Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Chandok on 23 September, 2011
State Vs. Ramesh Chandok
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNENA SHARMA, M.M., MAHILA COURT (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR NO.: 55/97
P.S.: GANDHI NAGAR
U/Sec. 498-A/406/34 IPC
STATE VS. RAMESH CHANDOK
ID No. R0131572003
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of commission of : 18.7.1996 to 27.01.1997 offence
2. Name of complainant : Smt. Neelam Kanta , W/o Shri Ramesh Chandok D/o Late Sh. Sant Ram R/o X/180, Taigor Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
3. Name of the accused, his : i) Ramesh Chandok parentage and address S/o Late Sh. Hanshraj R/o B-2870, Neta Jee Nagar, Delhi
ii) B.N.Kapoor, S/o Late Shri R.N.Kapoor R/o G-1A Near Ghondli Chowk, Lal Quarters, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
iii) Shashi Kiran Kapoor W/o Shri B.N.Kapoor R/o G-1A Near Ghondli Chowk, Lal Quarters, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
iv) Jugal Kishore S/o Shri Ramji Dass, R/o H. No. 357 Ram Nagar, Near Hari Singh Gurduwara, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
v) Archana, S/o Shri Jugal Kishore R/o H. No. 357 Ram Nagar, Near Hari Singh Gurduwara, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
vi) Kunj Bihari S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal, R/o H. No. F/182, Old Seemapuri, Delhi
vii) Roopa @ Uma S/o Kunj Bihari, R/o H. No. F-182, Old Seemapuri, Delhi
viii) Usha Kohli @ Rama Kohli W/o Late Sh. Kewal Kishan Kohli R/o House No. 7/185, Geeta Colony, Delhi
4.Offence complained of : u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC
5. The date of order : 23.09.2011
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. The final order : Conviction 1 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok Reserved for judgment : 23.09.2011 Date of judgment : 23.09.2011 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Present FIR Ex. PW5/A is based on the statement of complainant Neelam Kanta recorded on 5.3.1997 and said statement is available on record as Ex. PW-1/D-X. As per Ex. PW-1/DX, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Neelam Kanta was married to accused Ramesh Chandok on 18.7.1996 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and in her marriage, her brother had given her sufficient dowry to the best of his capacity. Complainant was a divorcee at the time of her marriage with Ramesh Chandok. After few days of marriage, complainant's husband Ramesh Chandok and mother in law Smt. Raj Rani started harassing and beatings her for not bringing fridge and TV from her parents.
Mother in law, Smt. Raj Rani also used to taunt the complainant that her son (Ramesh Chandok), who was in government job could have got much better match. After 15 days of marriage, complainant's husband gave her beatings and left her at her brother's place in three wearing clothes. Complainant did not disclose the story of her ordeals to her brother as she knew that her brother would not be able to fulfill the unlawful demands of the accused.
2. It is further alleged in Ex. PW1/DX that on 19.8.1996, complainant's sisters in law namely Shashi Kapoor, Roopa and Archana also gave her beatings and all the three sisters in law caught hold of her and her husband i.e. accused Ramesh Chandok gave her electric shock as a result, complainant became unconscious. On the next day, complainant in order to avoid any further assaults, wrote a letter to her brother and asked him to fulfill their demands for fridge and TV. It is further alleged that even prior to aforementioned incident, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house at 2 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok many other previous occasions but she was taken back on the assurance given by her husband, sister in law Shashi and her brother in law P.N. Kapoor that she (complainant) would not face any illtreatment in future. On 17.9.1996, complainant's husband, sister in law Shashi and her husband P.N. Kapoor and mother in law Raj Rani again shunted out the complainant from the matrimonial home and they illegally retained the entire jewellery of the complainant with them and further threatened her not to return back without fulfillment of their demand for TV and fridge. On 22.9.1996, complainant reached her matrimonial home along with her brother and sister in law Sumitra Devi and they tried to persuade the in laws of the complainant for a settlement but they categorically refused for any kind of settlement as they were adamant on their demands. On 10.11.1996, complainant, her brother and his wife Sumitra Devi again visited complainant's matrimonial home in order to resolve the matter but in vain and when complainant asked for return of her istridhan articles, the accused became annoyed and they categorically refused to return the same. Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint against her husband and in law with CAW Cell where the matter was reconciled with the intervention of enquiry officer and the complainant again joined back her matrimonial home.
3. It is further alleged that on 26.01.1997, complainant was again assaulted by her husband who under the influence of liquor gave her merciless beatings. It is alleged that complainant was given a punch on her right eye by her husband. After said incident, complainant with some of her neighbours went to police station and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, police again got the matter resolved and complainant was again sent back with her husband. On 27.01.1997, the accused Ramesh Chandok threatened the complainant to kill her and 3 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok apprehending danger to her life, complainant again came back to her brother's house and again lodged a complaint with CAW Cell, Shalimar Park where her medical examination was also got conducted.
