Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar & Ors. on 10 April, 2012
State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS VANDANA JAIN, M.M., MAHILA COURT (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR NO.: 73/95
P.S.: VIVEK VIHAR
U/Sec. 498-A/406/34 IPC
STATE VS. RAJ KUMAR
ID No. R0134962003
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of commission of : 1993 to 21.01.1994 offence
2. Name of complainant : Smt. Shobha W/o Shri Ajay Kr. Aggarwal D/o Shri Ramavtar R/o 29 Dayanand Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-92
3. Name of the accused, his : i) Raj Kumar, parentage and address S/o Shri Sita Ram R/o Gali Shehdev, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara Delhi.
ii) Ajay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Pd.
R/o 612/2N, Shastri Gali, Shahdara, Delhi
iii) Deepak Raj S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Pd.
R/o 612/2N, Shastri Gali, Shahdara, Delhi
iv) Kavita Devi, W/o Sh. Deepak Raj R/o 612/2N, Shastri Gali, Shahdara, Delhi
v) Geeta Devi (deceased), W/o Late Shri Jagdish Pd.
R/o 612/2N, Shastri Gali, Shahdara, Delhi
vi) Shashi W/o Shri Raj Kumar R/o 570/612/1, Gali Shahdev, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi
vii) Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Rajender Pd.
R/o Mithai Ki Dukan, Pakka Bag, Hapur, Distt.
Ghaziabad UP
viii) Sanjay Goel, S/o Shri Prakash Chand, R/o 341/1C, Gali No. 2, 1 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Shalimar Park Extn., Shahdara, Delhi
ix) Chanchal W/o Shri Sanjay Goel, R/o 341/1C, Gali No. 2, Shalimar Park Extn., Shahdara, Delhi
x) Santosh W/o Shri Shiv Shankar R/o 4/2980, Gali No. 4, Shalimar Park Extn., Shahdara, Delhi
xi) Manju W/o Shri Shyam Gupta R/o 418, Teliwada, Shahdara, Delhi
xii) Shyam Gupta, S/o Shri Shiv Shankar R/o 418, Teliwada, Shahdara, Delhi
4.Offence complained of : u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC
5. The date of order : 10.04.2012
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. The final order : Acquitted Reserved for judgment : 28.03.2012 Date of judgment : 10.04.2012 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present complaint which has culminated into the present FIR, the allegations are that the accused Ajay Kumar was married to complainant on 09.2.1992 and during her stay she was harassed for demand of dowry by husband and in laws. It is further alleged that all the family members have demanded Rs.
50,000/- and they also sold her jewellery. It is further stated that on 20.01.1994 at about 05:00 pm, when the complainant was in her matrimonial house, all the family members sent her youngest sister in law to her and she started quarreling with her 2 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
and demanded fridge and TV and stated that she had come to take away TV and fridge which had been given by the complainant's parents at the time of marriage and she also gave beatings to the complainant. Thereafter, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home only in wearing clothes and all the istridhan articles were lying in the matrimonial home. Pursuant to this complaint, her statement u/s 161 Cr. PC. was also recorded and was also made a complaint was also made to the CAW Cell. FIR was registered pursuant to the complaint.
2. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet before this court upon which the cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned. Vide order dated 26.04.2011 charge for the offence punishable u/s 498-A/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons whereas charge for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC was framed against accused Ajay Kumar, Deepak Raj and Kavita Devi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution cited as many as 9 witnesses out of which complainant Shobha, Smt. Renu Goel (sister of complainant), Inspector Alka, WHC Sunita Singh Shri Pitamber Dutt were examined as PW1 to PW4 respectively.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC. were recorded separately wherein, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused separately but the same was denied by them as wrong and incorrect and stated that they were falsely roped in this case 3 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
with ulterior motive by the complainant and her family members in a planned manner. It is further stated that complainant was unwilling to reside in joint family system, in fact old seriously ill mother was residing with accused Ajay and the complainant wanted that husband should leave his mother and reside separately from her and this condition was not acceptable to husband and she created the schemes and collected false and fabricated evidence with a view to involve them in this case and even she got abortion intentionally against the medical advice and finally left the matrimonial home after creating scene. Neither they treated her with cruelty on account of demand of any dowry articles or cash amount nor they criminally misappropriated the istridhan articles.
5. Let us now advert to the testimony of the witnesses examined in this case. PW Inspector Alka Azad and WHC Sunita Singh are the formal witnesses who proved on record FIR.
