Delhi District Court
Fir No.280/04, Ps- S.N. Puri State vs Govind & Orthers on 21 July, 2014
FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Govind & Others
FIR No. 280/04
PS-S. N. Puri
Date of Institution of case : 09.06.2005
Date of judgment : 21.07.2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Date of offence : 11.12.1999
b) Offence complained of : 498-A IPC & 406 IPC
c) Name of accused, : (1) Govind
his parentage S/o Sh.Shiv Narayan
Singh Arora
R/o M-20, Sriniwaspuri
New Delhi-65
(2) Kanta Rani
W/o Sh. Govind Singh
R/o M-20 Sriniwaspuri
New Delhi
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e) Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Govind, Kanta Rani, Joginder, Sanjay and Kumari Rachna have been sent to face trial Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 1 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers on the allegations that he had subjected the complainant Smt. Asha subjected to her cruelty by harassing her with regard to the demand of dowry and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 406/498A IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court by the IO upon which cognizance of the offence was taken by the court.
2. Charge for offence punishable u/s 406/498-A IPC was framed against accused persons, namely, Govind, Kanta Rani, Joginder, Sanjay and Kumari Rachna vide order dated 18.04.2009, passed by Ld. Predecessor which was explained to the accused persons in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Later on, accused persons, namely, Yoginder, Sanjay and Rachna had been discharged vide order dated 09.05.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court.
3. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 2 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers Evidence. Prosecution has produced nine witnesses as Asha as PW-1, Smt Meenu as PW-2, HC Mukesh Tyagi as PW-3, Sh. Sita Ram as PW-4, Smt. Sheetal Devi as PW-5, Sh. Banwari Lal as PW-6, Sh. Jyoti as PW-7, Rajesh Kumar as PW-8, Retired SI Harpal Singh as PW-9 and the accused persons were examined under S.313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 CrPC. Accused produced four witnesses in their defence.
4. Defence examined Sh Dharam Pal as DW1, Smt VeenaHasija as DW2, and Sh Ved Prakash DW3 and SH Shyam Lal as DW4.
5. Final arguments heard on behalf of all the parties. Carefully perused the record and the written arguments of both the parties.
Prosesution witnesses deposed as follows:
6. PW1 Asha deposed that she married Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 3 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers Gurdayal on 11.12.1999 in temple at S. N. Puri and thereafter started residing in a joint family alongwith all the accused persons. After some days of her marriage, the accused persons started giving her beatings and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her and used to beat her with danda and stone and even used to throw bricks on her and used abusive language towards her and did not give her good treatment. She further deposed that she showed her incapacity to fullfil their demand as she was from a very poor family. She proved complaint PW-1/A. and compromise Ex-PW1/B. She deposed that the behaviour of the accused persons did not change towards her after the compromise and they continued to give beatings to her by danda and stone and by hurling bricks and accused Govind even tried to kill her by strangulating her. One day, her husband had gone for work and is missing since then. The accused persons continued to demand Rs.50,000/- and beat her often and make her standing outside the house alongwith her Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 4 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers children. Since then, she is living with her father at Faridabad. Whenever, she visited the matrimonial house, accused person gave her beatings and threw stones upon her. The accused persons also used to give beatings to her husband who was handicapped by 40%.
7. PW2 Smt. Meenu deposed that on 11.12.1999, her sister Asha get married with one Sh. Gurdayal Singh at Durga Temple, S. N. Puri. As per her deposition, the family member of the Gurdaya Singh were also present at the ceremony and her sister started living with her husband at M-20, JJ Colony, S.N. Puri, New Delhi. She deposed on similar lines as her sister Asha as she was her source of information and stated that Gurdayal is missing since 24.07.2003, and that her sister was thrown out from her matrimonial house by her in laws on 23.09.2003.
8. PW-3 HC Mukesh Tyagi is a formal Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 5 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers witness to the investigation and arrest of accused Govind and proved personal search memo Ex-PW3/A, and arrest memo Ex-PW3/B.
9. PW-4 Sh. Sita Ram deposed that his daughter Asha was married to accused Guru Dayal and accused persons used to beat his daughter for dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- which continued even after death of Gurdayal though he did not remember the date, month and year when Rs. 50,000/- was so demanded.
10. PW-5 Smt. Sheetal Devi, President of Durga Mandir Sriniwaspuri and Asha is not know to her. Police had not interrogated her in the present case, however, Asha and her sister were inside the Mandir and had asked them as to why due permission had not been taken and while the boy is already married. She informed the father of the girl about this fact. No priest of this Mandir was present, however, another priest Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 6 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers from somewhere else was there.