4. On the aforementioned statement Ex. DW1/D-X, rukka Ex. PW9/A was prepared by IO and he got the FIR registered against the accused persons.
5. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge sheet against eight accused on 11.9.1997. After taking cognizance, accused were summoned by my ld. Predecessor. Vide order dated 26.11.1998, the charge was ordered to be framed against all the eight accused for the offence punishable u/s 498-A/34 IPC whereas, charge for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC was ordered to be framed only against accused husband Ramesh Chandok. Record further reveals that the said order on charge was challenged in revision by all the accused except accused Ramesh Chandok and vide order dated 17.4.1999 accused Jugal Kishroe, Kunj Bihari and Ushah Kohli @ Rama Kohli were discharged by the ld. Appellate court of Shri H.P. Sharma, ld. ASJ. Record further reveals that proceedings against accused B.N. Kapoor were abated vide order dated 29.7.2005 as he expired during pendency of this case.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution cited as many as 12 witnesses. Out of 12 witnesses, only PW Shanti Devi remained unexamined, whereas, all other eleven witnesses namely Neelamkanta, HC Sardar Singh, Nathurram Sabbarwal, Smt. Sumitra Devi, ASI Akhlesh Jha, Mohan Singh, Shri Vinod Kumar, Megh Shyam, SI Mohan Singh, Dr. A.K. Kulshresthra, Shri Ravinder Singh were examined as PW1 to PW11 respectively.
7. Out of eleven witnesses complainant Neelam Kanta, her brother Nathurram Sabbarwal and complainant's sister in law Sumitra Devi are 4 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok the star witnesses who were examined as PW1, PW3 and PW4 respectively.
8. Complainant was examined in this case as PW1. In her examination in chief, she deposed that she had been married with accused Ramesh Chandok according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir and at the time of her marriage one gold necklace, one gold ring or bridegroom, four gold bangles, one pair of gold tops and Rs. 10,000/- by pay order had been given to her sister in law Shashi and her husband Shri B.N.Kapoor at the time of her marriage. Besides jewellery articles, clothes etc. were also given as per the list Ex. PW1/A on which witness identified her signature at point 'B'. Further as per her version, after her marriage her husband and sisters in law Shashi, Archna and Uma started beatings her for not bringing TV and fridge. Her mother in law was also not satisfied and she also used to taunt her that her son could have got much better alliance. After 15 days of her marriage, complaint was sent to her brother's place with a demand to bring TV and fridge. As complainant's brother was not in a position to fulfill said demands, complaint preferred not to disclose aforementioned demands of her in laws to her brother. After two or three days, complainant's in laws took her back with an assurance not to repeat the previous conduct.
9. PW1 further alleged that on 19.8.1996, accused Shashi caught the complainant by hair and her other sisters in law namely Uma and Archana caught hold of her arms and her husband Ramesh Chandok gave her electric shock after laying her on the floor and consequently, complainant became unconscious. On 20.8.1996, she wrote a letter to her brother and asked her to fulfill the aforementioned demands of the accused. Complainant proved on record the said post card which she allegedly written to her brother in her own handwriting as Ex. PW1/B. 5 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok Complainant identified her signatures on said letter at point A. Further as per complainant's version, at the occasion of Rakshabandhan, complainant was not allowed to visit her brother as she could not fulfill accused demands for TV and fridge and on the same very day at night accused Shashi, Uma and Archana caught hold of her and her husband Ramesh Chandok again gave her electric shock. On 17.9.1996, complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home by her husband, mother in law, nanad Shashi and nandoi Shri B.N. Kapoor. Complainant thereafter, came to her brother's house. On 22.9.1996, complainant's brother and her sister in law again took her to her matrimonial home and assured complainant's in laws that they would give them TV and fridge as and when their financial conditions get improved. However, they (complainant and her brother) were given filthy abuses by the accused who turned them out of their house.
10. Thereafter, complainant with her brother and sister in law approached Kunj Bihari who was the brother in law/jeeja of accused Ramesh Chandok and they asked him to intervene so that either the complainant is taken back to her matrimonial home or accused at least return her dowry articles. But the in laws of complainant refused to accept their request. On 10.11.1996 complainant, her brother and her sister in law again visited her matrimonial home and they again raised the demand for return of dowry articles but in vain. Thereafter, a complaint with CAW Cell was lodged on 02.1.1997 against the accused where the matter was again resolved and the complainant again joined back her matrimonial home. But even thereafter, complainant's sisters in law and mother in law kept on instigating her husband who at their instance used to give her beatings. On 26.01.1997, complainant was given beatings by her husband under the influence of liquor and due to a punch given by her husband on her eye, her eye started bleeding.