6. Thereafter final arguments were heard from both sides.
7. PW1 Smt. Shobha (complainant) in her examination in chief deposed that she was got married on 09.2.1992 with the accused Ajay Kumar as per Hindu Customs and Rites. She further deposed that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given 21 sarees for brides and 21 sarees for relatives, one gold set consisting neck-lace, ear rings and ring, one chain pendent set, one gold mangal sutra, one gold nath, one pair of gold jhumki, one gold ring and one gold chain for bridegroom, five paris of silver bichaus, two pair silver pajeb, one pair silver 4 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
payal, one silver set, four bed sheets, bed covers etc., Rs. 30,000/- cash for furniture, 51000/- cash in tika ceremony and many other items as per the list Ex. PW1/A which had been given by her in the CAW Cell. She further deposed that at the time of her marriage, her in laws had given her one pair of gold kangan, one gold ring, 4 sarees and some gifts, one shawl, makeup box. She further deposed that all the dowry articles were handed over to her nandoi Mr. Raj Kumar along with nandoi Mr. Shyam. She further deposed that all the dowry articles were brought to Delhi to her matrimonial home in bus in which barat had come. She further deposed that along with her, her mother in law (Geeta Devi, now expired) unmarried nanad (Chanchal) used to reside with her and her husband. She further deposed that other four nanads Pushpa, Shashi, Manju and Santosh all used to reside at Shahdara and they used to come in the morning and go back during night. She further deposed that her Jethani used to reside in neighbourhood. She further deposed that initially she was not on visiting terms to her matrimonial when her marriage took place but they had attended the marriage and thereafter slowly they started visiting her matrimonial home. She further deposed that when she asked her sister in law about bathroom, thereupon her nanad Chanchal started laughing and said 'Tere Baap Ne Jo Kamot Diya Hai Usme Kar De". She further deposed that her sisters in law and mother in law taunted for the sarees which she had brought for relatives and said that these types of sarees were not even worn by the maids. She further deposed 5 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
that after 10/15 days, gold ring of her husband which had been given by her parents at the time of marriage was lost and her mother in law blamed her for theft of that ring and tussle took place on this issue for long time. She further deposed that after about two months of marriage, her sister in law Chanchal, Santosh had told her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parental home as they had to pay to other people. She further deposed that nanad Chanchal was unmarried at that time and used to remain in house for whole day. She further deposed that she (nanad Chanchal) was the main person to harass her on this issue and along with her other sister in law whosoever used to be present at that time used to accompany her and they also used to give her beatings for demand of Rs. 80,000/-. At that stage, she clarified that during her testimony she had deposed that they demanded sum of Rs. 80,000/- and not 50,000/-. She further deposed that when she used to object to his demand initially her sister in law said that her husband had to install machines for cutting sanitary pipes. She further deposed that when she refused then her nandoi Raj Kumar, sister in law Chanchal, daughter of Shashi had taken her to Dehradun (at her parental home) in May 1992. She further deposed that her brother in law had told her and her parents in Dehradun that only if money is brought, she will return to her matrimonial home otherwise not. She further deposed that her father had requested that he is not capable of giving this sum and in anger, all the three left her in her parents house and came back to 6 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Delhi. She further deposed that about 10/15 days, her husband Ajay had come to her parents house and told that her mother in law was unwell and she was taken back and thereafter again she was harassed and maltreated in her matrimonial home. She further deposed that whenever her sisters in law used to come, they used to quarrel with her. She further deposed that her mother in law used to say, "Hamara Croro Ka Hira Tha Aur Kaudio Ke Bhav Loot Gaya" and she was continuously harassed in her matrimonial home. On 13.4.1993, marriage of her sister in law Chanchal was to be performed, her mother in law told her in the presence of Jeth Deepak, nanad Chanchal, Shashi, Pushpa Manju that they they need money for dowry in the marriage of Chanchal. She further deposed that after about 10/15 days of her marriage, her mother in law had taken all the jewellery which had been given from the side of her parents as well as their side except gold kundle, nose pin, one gold chain which she used to wear. She further deposed that she had taken that jewellery on the pretext that they had to repay money to people and if she wore jewellery they will demand money from them. She further deposed that out of her jewellery one gold set had been given to her sister in law Chanchal in her marriage and her other articles were also adjusted. It is further deposed that after about 2/3 days of marriage of Chanchal, Jeth Deepak came under the influence of liquor when she had gone to touch feet to take blessings of her mother in law, she kicked her and said that, "Jo Hum Kehte Hai Wo Tu Karti Nahi Hai, Pao Chhune Se Kya 7 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Faida" and she fell down on the cooler. She further deposed that at that time, she was pregnant and she became ill and nobody from her matrimonial home provided her medical aid. She further deposed that her sister had come to her matrimonial home along with her brother as they had to go back after attending marriage of her sister in law they saw her condition and told accused Ajay to take her to doctor but he refused. She further deposed that her mother had also come and thereafter she was taken to doctor by her mother along with accused Ajay in Dr. Naresh's Clinic where ultra sound was done thereupon doctors advised abortion. She further deposed that she was shown to other doctor as accused Ajay said that he did not have faith on this doctor and took her to Dr.Garg and one other doctor where again ultrasound was done and the report was same. She further deposed that her mother in law did not pay attention on this and she became seriously ill and her condition started deteriorating. She further deposed that nobody cared for her in her matrimonial home and after about a week she was taken to Dehradoon by her mother and she remained for about six months in her parents house but none from the side of the accused came to see her. She further deposed that after six month accused Ajay had come to her parents house and told that the thigh bone of her mother in law had been fractured and he wanted to take her back her parents told him that when she was brought to her parents home, there was no hope of her surviving and if now it is promised that she would be kept 8 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
properly in her matrimonial home, they would send her with him otherwise not.