11. PW-6 Sh. Banwari Lal deposed that he is priest by profession and he was present in the photographs Ex-PW2 to Ex-PW4 at point B. He performed the marriage between the parties, however, he was not aware about that it was not the first marriage of Gurdayal.
12. PW-7 Sh. Jyoti who is a photographer by profession and had taken photographs of marriage of one ceremony had identified photographs Ex- PW1/A(colly).
13. PW-8 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Mishra who deposed that he was priest in the marriage of one Gurdayal and Kalpana in March 1999 at Radha Krishna Mandir, Amar Colony, New Delhi. He stated that he can identify the bride and groom if, shown to him. Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 7 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers
14. PW-9 retired SI Harpal Singh who deposed that on 23.06.2004, he was posted as Sub Inspector in PS-Sriniwaspuri and on that day and recorded statement of Asha and registered FIR No.280/04 vide, endorsement Ex-PW-9/A. He recorded statement of PWs and investigated the matter.
Defence witnesses deposed as as follows:
15. DW-1 Sh. Dharam Pal who deposed that Gurdayal was married with Kalpana on 08.03.1999. Both resided at M-20, S. N. Puri, New Delhi and that Gurdayal alongwith Kalpana both had left the M-20, S.N. Puri and both had taken rented accommodation. He is residing in front of M-20, S.N. Puri and he was participating the marriage of Gurdayal and Kalpana which was solemnized in Radha Krishna Mandir, Amar Colony. Gurdayal was working in MCD and he was mentally retarded since birth.
Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 8 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers
16. DW-2 Smt. Veena Hasija who deposed that she is the sister of Gurdayal and her brother Gurdayal got married with Kalpana on 09.03.1999 till December 1999 and both resided at M-20, S. N. Puri, New Delhi and after that Gurdayal alongwith Kalpana both had left the M-20, S. N. Puri and both had taken rented accommodation. She had participated in the marriage of Gurdayal and Kalpana which was solemnized in Radha Krishna Mandir, Amar colony.
17. DW-3 Sh. Ved Praksah deposed that Gurdayal was married with Kalpana on 08.03.1999 and were residing at M-20, S. N. Puri, New Delhi and rented accommodation. He attended the marriage of Gurdayal and Kalpana which was solemnized in Radha Krishna Mandir, Amar Colony. Gurdayal is his cousin brother.
18. DW-4 Sh. Shyam Lal who deposed that Gurdayal was married with Kalpana on 08.03.1999. Both resided at M-230 Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi till Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 9 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers December 1999 after which both took rental accommodation. He further deposed that he attended the marriage of Gurdayal and Kalpana solemnized at Radha Krishan Mandir, Amar Colony.
19. Section 498A IPC is reproduced here for ready reference:
"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: 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 coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 10 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers
20. A bare perusal of section 498 A IPC shows that, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated U/s. 498 A are of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage. In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by section 498 A IPC , the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful' that is intentional. So to invoke provisions of section 498 A IPC, the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 11 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers graver nature than that causing grave injury or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic, persistent and willful acts perpetrated with a view to make the life of the woman so burdensome or in-supportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life.
21. The accused persons have argued that Gurdayal was married to Kalpana on 08.03.1999 and could not have solemnized a valid married with Asha without obtaining divorced from the first wife. The prosecution has relied upon two photographs of the marriage and produced PW-5/ Sheetal Devi, President of the Mandir, PW-6/ Banwari Lal, Priest who is stated to have solemnized the marriage between Asha and Gurdayal and PW-7/ Jyoti who took the two photographs.
22. When confronted with the photographs Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 12 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers produced by prosecution, PW-1 admitted that none of the accused is shown in these photographs. PW-5 has deposed that the accused was under the influence of liquor and was medically unfit at the time of his marriage with Asha. PW-5 further deposed that she had raised an objection to the marriage on the ground that it was the second marriage of Gurdayal. However, the source of this knowledge has not been disclosed by her.
23. PW-6 Banwari Lal he has deposed that he has solemnized the marriage of Asha with Gurdayal however, he did not remember as to who had called him to perform the marriage and how many people were present at the ceremony and also could not remember the place of abode of the family members.