6 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok Thereafter, she was taken to PS Saronjni Nagar by her neighbours. But the police again got the matter compromised and sent her back to her matrimonial home. On 27.01.1997, complainant was again threatened by her husband that he would kill her in case she failed to bring TV and fridge. Thereafter, complainant came to her brother's place and lodged a complaint with CAW Cell. From CAW Cell, complainant was sent for medical examination to SDN Hospital. Complainant deposed further that she had already submitted the list of dowry articles which were available on record as Mark, A, B, C, D and E. She further proved on record her marriage certificate as Ex. PW1/C. Complainant further proved on record her complaint lodged with Incharge CAW Cell Shalimar Park running into seven pages as Ex. PW1/D. She further proved on record her statement recorded before CAW Cell as Ex. PW1/E, application moved before the Incharge CAW Cell as Ex. PW1/F, her statement recorded on 20.01.1997 as Ex. PW1/G. She deposed further that when she had lastly come to her brother's house she had not brought anything from her matrimonial home. She deposed further that she had been beaten up and turned out by accused persons from the matrimonial home and they had retained all her istridhan articles in their possession. She deposed further that nothing had been recovered from their possession till date of her examination.
11. PW2 HC Surender Singh had accompanied the IO for recovery of the istridhan articles of the complainant from her matrimonial house at house no. B-2870. As per his version, despite search of house no istridhan articles could be recovered and accused Ramesh Chandok was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A but accused Raj Rani i.e. complainant's mother in law could not be arrested as she was ill.
12. Nathu Ram Sabarwal is the brother of complainant and he has 7 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok been examined as PW3. As per his version her sister Neelam Kanta was married to accused Ramesh Chandok on 18.7.1996 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Lajpat Nagar and at the time of her marriage he had given dowry to the best of his capacity and from the side of bridegroom also customary gifts in form of 'Vari' had been given to his sister. After marriage, the people from bridegroom side had taken the dowry articles with them at their residence. PW3 further deposed that after few days of marriage he had received a letter written by his sister from her matrimonial home. In said letter, his sister had informed him that the accused Ramesh Chandok used to give her beatings on account of the demand of TV and refrigerator. PW3 was also informed vide said letter that even the sisters in law namely Uma, Shashi and Archana also used to taunt the complainant after coming to her matrimonial home at Netaji Nagar.
13. In said letter which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B, complainant had further informed PW3 that on 19.8.1996, her sister in law Shashi had caught hold of her hair while Uma and Archana caught hold of her hands and made her to lay on the floor and her husband Ramesh Chandok gave her electric shocks. Further as per version of PW3, on 17.9.1996, accused Ramesh Chandok and his other family members turned out his sister in wearing clothes after giving her beatings. Thereafter, complainant came to PW3 at his residence at Gandhi Nagar and told him that her istridhan had been kept by the accused persons. On 22.9.1996, PW3 along with his wife and complainant went to the house of the accused at Netaji Nagar and tried to persuade them to keep the complainant in their house but accused persons were bent upon their demands and started giving PW3 threats and abuses. PW3 had no option but to bring his sister back to his house. On 10.11.1996, again PW3 took his sister and his 8 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok wife to the house of the accused persons but that time also accused refused to keep the complainant in their house and instead threatened them that they will re-marry the accused Ramesh Chandok. It is further alleged that the accused persons also gave them abuses and consequently PW3 again had to bring back his sister to his house. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged at CAW Cell, Shalimar Park, where a compromise was arrived at and the complainant was again sent back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, in the night of 26.01.1997, accused Ramesh Chandok again gave beatings to the complainant under the influence of liquor with fist and blows and as a result complainant sustained injuries on her right eye and people from neighbourhood also gathered outside the house after said incident and took the complainant to police station Sarojni Nagar where the matter was again resolved with intervention of police and complainant again went to her matrimonial home.
14. PW3 further alleged that in the morning of very next day i.e. 27.01.1997, accused Ramesh Chandok again threatened complainant with death and out of fear, complainant came back to PW3 at Gandhi Nagar. Later on, PW3 took the complainant to CAW Cell Shalimar Park where her statement was recorded and she was taken to SDN Hospital for medical treatment. PW3 further deposed that complainant had lastly come to his house in wearing clothes and her eye had been bleeding. PW3 further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 28.01.1997, he got photographed the injured eye of his sister Neelam Kanta. Further as per his version, his sister had come to him only in three wearing clothes and none of her istridhan articles had been recovered till that day and everything was lying in possession of the accused. He further deposed that on 10.11.1996, he along with his wife and sister Neelam Kanta had gone to the house of accused persons and raised 9 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok the demand for return of istridhan articles of the complainant but the accused got enraged and flatly refused to return the articles.