8. She further deposed that abortion was got done in the month of May when she was residing in her parental house, in 1993 as doctor has advised so due to poison being spread all over her body. It is further submitted that for about 10/15 days it remained well in her matrimonial home after she rejoined and thereafter again the same behaviour and maltreatment was done to her by accused Pushpa, Manju, Chanchal, Geeta (mother in law) and in the back of all this Kavita was there along with nanad Santosh. She further deposed that in the month of January,1994, her nanad Chanchal had come from her matrimonial house and she started taking T.V. and refrigerator which were lying in her matrimonial home and she objected to it as that T.V. and refrigerator had been brought out of the money which had been given by her parents at the time of engagement/marriage for furniture when she objected to it her nanad Chanchal asked her to bring another TV and refrigerator from her parents house and Rs. 50,000/- also and nanad Chanchal quarreled with her on this issue. She further deposed that she went to her room and bolted the room from inside and this incident is dated 20.1.1994 and the next day on 21.4.1994, she was alone in her matrimonial home, nanad Chanchal came there, her matrimonial home was in Shahdara only and she used to come daily in the morning and used to go back in evening and again she demanded Rs. 50,000/- and fridge and TV and when 9 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
she objected to it thereupon she said, "Main Tujhe Cheer Dalungi" and she pushed her on diwan which was lying in the room of her mother in law and sat on her. She further deposed that her mother in law was not in the house at that time she tried to strangulate her and she somehow rescued herself with great difficulty. She further deposed that she tried to dial at 100 number but Chanchal pulled her from her hairs and she could not dial and in the meanwhile when she was giving her beatings, her nandoi, Sanjay (husband of Chanchal), mother in law Geeta came to him and Sanjay also started giving her beatings and in the meanwhile accused Ajay came there and her mother in law thereafter tried to stop accused Sanjay and Chanchal as she was apprehended of police case. She further deposed that she had sustained injury in her tooth and they were bleeding and her eye had swallowed and her sister advised accused Ajay to take her to doctor. She further deposed that accused refused to accompany her sister to Dayanand Vihar whereupon she told her sister to go back and her sister left and thereafter she was taken to doctor by her husband. She further deposed that during night at about 10 pm, all five brothers in law (nandoi), all five sisters in law (nanads) had come to her matrimonial home and two nandoi Rajender and Shiv had gone back but others remained there. She further deposed that her jeth and jethani had also came in the meanwhile and they all discussed about the incident of evening. She further deposed that as all of them were apprehended of police case, Shyam her nandoi told that if she 10 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
agreed to their saying, "Saap Bhi Mar Jayega Aur Lathi Bhi Nahin Tutegi". She further deposed that they told Ajay to live separately with her after taking her in confidence. She further deposed that accused Shyam further told him (husband), "Tune Use Apne Confidence Main Lena Hai Ki Baad Mai Tu Use Hame Saup De". She further deposed that accused Shyam present in the court had further told, "Yeh Ijjat Ke liye Hi To Itna Marti Sheti Hai, Hum Ijjat Hi Nahin Chhodenge, To Apne Aap Suicide Kar Legi". She further deposed that at that time, she was in kitchen and the room of her mother in law where in all the accused were sitting was just adjoining to the kitchen therefore, she could hear all the talks of accused persons done in the room of her mother in law. She further deposed that she was so afraid, she rushed to her room and she bolted the door of her room from inside and she put the stool etc. before the door and somehow she spent that night. She further deposed that on the next day in the morning her chacha chachi who used to reside in Vishwas Nagar had come to her matrimonial home as her sister had telephoned them and thereafter, they brought her to Vishwas Nagar. She further deposed that thereafter, she came to Dayanand Vihar to her sister's place. She further deposed that her parents had also come from Dehardoon as they had been called by her sister and since then she never went back to her matrimonial home. She further deposed that at the time when she had come along with her chacha chachi, she had not brought any of her article with her and had come in wearing suit and thereafter, she had lodged 11 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
complaint with CAW Cell. She further deposed that none of her istridhan articles have been returned in CAW Cell and only some certificates pertaining to her educational qualification were returned in CAW Cell and those were also not complete. She further deposed that she had gone with police to her matrimonial home thereupon partly istridhan were recovered by police and she had taken on superdarinama which had been seized by police from her matrimonial home vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. She further deposed that these articles had been taken by her on superdari by order of Hon'ble Court which she had produced in the court. Thereafter, the examination in chief of the complainant was deferred for want of documents. On 06.6.2002, examination in chief of complainant Shobha was further recorded wherein she has deposed that she had produced the remaining case property which was taken by her on superdari as per order of Hon'ble Court. She further deposed that the statement given by her before CAW Cell is in her handwriting which consists of three pages is Ex. PW1/F and partially her istridhan was recovered from the house of Deepak Aggarwal i.e. Jeth in the month of February, 1995 however, she cannot tell the date exactly. She further deposed that at that time her brother, her jija, sister had also accompanied her with the police and seizure memo of those articles is Ex. PW1/G. She also produced the original documents of photocopies of which had already been filed by her on record. The original receipts of jewellery issued by Darbar jewellers, Dehradoon dated 06.1.1992 and 13.01.1992 12 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Ex. PW1/H and PW1/I respectively, four original letters written by the complainant to her parents/sister in law Ex. PW1/j (undated) and Ex. PW1/K (undated), Ex. PW1/L and Ex. PW1/M dated 20.01.1994. She further stated that all the letters are in her handwriting and one letter was written by her and her husband jointly to her parents Ex. PW1/N (undated), one another letter written by her husband to her during her stay in her parental home, probably in the year 1993 Ex. PW1/O. She further deposed that her complete istridhan articles have not been recovered till date and still one necklace, i.e. gold set, one chain set, one mangalsutra, one pair of jhumki gold, nath, 21 sarees given by her parents remains to be recovered. She further deposed that one silver set, two pair pazeb, one pair payal, five pair of bichchua given from parents side have not been recovered and these articles are lying in the possession of her mother in law. She further deposed that these articles were taken by her mother in law from her after some days of marriage and apart from these, bed cover, bed sheets, certain other items which were purchased after the marriage and certain articles which were given by her parents after marriage remain with accused persons. She further deposed that one pair of gold kangan, one gold ring, one pair of silver pazeb, which were given to her from the side of in laws are lying with her mother in law and these jewellery was also taken by her mother in law along with jewellery given by her parents after some days of marriage.
9. Witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel and 13 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
during the cross-examination, she stated that the marriage was mediated by her nandoi Raj Kumar. She further stated that in fact her sister Smt. Uma was residing in the neighbourhood of accused Raj Kumar's brother and she had introduced Raj Kumar to her parents and after that the marriage proposal was proceeded in the matter. She further stated that after her marriage she had gone to her matrimonial home in a joint family and there was a common kitchen. She denied the suggestion that she was having allergy and due to this, she was not able to cook meals. She further stated that it was a rented house and she remained in the said house since February to November 1992 and she had written about two letters to her parents in between February and November 1992. She Further stated that she remained at the matrimonial home till 21.01.1994 and she had written letter Ex. PW1/L, PW1/M on 20.1.1994. She further stated that both the letters contain postal remarks dated 22.01.1994. She denied the suggestion that both the letters were written when she left the matrimonial home and was residing with her elder sister and jija with a view to make some sort of evidence against her husband and his family members. She admitted that letters Ex. PW1/J and K do not bear the date, month and year and postal stamp is not legible on them. She further admitted that letter Ex. PW1/N does not contain any allegation of 'marpeet'. She denied the suggestion that her husband Ajay used to live separately from his mother. She further admitted that her husband had requested her to join his 14 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
company as per the letter. She further stated that immediately after the first day of her marriage, she was tortured by her husband and in laws on account of dowry demands and after few days they started demanding Rs. 80,000/- from her to bring the same from her parents. She further stated that at that time Smt. Chanchal and Smt. Santosh made the said demand of Rs. 80,000/- and said demand continued for a period of one year. She further stated that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was taken by her from her parents and given to accused Ajay for installing machine in his factory at Kanti Nagar and said factory was used for purpose of giving shapes to sanitary pipes. She further stated that she is not aware as to how her parents had arranged the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- and said amount was given in Dehradoon. She further stated that she cannot tell the date, month and year when the said amount was paid to her husband Ajay Kumar. She further stated that she has not disclosed the facts to anyone during the investigation of the case or any of the complaint made by her. She admitted the fact that she had stated about this fact of payment of Rs. 80,000/- before her statement made to CAW Cell and initially the demand was of Rs. 80,000/- and when she had given Rs. 40,000/-, all the accused started demand Rs. 50000/- and demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by her sister Chanchal. She further stated that this demand continued till 21.01.1994 whereas, her sister in law Chanchal was married on 30.4.1993 and demand continued even after her marriage as she used to come to the matrimonial home 15 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
of the complainant and raised demand. She further stated that accused Chanchal wanted to take TV and refrigerator which were given to her by her parents in dowry and when she objected to this, she raised demand of Rs. 50,000/- to take new articles. She further stated that when she reached matrimonial home after the marriage on first day, TV and fridge was in the house of her in laws. She further stated that later on one more refrigerator and other articles were purchased from the money given by her parents in the marriage. She further admitted that TV was not purchased after her marriage. She further admitted that refrigerator was not seized by the police at the time of recovery in her presence. She further stated that accused Chanchal and Raj Kumar demanded the cash amount from her parents while visiting Dehradoon and only then she disclosed this fact regarding their demand of cash amount to her parents. She further stated that her parents had not given any amount at that point of time. Complainant was confronted with her statement wherein, she had not mentioned that dowry articles were handed over to her Nandoi Raj Kumar and Shyam and they were brought to Delhi in the bus in which barat had come. She was further confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/F. She further stated that he has not mentioned that along with her mother in law Geeta Devi, unmarried nanad, Chanchal used to reside with her and her husband and other four nanads Pushpa, Shashi, Manju and Santosh used to reside in Shahara and they used to come in the morning and go back during night. She further stated that she 16 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
had stated this fact to the police in her statement but she was again confronted with statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. Ex. PW1/DA, PW1/DB and PW1/DC wherein it was also not found to be recorded. She further admitted that her nanad Santosh is a school teacher. However, she stated that she used to come back to the matrimonial home as she used to leave her daughter in the morning at the matrimonial house of the complainant. She further stated that she is not aware of the fact where the respective husbands of all the nanads were taking meal in the absence of their wives. She further stated that all the sisters in law were having children. She further denied the suggestion that her husband was working as a tutor and that was his source of income. She was confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/F, PW1/E, PW1/DA, PW1/DB and PW1/DC wherein it was not so recorded. She further stated that she does not remember whether she has stated in her complaint to CAW Cell or in her statement at CAW Cell or in her supplementary statement made to police that her jethani used to reside in neighbourhood and initially she was not on visiting terms to her matrimonial home, when her marriage took place but they had attended marriage and thereafter slowly they started visited her matrimonial home. She was confronted with Ex. PW1/F, E, DA, DB and DC where it was not so recorded.
