without mentioning any specific items for further demands of dowry, made by any of the accused persons with specification and it is a well settled principle of law settled in various authorities, mentioned below :
i). Suresh Kumar & Ors. V/s State of Haryana cited as RCR 1989 (2) 73, wherein it was observed that :
'for attracting the provision punishable U/s 498 A IPC, if the allegations of cruelty are of general nature and no date, time or manner of mal-treatment is given, then the allegations cannot be treated as proved against any of the accused persons.
ii). Krishan Lal & Ors V/s State of Haryana cited as 1990 (3) RCR 183 wherein it was observed that :
'the allegations of torture of general nature, no time, date and manner of mal-treatment given..., then circumstances reflects adversely on the vague allegations, regarding mal-treatment.'
iii). Hukami Devi and Ors. V/s State of Haryana 1992 (1) RCR 357, wherein it was observed that, FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 20 'to establish an offence punishable U/s 498 A IPC, the allegations have to be specific against each and every accused and general allegations of cruelty in terms of section 498 A IPC have been depricated and that the time, date or manner of torturous actions not mentioned in the complaint, the allegations were found vague, thus, the allegations of wife for cruelty not proved.'
iv). Dr. V.N Sharma & Ors. Vs. State in a case cited as 1995 JCC 558, wherein it was observed that :
'the story regarding the allegations against all the accused persons appear to be highly improbable and un-acceptable and keeping in view the allegations, that the allegations give rise to a suspicion, the probabilities and likelihood of willful conduct but do not prove beyond reasonable doubt with specifications regarding the reactions specifically of the individual accused on non- fulfillment of a particular demand and under these circumstances, the cruelty against the individual accused is not being attributed to any of the accused persons on the basis of allegations made, during description of the events by the complainant.'
21. Further, it is observed that the bride Guddi regarding whom the complaints for mal-treatment were made, resulting in recording of FIR of the present case, has nowhere deposed in the court that she was subjected to cruelties for non-bringing of sufficient dowry. She has categorically admitted that she had stayed in her matrimonial house only for a period of one year in totality but basically resided in her matrimonial house for about 15 days or a month at one go and during her stay at the matrimonial home, her husband/accused Rajbir was working in Kurukshetra (Haryana) at a distant place from her matrimonial home and used to visit only at weekends as she has never joined her husband, at his work place at any point of time and FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 21 the witness Guddi (PW-8) has nowhere testified that she was subjected to cruelties by the accused Rajbir, during his stay at her matrimonial home on weekends. Even, she has not testified in the Court that her father in law and mother in law had subjected her to cruelties at any particular point of time or for a particular demand of dowry.
This witness was cross-examined by the State as she did not support the statement given by her to the police U/s 162 Cr.P.C and when she was cross examined by the State, she was put to statement recorded U/s 162 Cr.P.C, for the purpose of corroboration of the prosecution case and it is a well settled principle of law settled in a case titled Sat Paul V/s Delhi Administration cited as AIR 1976 SC 294, wherein it was observed that :
'section 162 Cr.P.C absolutely bars the use of statements of witnesses made before the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of prosecution witnesses for the purpose of attracting section 157 of the Evidence Act and they cannot be used for corroboration of prosecution witnesses.' Similarly, it was observed in a case tilted as M. Srinivasulu Reddy V/s State cited as 1992 (1) Crimes 1130 Andhara Pradesh, that :
'the statements made to the police cannot be used for corroboration of the evidence of a witness in the court.'
22. In this case, it is observed that PW-8 Guddi who was the direct evidence of the prosecution for proving the allegations against the accused persons, did not support the prosecution case regarding the aspect of cruelties at the hands of accused persons or regarding threats to kill her, during her subsistence of marriage in the FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 22 matrimonial house and these facts were put to the witness in the manner of cross examination by the State and for the purposes of corroboration of the facts stated by this witness before the police under her statement U/s 162 Cr.P.C and they were in the form of suggestions without any support from any independent witness on these aspects and mere admissions to such suggestions without production of such facts in her examination in chief, is clearly impeaching, the credit of her version by the statement made to the police and the witness cannot be treated as trustworthy, the worth and credit of her testimony is clearly impeached, particularly when her statement was not put to her by exhibiting it in the Court as document, for its specific portion, that is mandate, as observed in the above cited cases.
23. Thus, it is observed that in the evidence of PWs-3,7 and 8, there were found number of omissions/contradictions and such omissions/contradictions make their versions inconsistent regarding ill- treatment and their testimony was found repleat with contradictions and somewhere findings were based on surmises and conjectures and difficult to place reliance on the statements of such interested witnesses whose evidence was not withstood the test of cross examination.
Also, the evidence on record clearly shows that there was no specific demand of dowry, leading to a specific mode of harassment/cruelty to be substantiated for the allegations against the accused.
For this, the reliance is placed on the observations made in Bansias case cited as 1996 Cr.L.J 1393 Rajasthan and Javed's case cited as 1995 Cr.L.J 3451 Calcutta.
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 23
24. Thus, the allegations regarding the offence punishable U/s 498 A IPC against any of the accused persons could not be made out beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence on record, produced by the prosecution during trial.
25. Now coming to the allegations regarding the offence punishable U/s 406 IPC against the accused persons. For this offence, the prosecution had to prove the following basic ingredients :
i). that the dowry items were entrusted upon the accused by the complainant;
ii). the same were demanded;
iii). the same were not returned back on demand.