15. Another material witness of the prosecution case was Smt. Sumitra Devi who was examined as PW4. However, her testimony is not discussed in detail as said witness was never cross-examined by the defence counsel. It appears that vide order dated 20.7.2000, the three witnesses namely the complainant, her brother and her sister in law were allowed to be recalled u/s 311 Cr. PC. for the purpose of their cross-examination but subsequent thereto only complainant and her brother were summoned and cross-examined whereas, PW4 Sumitra Devi appears to have never turned up for her cross-examination. Record reveals that she was neither summoned for her cross- examination nor the said fact of her being not cross-examined was ever pointed out at any any subsequent stage either by the prosecution or by the defence counsel.
16. PW5 ASI Akhlesh Jha proved on record the present FIR as Ex. PW5/A. As per his version on 05.3.1997, he was posted as DO at PS Gandhi Nagar and at about 05:30 pm (during his duty hours), he was handed over the rukka by ASI Mohan Singh for registration of FIR and on the basis of said rukka, he registered the FIR Ex. PW5/A and handed over the carbon copy of the same with original rukka to ASI Mohan Singh through Ct. Raj Kumar.
17. PW6 Mohan Singh is the jeweller from whom jewellery was allegedly got prepared by complainant's mother for marriage of complainant. PW6, deposed that he was running a jewellery shop in the name of New Share Jewellers at E-82, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and on 07.7.1996, he had prepared the jewellery on the directions of Smt. Shanti Devi who had come to his shop with Nathu Ram. Further as per version of PW6, said jewellery was prepared for the marriage of 10 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok daughter of Shanti Devi. He further deposed that he had been given 771.800 mili grams of gold in form of gold bangles and out of said gold, he had prepared four bangles and one Necklace and he had been paid Rs. 2101/- as making charges. He further deposed that he had prepared a bill no. 028, dated 07.7.1996 Ex. PW6/A bearing signature of Shanti Devi at point A at the time of receipt of gold bangles from Shanti Devi and at the time of delivery of gold articles, he had issued a delivery bill dated 14.07.1996 Ex. PW6/B bearing signatures of Shanti Devi.
18. PW7 Shri Vinod Kumar is the photographer who had taken photographs at the time of marriage of accused Ramesh Chandok. As per his version, he had been running a photograph shop in the name of Rajiv Studio and on 18.7.1996, he had taken photographs Ex. PW7/A-1 to Ex. PW7/A-3 at the time of marriage of Neelam i.e. sister of Nathu Ram which was performed at Arya Samaj Mandir. The said witness had brought the negatives of said photographs and same are lying on record as PW7/A6 to PW7/A-11.
19. PW8 Megh Shyam is the priest who got the marriage between the complainant and accused Ramesh Chandok performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, Lajpat Nagar. As per his version, on 18.07.1996 he had performed marriage of complainant with accused Ramesh Chandok at Arya Samaj Mandir as per vedic rites and the arrangements of marriage were made by complainant's brother Nathu. He further deposed that after marriage, marriage certificate Ex. PW8/DA had been issued by him and the same was bearing his signatures at point A.
20. PW9 SI Mohan Singh is the investigating officer. As per his version, on 05.3.1997 he was posted as sub-Inspector at PS Gandhi Nagar. On said date, he had received a complaint from Smt. Neelam 11 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok Kanta, W/o Shri Ramesh Chandok for registration of FIR. Thereafter, the complainant also reached at police station where her statement Ex. PW-1/D-X was recorded by PW9. PW9 further deposed that he had made the endorsement Ex. PW9/A on said statement of complainant and collected the photographs of marriage which were already exhibited as Ex. PW7/A-1 to PW7/A-5. He further deposed that he had also collected the list of dowry articles Ex. PW1/A. IO further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of jeweller, photographers, Pandit and other witnesses including the family members of the complainant. Further as per deposition of PW9, the accused Ramesh Chandok was arrested at the instance of complainant on 02.4.1997 and his personal search vide Ex. PW9/B was conducted. IO correctly identified the accused Ramesh Chandok.
21. Further as per IO's version, the dowry articles of the complainant could not be recovered as they were not found in the house of Ramesh Chandok. He further deposed that two photographs of complainant wherein she had been shown to have received injuries on her eyes had also been handed over to him by complainant's brother and same are lying on record as Mark Y and Z. IO further deposed that he had also been handed over one letter written by complaint to her brother which was already exhibited on record as Ex. PW1/B. IO further deposed that receipt of dowry articles Ex. PW6/A and PW6/B, Mark C, Mark D and Mark E had also been handed over to him by the complainant's brother. Further as per version of PW6, he had also collected the marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir and same was already lying on record as Ex. PW1/C. IO further deposed that after completing the investigation, he handed over the charge sheet to SHO.