10. She was again cross-examined on 03.7.2003 wherein, she has further stated that in her complaint dated 21.01.1994 Ex. PW1/E and in her statement made in CAW Cell Ex. PW1/F that in 17 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
May, 1992 her Nandoi Raj Kumar, sister in law, Chanchal had taken her Dehradoon and said that only if demand if fulfilled they will take to her matrimonial home otherwise not. She was further confronted with the all the facts stated in her examination in chief which was not recorded in Ex. PW1/F, PW1/F, PW1/DA, PW1/DB andPW1/DC. She further stated that gold jewellery and silver jewellery which were given by her parents in her marriage was got prepared from Darbar Jewellers and some of the jewellery by her mother out of her own jewellery. She denied the suggestion the bills produced by her were bogus and procured later on. She further admitted that her mother in law had expired. She further admitted that Ex. PW1/J which was written by her husband is in his own handwriting and no demand was raised and she was asked to join again. She denied the suggestion that the husband as well as the in laws never made any demand as alleged in examination in chief. She further stated that she did not want to live in the joint family and wanted her husband to live separately as she was not doing the domestic work due to allergy in her hands. She further admitted that accused Deepak Raj and his wife used to live in a separate portion and used to maintain separate kitchen.
11. PW2 WHC Sunita Singh is the duty officer proved on the FRI Ex. PW3/A.
12. PW3 Renu Goel is the sister of the complainant and stated that complainant was married to accused Ajay and at the time of marriage her parents spent on the demand of the in laws 18 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
of her sister much beyond their capacity and after 10-15 days of marriage, her mother in law Geeta Devi leveled false allegations of stealing the gold ring of accused Ajay Aggarwal which was gifted to him at the time of marriage by their parents and complainant narrated the whole incident to her and also told that her sisters in law Pushpa, Manju, Santosh, Chanchal and Shashi and mother in law had beaten her mercilessly. She further stated that in her presence also the sisters in law and mother in law passed sarcastic remarks and taunted her sister as well as her for bringing less dowry. She further stated that after around 1½ month of her sister's marriage, her nandoies Shyam Sunder, Raj Kumar, Geeta Devi along with accused Ajay demanded Rs. 80,000/- from her sister for discharging their debts and when she refused to ask their parents to fulfill this demand, they dropped her to Dehradoon and at that time, she was also present at Dehradoon with her parents. She further stated that her sister had many marks of injury on her person when she was brought to Dehardoon. She further stated that after 10-12 days of the incident, accused Chanchal (nanad) and Raj Kumar (nandoi) came to Dehradoon to pick the complainant. She further stated that in March, 1993, the complainant was unwell and one gynae was consulted to confirm her pregnancy and other doctors were also consulted who advised her complete bed rest. She further stated that in April, 1993, the marriage of the accused Chanchal was scheduled to be held and the in laws of her sister demanded a cash of Rs. 50,000/-, a TV and fridge for gifting the 19 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
same to their daughter and when the complainant denied the same, accused Deepak (jeth), Geeta Devi (mother in law), Ajay (husband) and all nanads Chanchal, Manju,Santosh, Shashi and Pushpa have given beatings mercilessly and after that her condition deteriorated. She further deposed that on 07.5.1993, her mother came from from Dehradoon and on the same day, she (witness) with her mother took her sister (complainant) to doctor wherein, the doctors stated that foetus 13 weeks had died in womb and immediately medical termination of pregnancy was needed and therefore, abortion was conducted and thereafter she underwent treatment for many months and again in September, 1993 she was brought back to her matrimonial house and in January, 1994 her sisters in law, jethani Kavita, nandoi Sanjay, Raj Kumar, Shyam Sunder and nanad Chanchal demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her sister to get the same from her parents so that accused Ajay could start his own business and on her refusal she was beaten up mercilessly and complainant called her and she (witness) immediately reached there and her nandoi said "Hum Esko Mombati Sey Jalakar Mar Denge" and Chanchal said "Mai Iski Tangey Cheer Dungi" and nandoi Shyam Sunder said "Esko Bhee Aisa Kar Dalo Kee Yah Apne Ghar Bhee Na Ja Paye". Thereafter , she came back to her house and called up her Chacha jee, Dr. Ashok Gupta and narrated him the whole incident and he reached her sister's (complainant)house and on his instance the in laws of her sister took her to doctor and on the next day her Chacha jee picked her sister from her 20 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
matrimonial home and dropped complainant at her place.