26. It was observed that from the ocular evidence of witnesses produced by the prosecution, it was proved that certain dowry items jointly were given at the time of marriage of Guddi and Pawan, the two daughters of the complainant and it has also come in evidence that the dowry articles were handed over in the matrimonial home occupied by the accused persons including other occupants of the house but there is no evidence produced during trial to specifically mention that what articles were specifically entrusted by Guddi upon a particular accused at particular point of time.
Thus, for the factum of entrustment of the dowry articles, by Guddi, the prosecution case is within doubts.
Further, PW-8 Guddi has deposed in the Court that 'she has taken all the dowry articles to her matrimonial home and the articles of dowry were entrusted to her husband and the persons who had accompanied him in the baraat.' To this extent, the entrustment is FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 24 absolutely vague, without any specification and specific attribution as to who was entrusted upon the dowry articles of the bride Guddi, after marriage.
27. Further, PW-8 has nowhere testified in the Court that she has ever asked her dowry items to return back to her at any point of time, during the subsistence of her marriage and that the same were refused by any of the accused persons on such demand and it is a well settled principle of law that for attracting an offence punishable Us/ 406 IPC, the allegations regarding entrustment and refusal have to be specific against each and every accused and general allegations of entrustment, refusal to return the dowry articles, are not sufficient to prove the offence.
The reliance is placed on a case titled as Hukami Devi and Ors. V/s State of Haryana 1992 (1) RCR 357, wherein it was observed that, 'to establish an offence punishable U/s 498 A/406 IPC, the allegations have to be specific against each and every accused and general allegations of entrustment and that the time, date or manner of torturous actions not mentioned and the allegations were found vague, thus, the allegations of wife for cruelty not proved.'
28. It is further observed that PW-3 has categorically testified in the court that 'she has not demanded back her articles of stri-dhan from the accused.' Thus, only the possession of dowry articles with the accused persons and recovery of dowry articles during investigation from the possession of the accused persons itself cannot prove the offence punishable U/s 406 IPC as to presume specific entrustment alongwith demand of return of such articles and specific refusal of return of such articles by the accused persons, also FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 25 nowhere in the evidence placed by the prosecution during trial, it could have been proved with specification as to whether any dowry items were ever demanded by the bride Guddi from any of the accused persons after entrustment of the same to anyone of them and that the same were refused to her.
For these observations, the reliance is placed on a case titled as Harbans Lal & Ors. V/s Rama Rani cited as I (1992) CCR 964 Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein it was observed that :
'the absence of any specific allegations regarding entrustment to a particular person or parents in law cannot be arrayed as an accused in such proceedings.'
29. Further, regarding vague allegations of entrustment to all including her husband and 'baraati', mis-appropriation or conversion of such items for their use, does not arise, as was observed in a case titled as Anu Gill V/s State and Ors cited as 2001 (2) JCC Delhi 86, wherein it was observed that :
'to constitute an offence punishable U/s 406 IPC, there must be clear and specific allegations that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by the complainant and that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that the accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant.' Thus, even the allegations U/s 406 IPC are not proved against any of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of record placed with the file.
30. Further, it is observed that the complaint was lodged by the complainant on 13.01.95, the FIR was registered on 02.04.95, after a delay of 3 months, the delay was found unexplained and is FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 26 fatal, making the story of the complainant an afterthought, affecting the prosecution case, making the case of the prosecution doubtful.
The reliance is placed on an authority titled Ran Singh Vs. State of Rajashtan cited as 1999 Cr.L.J 2089 (Rajasthan High Court), wherein it was observed that:
"The delay in FIR not explained in such a case, is definitely fatal to prosecution on re-appreciation of evidence, it is found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case".
Also on the observations made in 1999 Cr.L.J 2368 Kollam Brahamand Reddy Vs. A.P wherein it was observed that:
"the delay in lodging of FIR not satisfactory explained..., infirmities in the FIR..., contradictions in the ocular evidence of the witnesses makes the prosecution case doubtful".
31. So far as, the other contentions of the Ld. Defence counsel regarding the jurisdiction is concerned, the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint was the resident of Delhi, as per his residential address. Thus, the said contention is not tenable however it has not affected the result of the prosecution case as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against any of the accused persons for any of the offences punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC.
32. So far as, the other authorities on law points discussed at the time of final submissions by the Ld. Defence counsel are concerned, it is observed that the facts of such cases were reasonably and distinguishably different from the present case and thus, the reliance is not placed on such observations.
FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK 27
33. The contention of the State through Ld. APP that the bride Guddi could not produce the complete version of her allegations due to lapse of her memory for 13 years is not tenable as the testimony given by the victim is specific with dates of particular events and cannot be treated as lapse of memory that could have effected her for making her version in the Court different from that she made before the police, and for the omissions made by her.
34. Thus, it is observed that on appraisal of law on the point of allegations against the accused persons, on appreciation of evidence on record in the light of rival contentions of both the parties that the prosecution could not prove any of the material ingredients necessary to prove either offence punishable U/s 498 A or 406 IPC, against any of the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution story was found full of doubts, unexplained.
Thus, the court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against any of the accused persons for any of the offences punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC, beyond reasonable doubts.
35. Therefore, on the basis of principles of criminal justice system, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons and the accused Munshi Ram, Chandrawati and Rajbir are accordingly acquitted from the charges levied against them.
File be consigned to R/Room.
Announced in the open court On 15th Day of November, 2007 (DR. ARCHANA SINHA) Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 76/95 St. V/s Munshi Ram Etc. JK