22. PW10 is Dr. A.K. Kulshrestha, Casualty Incharge from SDN Hospital. As per his version, MLC No. 350/97 of complainant Neelam 12 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok was prepared on 27.01.1997 by Dr. Rajesh Jain. He further deposed that he could identify the handwriting of Dr. Rajesh Jain as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of duties. He further deposed that Dr. Rajesh Jain had already left his job and his present whereabouts were not known. As per PW10, patient Neelam Kanta was having injuries on her right eye and she had been referred to eye OPD which she failed to attend. Further as per PW10, MLC was kept under observation and the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and nature of injury was under observations. PW10 proved on record the MLC of complainant as Ex. PW10/A and he identified the signature of Dr. Rajesh Jain at point A.
23. PW11 Shri Ravinder Singh is another photographer who had taken photographs of the injuries of the complainant at her right eye which were allegedly inflicted upon her by her husband. PW11 deposed that he was running a photo studio under the name and style of Ravinder Photo Sales at 434, Jheel Khuranja. As per his version he had taken the photographs of complaint as she was having injuries on her eye. He deposed that he had handed over the negative of said photographs to the complainant's brother along with the photographs and also issued a receipt no. 3450, dated 28.01.1997 bearing his signatures at point A. The said receipt was exhibited as Ex. PW11/A.
24. Except accused Sumitra Devi all the other witnesses were duly cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel. Whereas, cross-examination of PWs namely Dr. A.K.Kulshresthra, SI Mohan Singh, ASI Akhlesh Jha, Shri Vinod Kumar, SI Mohan Singh remained nil as despite opportunity, no question was asked in their cross-examination by the defence counsel. As has already been pointed out that PW3 Sumitra Devi was never summoned for the purpose of her cross-examination despite the fact that she was allowed to be recalled for her cross-examination vide 13 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok order dated 20.7.2011.
25. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all accused 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 they came up with the plea that they were falsely implicated in the present case. The sisters in law came up with the plea that they had been residing in their different matrimonial houses as they were already married at the time of complainant's marriage with accused Ramesh Chandok and they never had the occasion to interfere in the life of the complainant and her husband. Whereas, accused Ramesh Chandok pleaded that his marriage with complainant was a dowry less marriage and he had married complainant as there was no one to look after his ailing mother who was already bed ridden. No evidence in rebuttal came on record as accused did not wish to examine any witness in defence.
26. I have heard arguments from both sides and also perused the entire record.
27. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant as the marriage of complainant with accused Ramesh Chandok was her second marriage and the complainant had filed a similar complaint even against her ex-husband against whom FIR u/s 498-A/406 IPC was also registered. He further submitted that complainant had compromised the matter even with her ex-husband after taking Rs. 23,000/-. He further argued that even otherwise, the testimony of prosecution witnesses suffers from infirmities and contradictions and is not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused.
28. On the other hand, ld. APP has argued that prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt as 14 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok the complainant and her brother who are the material witnesses have proved the prosecution case by their consistent testimony. He further argued that the the prosecution has also examined many other witnesses namely Dr. A.K. Kulshrestha from the SDN Hospital who has duly proved on record the MLC of complainant which were got prepared after the incident of beatings given by her husband Ramesh Chandok on 26.01.1997. The photographer Ravinder Singh had also proved on record the receipt of photographs taken by him of the complainant wherein she has been shown to have sustained injuries on her eye. He further argued that prosecution has also successfully proved the charges of the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC as all the essential ingredients of section 405 IPC have been duly proved in view of categorical version of PW1 and PW3. He further argued that one more wintess i.e. PW Mohan Singh who is the Jeweller from whom the complainant's mother got the jewellery articles prepared for giving her at the time of her marriage also corroborated the version of PW1 and PW3, to the effect that gold jewellery i.e. one necklace, four bangles were given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents.
29. It is an age old principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of accused has to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. For securing conviction of accused, prosecution is required to prove two things. Firstly, that the witnesses examined in the case are reliable and trustworthy. Secondly, that the evidence brought on record is sufficient to prove all the essential ingredients of alleged offence. Now let us advert to evidence led in this case in order to ascertain as to whether the witnesses examined by prosecution are reliable and whether their testimony is sufficient to establish essential ingredient of alleged offence u/s 498-A/406 IPC. But before undertaking this exercise, I deem it appropriate to go through the relevant provision of 15 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok law.
30. Section 498-A IPC reads as:
"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 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 coerce 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.