13. She was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel wherein, she stated that her sister remained in the matrimonial home till January, 1994. She further stated that in the relevant time of 1994, all the sisters in law of her sister Sobha were married and were living separately with their family. She further stated that accused Pushpa Devi (nanad) is residing somewhere in Bulandshehar, UP and further expressed her inability to state anything regarding the employment of sister in law of complainant. She further stated that whenever she had gone to the matrimonial home of the complainant, all the five nanads of the complainant were mostly available there. She further stated that she was called for the first time by the complainant when her mother in law suspected her of stealing the gold ring of husband Ajay and on second time when she was in Dehradoon and complainant again met her there and told her of the demand of Rs. 80000/- raised by her in laws and then in April 1993 when the accused persons were demanding Rs. 50000/-, TV and fridge while performing the marriage of nanad Chanchal. She further stated that complainant's jeth and jethani were residing separately. She further stated that she is not aware as to at what time, complainant had pushed Chanchal at which she fell down near dustbin or that she then fled for saving herself or that she was then called by accused person. Voluntarily she stated that complainant in laws also demanded TV and a refrigerator on the occasion of her sister's in law marriage but TV and 21 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
refrigerator was not provided to them from their parents side. She further stated that at the time of complainant's marriage, she was provided a TV and refrigerator. She denied that suggestion that no TV or fridge was given in dowry. She again said that her parents had provided cash amount to the in law of her sister for purchasing a TV and refrigerator. She further stated that she had not attended the marriage ceremony of her sister's (complainant) nanad Chanchal but her sister Sobha and her mother had attended that marriage ceremony. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely or that complainant was never treated with cruelty by her husband and her in laws at any stage so long she remained in the matrimonial home or that accused never demanded cash amount of Rs. 80,000/- or 50000/- or that complainant did not want to live in her matrimonial home along with her mother in law and due to this very reason she created nuisance in the matrimonial home or that she and her husband used to instigate the complainant to claim separate residence from her mother in law.
14. PW4 Shri Pitamber Dutt state that he is the resident of Dehradoon. He further deposed that the complainant was married on 09.2.1992 according to Hindu Rites and Customs but he does not recollect her husband's name and other particulars. He further deposed that after about 1½ month of the marriage, Smt. Chanchal and Shri Raj Kumar came to Dehradoon along with complainant and while on the way, Sobha's father Ram Avtar met him and told him that they have claimed sum of 22 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Rs. 50,000/- from him. He was cross-examined by ld. APP for State wherein, he stated that he was present in the marriage of complainant and accused Raj Kumar and Chanchal demanded Rs. 50,000/- in his presence and they told them that in case they would not provide Rs. 50000/-, then both of them would leave the complainant at her parents house. He was cross-examined by defence counsel wherein, he stated that he does not know the names and relations of complainant's husband. He further stated that he never enquired the name of complainant's in laws from any one. He further stated that TV, fridge, double bed and almirah were given to the accused persons and he had seen the articles lying in the marriage at that time. He denied the suggestion that he has been tutored the specifically name of the two accused persons in his statement by the complainant's sister who was present in the court.
15. Now let us analyse the evidence led by prosecution with respect to each accused one by one.
16. As regards accused husband Ajay, she has not alleged anything specifically with respect to demand of dowry or harassment against the accused husband Ajay. In her examination in chief she has only stated that he also demanded Rs. 80,000/- along with his sister Santosh and Chanchal after two months of marriage. It was further stated in her cross- examination that Rs. 40,000/- was paid to him by her parents at Dehradoon. However, she was not able to give the date, month and year. Again in her cross-examination subsequently, she 23 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
stated that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was partly paid in Dehradoon and partly in Delhi in May, 1992. Both the statements are contradictory and cannot be relied upon as it is not clear which of the statement is true. Prosecution has not clarified both the statements.
17. Else than the aforesaid allegations, there are no allegations of demand of dowry or beating or any other torture by accused Ajay in the present case. Both in examination in chief as well as in her cross-examination, the complainant had admitted the fact that accused Ajay had written a letter Ex. PW1/O to her wherein, he had mentioned that there was a problem in shifting and he cannot leave his mother alone and has requested her to come and stay with him. Another letter Ex. PW1/N was written by accused Ajay to the parents of the complainant stating that he had shown the complainant to the doctor and was taking care of her. During the cross- examination, she had also stated that accused Ajay had come twice to Dehradoon to take her back on the pretext that his mother was not well. There is further no allegation of either of any physical or mental harassment on account of dowry or of entrustment of any of the dowry articles to accused Ajay or his forcibly taking the same either in the examination in chief or in her cross-examination and therefore, I do not find any hesitation in holding that due to lack of any allegation for the offence 498- A/406 IPC, accused Ajay cannot be held guilty.