24. Per contra, PW-8 Rajesh Kumar Mishra has deposed that he had solemnized the marriage of Gurdayal with Kalpana in March 1999 at Radha Krishna Mandir, Amar Colony, New Delhi. This witness of the Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 13 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers prosecution had negated the case of the prosecution as to the validity of marriage of Gurdayal with Asha .However, PW-8 was not cross examined by the Ld. APP. The testimony of PW-8 is further corroborated by the testimony of DW-1 Sh. Dharam Pal who has deposed that Gurdayal was married with Kalpana on 08.03.1999 and was residing with him. He further deposed that Gurdayal was only married once. DW-2 Veena Hasija also corroborated these testimonies and deposed about the marriage of Gurdayal with Kalpana on 08.03.1999 and had also exhibited the marriage invitation card EX-DW2/A and photographs of the marriage Ex-DW2/B (Colly). These testimonies are further corroborated by DW-3 Ved Prakash. Both DW-2 and DW-3 deposed that Gurdayal was mentally retarded since birth and this witness has attended the marriage of Gurdayal and Kalpana on 08.03.1999. All of them have deposed that Gurdayal went missing after December 1999. In respect of the cruelty PW-1 had Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 14 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers alleged that she were beaten by bricks, stone and dandas and was also strangulated by the accused persons and had also got her medical treatment done at Safdarjung Hospital however, no medical documents have been filed by the complainant on record. The allegations of beating and torture are stated to have begun a few days after the marriage and the complainant is stated to have filed a complaint against the alleged torture which was compromised. When confronted with this compromise deed, the witness admitted that it does not bear the signatures of any of the accused persons. PW-1 has deposed that she was continued to be tortured by the accused persons however, no complaint was filed by her till 2003. There is not justification or explanation which could justify non- filing of any prior complaint by Asha for three years when she has alleged that she was beaten by bricks and stones and there was an attempt to kill her. PW-2/ Meenu is the sister of Asha who does not have any Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 15 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers personal knowledge about the facts of the case and is merely a here say evidence and has deposed on the basis of information given to her by Asha. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 or PW-3 have been able to state the names of the family members of Gurdayal who were alleged present at the time of solemnization of the marriage of Asha with Gurdayal. Asha had also filed a Writ Petition before Delhi High Court for getting the pension of Gurdayal but during cross examination she admitted that she was not aware the outcome of the said Petition and was not ever aware about the name of her advocate through whom she had filed the Petition. Asha had alleged that she lived with Gurdayal as his wife but she has not produced any picture of them being together. She has not even produced ID Card or Ration Card wherein her name would be shown as the wife of Gurdayal. From the testimony of PW-8,it is proved the Gurdayal was already married to kalpana at the time of this marriage with Asha and for this reason the marriage Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 16 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers between Asha and Gurdayal is not valid as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, as the same was solemnized without obtaining divorce and during the life time of first wife Kalpana. In these circumstance, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the existence of valid marriage between Asha and Gurdayal and further, the allegation of cruelty and beatings are not corroborated by medical evidence when the same could have been brought on record. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which go to the root of the case. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the pales of reasonable doubt. On the basis of documents on record and the contradictions as pointed out earlier the benefit of doubt which has accrued, necessarily has to go in favour of the accused persons. Accordingly accused Govind and Kanta Rani are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted for offences under Section 498 A IPC.
Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 17 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers
25. Now coming to allegations in respect of offence u/s 406 IPC, no list of dowry articles was prepared by the parties at the time of marriage and the list of articles placed on record was filed by presenting the complaint. There are no allegations of entrustment of dowry against to the accused persons. Even when the complainant deposed in the court, she did not alleged regarding the entrustment. As such, there is no evidence of entrustment of the streedhan to accused. There is no evidence of any demand of return of streedhan from them. There is no evidence of refusal to return the streedhan articles are their misappropriation or conversion by accused persons. In these circumstances, the offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against any of the accused persons.
26. On the basis of the above discussion and the evidence, put forth by the prosecution, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt and accused Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 18 of 19 FIR No.280/04, PS- S.N. Puri State Vs Govind & orthers Govind and Kanta Rani are hereby acquitted for the offence u/s. 498A/34 IPC as well as for offence under S. 406/34 IPC. Bail Bond and surety bond of the accused are further extended for six months as per S.437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Shivani Chauhan) court on 21.07.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate Manila Court,SED/Saket New Delhi/ 21.07.2014 Pronounced in open court on 21.07.2014 Page no 19 of 19