31. Under explanation (a), the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Whereas, as per explanation (b) of section 498-A cruelty means harassment of a woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce 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 by any person related to her to meet 16 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok such demand. Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet some unlawful demand. Harassment by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that becomes cruelty and has been made punishable.
32. Section 406 IPC reads as under:-
"Punishment for criminal breach of trust- whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
According to Section 405 IPC, the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust to be is discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or willfully suffers any other person so to do.
Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust two distinct parts are involved. The first consists of the creation of any obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.
17 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok
33. Careful perusal of examination in chief of the complainant and her bother shows that both the said witnesses have deposed on same lines with regard to alleged illegal demands raised by the accused persons and further in respect of various incidents of beatings, electrocution given by accused persons to the complainant in furtherance of their unlawful demands for TV and fridge. Except the difference of month in the particulars of alleged incident of 19.8.1996 which appears to be only a typographical error, there is absolutely no other inconsistency in the version of said witnesses. As per the version of complainant, after her marriage with accused Ramesh Chandok her husband, sisters in law Shashi, Archana and Uma started beatings her for not bringing TV and refrigerator and even her mother in law was also not satisfied and she also used to taunt her. After 15 days of her marriage, she was sent to her brother's place with a demand to bring TV and refrigerator and as she was aware that her brother was not in a position to fulfill their demands, she did not disclose the same to her brother. After two or three days, she joined back her matrimonial home. On 19.8.1996, her sister in law Shashi caught her by hair and other two sisters namely Archana and Usha caught hold of her arms and her husband Ramesh Chandok gave her electric shocks. On 20.8.1996, she wrote a letter to her brother and requested him to fulfill the aforementioned demands of the accused. Complainant duly proved on record the said letter written by her to her brother as Ex. PW1/B.
34. In this regard, complainant's brother also corroborated her version as he also stated that after few days of his sister's marriage, he had received a letter from his sister wherein, his sister informed him regarding the demand of TV and refrigerator raised by the accused persons and she further informed him that her sisters in law 18 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok namely Uma, Shashi and Archana also used to frequently visit her matrimonial home and used to illtreat her on account of dowry. He further deposed that in said letter, he was also informed that on 19.7.1996 (19.8.1996 as per complainant's version), her sister in law Shashi had caught hold of her by hairs and the other two sisters in law namely Usha and Archana caught hold of her hands and her husband Ramesh Chandok gave her electric shocks. Said letter written by complainant on a post card is lying on record as Ex. PW1/B. Perusal of said letter shows that same was written on 20.8.1996 and was posted at the address of complainant's brother at Gandhi Nagar. The said letter also bears the postal stamp of Post office Gandhi Nagar where complainant's brother Nathu Ram was residing at X-180, Tagore Gali, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar. In the said letter, complainant had asked her brother to give TV and refrigerator to the accused persons as her husband had threatened her that in case the demands of the accused were not fulfilled, she would be killed by the accused. She further informed that her sisters in law Shashi, Usha and Archana also used to taunt her and on 19.8.1998, accused Shashi had caught her hair and other sisters Archana and Uma caught her arms and her husband had given her electric shocks and as a consequece she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness on the next morning, her sisters in law had already gone.
35. I have carefully gone though the cross-examination of the complainant as well as her brother and both the witnesses appear to have successfully withstood the acid test of cross-examination as they fully sustained their version as given in their examination in chief and categorically denied all the suggestions put to them for denying the allegations of demand of dowry, beatings and physical assaults given to the complainant by the accused persons. Even ld. Defence counsel 19 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok has failed to point out any material contradiction in the testimony of the complainant and her brother. The version of said two witnesses appears to be in total consonance with each other. The defence counsel has failed to elicit anything in their cross-examination for impeaching their credibility. The mere fact that complainant happened to be in similar litigation even with her ex-husband cannot be a sole ground to doubt her trustworthiness, especially when there is no contradiction and infirmities in the version of witnesses.
36. The statement of complainant recorded by the IO which has formed basis of present FIR is proved on record as Ex. PW1/DX. PW1 in her cross-examination deposed that she had also given a complaint with CAW Cell and the same was a typed complaint. The said complaint lodged with CAW Cell is dated 19.12.1996 and same is having endorsement of 12.12.1996 and is proved on record as Ex. PW1/D1. PW1 in her cross-examination sustained her version that on 19.8.1996 (wrongly mentioned as 19.7.1996) the accused had given her electric shocks. She further deposed that she had not got herself medically examined because at that time she had never intended to file any complaint against the accused. Further as per her cross- examination, she was having post card in her house and she wrote a letter to her brother and posted it herself from the post office which was at some distance from her matrimonial home. She categorically denied that she was not given electric shocks by accused. She further denied the suggestion that she had never been given beatings by the accused or that she had never became unconscious due to beatings or electric shocks in her matrimonial home. Complainant however, admitted the suggestion that her three sisters in law who are accused herein, were living in their matrimonial homes but she alleged that they used to visit her matrimonial home very often. She categorically 20 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok denied the suggestion that her sisters in law did not use to visit her matrimonial home off and on or that they had never raised any unlawful demand or that they had never harassed her on account of any unlawful demand. She further denied the suggestion that she left her matrimonial home of her own free wish and will.
37. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the sisters in law namely Usha, Shashi and Archana were living at separate addresses in their respective matrimonial homes and were having no interference in the marital life of complainant and there was no occasion for them to raise any unlawful demand from the complainant or to harass her on that account as they were not the beneficiaries of said articles.
38. In this regard, complainant has clarified in her cross-
examination that said accused persons though were residing at separate addresses but they used to often visit matrimonial home. In view of the fact that all the sisters in law were residing in nearby areas of East Delhi, I find no reason to doubt the version of the complainant especially in view of letter Ex. PW1/B written by her to her brother wherein, she had informed even her brother regarding the frequent visits of her said three sisters in law. Even in said letter, she has narrated the aforementioned incident dated 19.8.1996 when she was allegedly given electric shocks by her husband with the help of his said three sisters. The complainant has also attributed specific roles to each of the accused regarding said alleged incident of 19.8.1996 and said letter was written by her just on the next day of said incident i.e. on 20.8.1996. It is necessary to mention here that in her examination in chief, in her statement Ex. PW1/DX and complaint Ex. PW1/D complainant has correctly mentioned the date of said incident when she was allegedly given electric shock by accused persons on 19.8.1996. She has specifically deposed that her sister in law Shashi 21 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok had caught hold of her by her hair and the other sisters in law Usha and Archana caught hold of her arms and her husband made her laid on the floor and gave her electric shocks. There is absolutely no contradiction in the version of the complainant in her examination in chief or her version in said postcard or in narration of the facts regarding said incident in her statement Ex. PW1/DX or in her complaint dated 09.12.2007 which is available on record as Ex. PW1/D. Ex. PW1/D was the first complaint filed by the complainant against the accused after her marriage and even in said complaint, complainant has attributed absolutely similar roles to the accused persons regarding the alleged incidence of 19.8.1996.
39. It is further worth noticing that as per the complaint Ex. PW1/DX, the accused was having six sisters namely Shashi, Usha Kohli, Archna, Roopa @ Uma, Asha and Poonam and she had not raised any allegation against the other two sisters in law namely Poonam and Asha and she rather stated that her said two sisters in law namely Poonam and Asha were having good nature. In these circumstances, I find no force in the arguments of defence counsel that complainant in order to harass her husband has falsely implicated his entire family including her sisters in law living at separate places. Had it been the intention of the complainant, she could have roped in even her other two sisters in law namely Poonam and Asha against whom she has not raised even a single allegation.
40. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved it on record that complainant was beaten up and harassed by all the accused persons infurtherance of their common intention to coerce her to fulfill their unlawful demands. The allegations of electric shocks given to complainant by her husband with the help of other three accused clearly shows the common 22 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok intention of all the accused person to subject the complainant to physical cruelty in order to coerce her to fulfill their demand for TV and fridge. Complainant has also alleged that on occasion of Rakhi in the year 1996, she was again given electric shocks by her husband with the help of other three sisters in law who had caught hold of her. She has further alleged that on occasion of Rakhi she was not allowed to visit her brother's house as she was threatened that unless she fulfills their demands of TV and refrigerator, she would not be allowed to go and meet her brother and on the night of very same day, accused persons had again gived her electric shocks. The conduct of accused persons in giving the complainant electric shocks on two occasions and further giving her physical beatings also shows their willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health hence, bringing the case squarely within the meaning of Expl. (a) and (b) of section 498-A IPC.