18. As regards the accused Pushpa, Shashi and Manju (all 24 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
sisters in law), there is no specific allegation in the whole examination in chief. There is only a single allegation dated 20.01.1994 wherein, the complainant has stated that during night at about 10:00 PM all five brothers in law (nandois) and all five sisters in law (nanads) had come to matrimonial home out of which two nandoi namely Rajender and Shiv Shankar had gone back and remaining were present. The jeth and jethani were also present and they all discussed about the incident in the evening with sister in law Chanchal and one of the nandoi Shyam told Anju to live separately with her after taking her into confidence and stated that "Tune Use Apne Confidence Main Lena Hai Ki Baad Mai Tu Use Hame Saup De..... Yeh Ijjat Ke liye Hi To Itna Marti Sheti Hai, Hum Ijjat Hi Nahin Chhodenge, To Apne Aap Suicide Kar Legi" and next day in the morning she was taken away by her Chacha and Chahi in Delhi. There is not even a single specific allegations against accused Pushpa, Shashi, Manju and even against Santosh and Chanchal except the fact that all of them were present. There is no demand of dowry from their side. In the whole examination in chief, there is no allegations against them except a bald allegations that all the sisters in law used to come in the morning and go back during the night. It is further pertinent to mention here that in the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted the fact that one of the sisters in law namely Santosh is a school teacher and used to go to school. There is further no allegations regarding the entrustment of dowry articles against all the aforesaid three 25 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
sisters in law. Hence, Pushpa, Manju and Shashi cannot be held guilty for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
19. As regards the jeth Deepak and Jethani Kavita, the complainant has herself has stated that they were not having visiting terms initially. However, they had come in the marriage of the complainant and thereafter they started coming to her matrimonial home slowly. The only allegations against the jeth is that one day, he came under the influence of liquor. However, no further allegation has been made and as regards the jethani Kavita, she has stated in the cross-examination that when she came back to the matrimonial home on 18.10.1993, she was again harassed by all the family members and dowry was demanded from her. There is nothing else apart from the aforesaid bald and baseless allegations against the jeth and jethani as well. It is also proved on record that they were living separately and were not residing in the matrimonial home also. This fact has further been confirmed by prosecution witness Renu who is the sister of complainant. It is further pertinent to mention here that even the facts mentioned in the examination in chief have not been stated in her statement Ex. PW1/F, PW1/E, PW1/DA, PW1/DB and PW1/DC and therefore, her statement regarding them cannot be relied upon. The statement regarding jeth and jethani in her examination in chief appears to be an after thought.
20. As regards the accused Santosh (sister in law), the allegations are that after two months of marriage, she along with 26 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
accused Chanchal demanded Rs. 50000/-and again stated in the examination in chief that Rs. 80000/- was demanded for installation of machine of accused Ajay in the factory. Ld. Defence counsel has confronted the complainant with her statement Ex. PW1/F. As regards the payment of Rs. 80000/-, she has explained that firstly, demand of Rs. 80000/- was made and thereafter, Rs. 40000/- was paid by her parents and then again demand of Rs. 50000/- was raised in January, 1994 and amount of Rs. 40000/- was paid by her parents after May, 1992 and before January, 1994 to nandoi Raj Kumar and husband Ajay. She has further admitted the fact that accused Santosh used to work as school teacher and she stated that from 02:30 to 03:00 pm onward she and her daughter used to be there. Keeping in view the fact that the entire examination in chief wherein, the aforesaid the facts have been narrated are neither mentioned in the complaint which has culminated into an FIR or in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC. on the statement before the CAW Cell, her statement cannot be relied upon as the same appears to be a manipulation and an after thought just to implicate all the accused persons. It is also not plausible that the married sister in law would leave her children as well as her husband for the whole day throughout the year and would stay in her parental home and then would return in the night. The veracity of the witness has been shaken by ld. Counsel for accused persons during her cross-examination where he has confronted the witness with all the facts mentioned by her in her 27 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
examination in chief with her previous statements wherein none of the fact has been mentioned and therefore, the accused Santosh is given benefit of doubt and acquitted for offence u/s 498-A IPC. As regards the section 406 IPC, there is no allegations against her and she is also acquitted for the offence u/s 406 IPC.
21. As regards the accused Raj Kumar and Shyam, the complainant has stated that at the time of marriage, the dowry articles were handed over to accused Raj Kumar and Shaym by her parents and they were brought to Delhi to her matrimonial in the bus in which 'barat' had come. Subsequently, they were taken by her mother in law. As regards the demand of dowry, there is no allegations against accused Shyam. However, as against accused Raj Kumar it is stated that after two months of marriage, an amount of Rs. 50000/- was demanded by Santosh and Chanchal and on refusal to pay the amount by the complainant, accused Raj Kumar, Chanchal and daughter of Shashi took her to Dehradoon (parental home of complainant) and when she refused to fulfill their demand, they left her there and came back to Delhi. The allegations are unspecific and vague. Further the only allegation of dropping her to her parental home will not bring him under the four corner of section 498-A IPC as the demand was not made by him. Hence, both accused Raj Kumar and Shyam are acquitted for offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. Since the dowry articles were admittedly given to mother in law, there is no allegation of 28 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
section 406 IPC. Hence acquitted u/s 406 IPC as well.
22. As regards the accused Sanjay and Chanchal, it is pertinent to mention here that the marriage of Chanchal took place in April 1993 with Sanjay and accused Sanjay came into picture only after April 1993 and till January, 1994 i.e. when the complainant left the matrimonial home. During this period there is no specific allegations of any dowry demand against accused Sanjay. It is only mentioned that he used to remain present when all the alleged beatings took place. It is also stated that in the night of 20.01.1994, all the nandoies were present including accused Sanjay and they deliberated over the incident. However, there is no specific allegations against him. There is also no allegation of offence u/s 406 IPC against him and therefore, he is also held not guilty for lack of allegations under any of the sections.
23. As regards the accused Chanchal, it is stated that at the time of marriage of complainant, accused Chanchal was unmarried and therefore from the whole file, it can be gathered all the allegations are levelled upon her. It is stated that after two months of marriage, Rs. 80000/- was demanded by Chanchal and Santosh for installation of machine in the factory of accused Ajay. It is further alleged that on her refusal to fulfill the demand, nandoi Raj Kumar, Chanchal (nanad) and daughter Shashi taken her to matrimonial home in Dehradoon and had left there. PW3 Renu Goel i.e. sister of the complainant, had stated in her deposition that she was also present in Dehradoon with 29 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
the complainant was left by the accused persons. She has further stated that accused Raj Kumar, Shyam, Sunder and Chanchal had come to drop her in Dehradoon whereas, the complainant has stated that accused Raj Kumar, Chanchal and daughter of Shashi had come to Dehradoon. There is a contradiction in the testimony of both the witnesses. Complainant nowhere stated that her sister was present in Dehradoon when accused person left her there. As regards the accused Chanchal, PW3 Renu Goel has stated that after 10-12 days of incident accused Raj Kumar and Chanchal had taken her back whereas, the complainant in her cross-examination has stated that accused Ajay had come to pick her back on the pretext that her mother in law Geeta Devi was unwell. The statement of complainant and PW3 i.e. sister of complainant are contradictory.
24. As regard the demand of Rs. 80,000/-, complainant has stated that same was demanded for installation of machine by accused Ajay, Chanchal and Santosh whereas, PW3 stated that accused Shyam Sunder, Raj Kumar, Geeta Devi (since deceased) and Ajay demanded Rs. 80000/- for discharging their debts. It is pertinent to mention her that the evidence of the PW3 is almost hearsay evidence which is also in contra-distinction with the deposition of the complainant and therefore, cannot be relied upon. As regards the accused Chanchal, it has been alleged that after her marriage she continuously demanded Rs. 50,000/- and as a matter of fact, she wanted to take away the TV and 30 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Fridge of the complainant, which was purchased out of the money given by the parents of the complainant in her marriage and when she refused to give the same, accused Chanchal raised a demand of Rs. 50000/- which was also not fulfilled and she was beaten up by Chanchal. The factum of bringing TV or fridge in the marriage of the complainant or amount in lieu of the furniture, TV and refrigerator is itself disputed which can be gathered from the statement of the parties.
25. PW4 Pitamber Dutt has stated in his evidence that he had seen that TV and fridge, almirah, double bed were lying in the marriage and the same were given to the complainant by her parents in her marriage. However, complainant and her sister PW3 Renu have themselves admitted that cash was given in lieu of the articles. It is difficult to rely on the testimony of any of the aforesaid three witnesses, the testimony of all three being inconsistent with each other. Further the factum of giving amount in lieu of TV and fridge has not been mentioned in the statement made by the complainant and she has been contradicted on this part from her previous statement. It is pertinent to mention here that though there are allegations of demand of dowry against different accused persons as well as beatings to the complainant. However, there is no documentary proof on record to this effect. The medical record of abortion is placed on record however, it does not suggest that the abortion took place due to any beating given by the accused persons. It is further pertinent to mention here that the complainant has 31 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
stated that all her nanads used to reside there morning to night at her matrimonial home. However, it has already come in the cross-examination of PW3 that one of the nanads Pushpa was residing at Bulandshehar i.e. in UP and it is not possible for a person to come in Delhi from such a far distance just to harass the complainant. Further one of the nanads Santosh is a school teacher and moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that all of them were married and living separately. The complainant has simultaneously levelled the allegations against the nandoies however, she has herself admitted that all of them were doing their business. She has further admitted this fact in her cross- examination that she had never gone to her parental home alone and the accused Ajay or her in laws used to drop her there. From the testimony of the complainant, it cannot be established that she was harassed for the demand of dowry. There is no merit in the deposition made by her as the same is not consistent and almost everything which has has been stated in cross-examination has been confronted by the defence counsel with her previous statements wherein nothing of sort was recorded or mentioned by her. The complainant has given an improved statement during her deposition in the court which cannot be accepted. It is a well settled law that only minor contradiction can be ignored while appreciating the evidence of complainant, as the crucial facts has to be considered and it has to be understood that all the facts cannot be enumerated. However, in the present case, the complete incidents have been 32 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
enumerated in the examination in chief of which there was not even a whisper during her statement before the police or before CAW Cell or even in the complaint which culminated into the FIR.
26. With these background of the fact, I am of the view that prosecution has mercilessly failed to prove the allegation u/s 498-A IPC against all the accused persons. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted u/s 498-A IPC.
27. As regards the offence 406 IPC, the allegations are against mother in law of complainant only. Since the mother in law has already expired, I do not deem it fit to discuss the alelgation u/s 406 IPC which would be futile exercise. Hence, no question of demand or refusal to return back from there side arose. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC also. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted in case FIR No. 73/95, PS Vivek Vihar. Provision of section 437
(a) shall apply and previous surety shall remain as surety for next six months. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (VANDANA JAIN) Dated:10.4.2012 M.M./Mahila Court (E) 33 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. FIR No. 73/95 PS: Vivek Vihar 10.4.2012 Present: Ld. APP for State.
All accused are present on bail with counsel Shri S.K. Rajdan.
Vide separate judgment dictated and pronounced in the open court, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC in case FIR No. 73/95, PS Vivek Vihar. Provision of section 437 (a) shall apply and previous surety shall remain as surety for next six months. Let file be consigned to Record Room.
(VANDANA JAIN) M.M./Mahila Court (E) 10.4.2012 34 State Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
35