41. Furthermore, the prosecution has also proved on record that the complainant was physically assaulted by her husband on 26.01.1997. Both the complainant and her brother have deposed consistently with regard to said incident. Complainant in her examination in chief deposed that on 26.01.1997, her husband gave her beatings with fist and blows under the influence of liquor and due to punch given on her eye, her eye started bleeding and the neighbours after said incident took her to Sarojni Nagar, PS and police had got the matter compromised and again sent back the complainant to her matrimonial home. On 27.07.1997, complainant was again threatened by the husband that in case she failed to bring TV and refrigerator she would be killed. Apprehending threat to her life, complainant came to her brother's place and later on, she was taken to CAW Cell by her brother 23 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok and her medical examination was also conducted at SDN Hospital. The MLC of complainant dated 27.01.1997 is proved on record by PW10 Dr. A.K. Kulshrestha as Ex. PW10/A. The said MLC was prepared by Dr. Rajesh Jain who had already left the hospital. PW10 identified the signature of said doctor as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his duties. In this way, MLC was duly proved on record by the prosecution. PW10 further deposed that patient had the injury over her right eye and she was referred to OPD but she did not join the same. The testimony of PW10 remained unrebutted as the witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel. Photographs of the complainant showing injuries on her right eye are also placed on record as Mark X and Z and the photographer who had taken these photographs was also examined as PW11. The said witness has proved on record receipt issued by him as Ex. PW11/A and deposed that said receipt no. 345 was issued on 28.01.1997 after taking photographs of complainant Neelam Kanta who was having injuries on her eye. Although the said receipts were not proved as per law as the receipt book was never produced by said witness, but the testimony of the complainant, her brother and unrebutted testimony of doctor clearly prove the allegations of physical assault given to complainant by her husband.
42. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, I feel no hesitation in holding that prosecution has successfully proved the charges for offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC against all the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
43. Qua the offence u/s 406 IPC, the charges were framed only against the accused husband. In this regard, complainant has proved on record the list of dowry articles as Ex. PW1/A and deposed that she was given one gold necklace, one gold ring (for boy), four gold 24 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok bangles, one pair of tops by her parents at the time of her marriage. She further deposed that Rs. 10,000/- was also given in cash to her sisters in law and brothers in law namely Shashi and Shri B.N.Kapoor. Besides this, she was also given clothes etc. complainant proved on record the list of istridhan/dowry articles by identifying her signatures at point A and B on the same. Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that since the list of articles Ex. PW1/A was not prepared at the time of marriage as per the requirement of rules annexed to Dowry Prohibition Act, the same cannot be relied upon in proof of charges for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC.
44. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that in the cross-
examination of complainant's brother, he was given suggestions that at the time when the complainant lastly visited his house, she was wearing her jewellery and she had already taken all the articles given to her at the time of her marriage. The said suggestion clearly shows the admission on the part of the accused that complainant was given some jewellery and other articles at the time of her marriage by her parents. From the said suggestion, it is evident that it is nowhere the case of the accused that complainant was not having any jewellery or other istridhan articles during her stay in her matrimonial home. Rather they appear to have alleged that complainant had already taken her dowry articles and jewellery when she lastly left her matrimonial house. Considering the aforesaid position, the question whether the list of articles was prepared at the time of the marriage or subsequent thereto looses its significance.
45. Furthermore, the complainant's version has been duly corroborated by her brother, who has also deposed that at the time of complainant's marriage, he had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity and her sister was also given customary gifts from the bridegroom side.
25 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok Prosecution has also called one witness Mohan Singh in the witness box in order to prove the fact regarding jewellery being given to the complainant by her parents at the time of her marriage. Mohan Singh is a jeweller and he is examined as PW6 and he in his examination in chief deposed that on 07.7.1996 he had prepared the jewellery on the directions of Smt. Shanti Devi for the marriage of her daughter i.e. complainant herein. As per his version one gold necklace, four gold bangles were got prepared by Shanti Devi from his shop from 71.800 mili grams gold which was given to PW6 in the form of old gold bangles. PW6 proved on record the bill no. 028 and 026 dated 07.7.1996 and 14.7.1996 respectively which was issued by him at the time of taking the old gold jewellery from the complainant's mother and at the time of delivery of new jewellery i.e. four gold bangles and one gold necklace as PW1/6A and PW1/6B respectively.
46. Though there is no specific averments regarding the entrustment of said gold articles by the complainant to her husband but presumption of dominion of husband over dowry articles of his wife exists in law. Reliance placed on Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar & Others 1985 (2) SCC;, Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397.
47. As per examination in chief of complainant, she along with her brother and her sister in law had visited the accused persons twice i.e. on 22.9.1996 and 10.11.1996 and raised the demand for return of her istrdihan articles but the accused neither agreed to take the complainant back nor they agreed to return her istridhan articles consequently complainant had to come back with empty hands. She further alleged that they were instead misbehaved by the accused on said two occasions when they visited their house at Netaji Nagar.
48. Considering the aforementioned material on record, prosecution 26 of 27 State Vs. Ramesh Chandok has clearly proved on record that accused Ramesh Chandok is also guilty of misappropriating the istridhan articles of the complainant. Accordingly, all the accused namely Ramesh Chandok, Shashi Kiran, Archana and Roopa @ Uma are convicted for offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC and accused Ramesh Chandok is further convicted for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC.
Let case be put up for argument on sentence on 07.10.2011.
Announced in the open court (SUNENA SHARMA)
Dated:23.09.2011 M.M./Mahila Court (E)
27 of 27