Delhi District Court
Fir No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal on 25 May, 2014
FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Navin Goyal
FIR NO.256/01
PS Badarpur
Date of Institution of case : 20.10.2003
Date of judgment : 28.05.2014
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C .
a) Date of offence : 04.05.1999
b) Offence complained of : 498A IPC & 406 IPC
c) Name of accused, : (1) Navin Goyal
his parentage S/o Sh. Jagdish Goyal
2) Sh. Jagdish Goyal
S/o Sh. Babulal Goyal
3) Beena
W/o Sh. Jagdish
(4) Mamta
D/o Sh. Jagdish Goyal
5) Budhimal
S/o Sh. Bhywal Singh
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e) Final Order : Acquitted.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 1 of 26
FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Navin Goyal, Jagdish Goyal, Beena, Mamta and Budhimal have been sent to face trial on the allegations that the accused persons had subjected the complainant Smt. Rekha to cruelty by harassing her and her parents to meet unlawful demand of dowry and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC. That they all in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the streedhan articles thereby committing offence punishable u/s 406/34 IPC. A complaint was filed in this respect by Rekha on the basis of which FIR was registered. Accused persons were apprehended and later on were released on bail. 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.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 2 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal
2. Charge for offence punishable u/s 498 A/406/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons vide order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Court which was explained to the accused persons in vernacular to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. Prosecution has produced seven witnesses and defence has produced two witnesses.
3. Complainant Rekha was examined as PW1.
She deposed that she got married with Navin Goyal on 04.05.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave her stridhan articles as per list Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that her parents gave her 16 tolas of gold and from her inlaws side she was gifted 94 gm gold, 200 gm of silver. All the stridhan articles including jewellery from both sides, clothes, utensils and other stridhan articles were lying in her matrimonial home and in dominion of all the accused person. She was also present1516 sarees valued Rs. 20,000/ to Rs. 22,000/ and all these sarees were in the possession of accused persons.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 3 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal
She deposed that she was presented Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ as Muh Dekhai from relatives of inlaws and same were in possession of her mother in law. She demanded all the above stridhan articles from her mother in law, sister in law and other accused persons but they had not given the same despite demand. On the date of marriage, her mother in law, sister in law and nandoi Satveer Prakash @ Budhimal started demanding dowry. All of them demanded that they should be given one house, one shop and said if these demands were not fulfilled, they would not take her back to her matrimonial house. She further deposed that since she was married to accused Navin, her father under compelling circumstances requested the accused persons and thought that the things may change later on. Her vidai ceremony was performed under tense and quarrel circumstances. When she reached her matrimonial house, the accused persons started harassing her physically and mentally. They asked her to bring one house and one shop. She was made to do all household works and given beatings. She was not given sufficient food to eat and was threatened that her brother will be abducted. She became Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 4 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal sick. She was two and half month pregnant when she was given beating by her motherinlaws, sisterinlaw and husband. She further deposed that she started bleeding but he was not given any medical treatment. She further deposed that she was given treatment in Jeevan Hospital by her father. She further deposed that her Nandoi Budhi Mal who staying in her neighborhood asked her fatherin law to throw in her parents home and they will remarry her husband. She further deposed that her fatherinlaw instead of taking her to the hospital telephoned her father that her condition was critical. Thereafter, her father came and took her to the Jeevan hospital. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint in police station ExPW1/A which bears her signature at point A. Some of these articles returned by the accused persons by themselves in the PS and same were seized vide seizure memo ExPW1/C which bears her signature at point A. The stridhan which seized by the police are ExPW1 to PW15 and are not disputed by the defence C1. The receipt of her stridhan articles are Mark A to Mark M. The medical papers regarding her treatment in the Jeevan Hospital are mark N, O & P. the photographs of Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 5 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal her marriage are ExPW1/D to G.
4. ASI Seema was examined as PW2. She deposed that on that day, she was working as DO from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. At about 10.05 AM, she received the rukka brought by SI Vijay Kumar. On the basis of rukka, she registered the present FIR. Thereafter, she gave the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Vijay Kumar. The carbon copy of the FIR as Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
5. Sh. Ramesh Chand was examined as PW3.
He deposed that on 04.05.1999, he had got married his daughter with Naveen according to Hindu rites and ritual in Delhi. He had spent about Rs. 7,70,000/ in the marriage of his daughter. Before one month of 04.05.1999, he had given Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ in two occasions through Narender and Sri Kishan @ Bhola. On 02.05.1999, on the occasion of Lagan Sagai, he had given Rs. 1,70,000/ to Sh. Jagdish Goel, father in law of his daughter. He had also given Rs. 1,00,000/ to the father in law of his daughter Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 6 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal for the purchase of TV, Fridge, Washing Machine, Scooter prior to marriage. He had also given about 15 tolas of gold and 340 gms silver to Sh. Jagdish Goel in the form of gold and silver jewellery. He had also given clothes including sarees etc to his daughter in her marriage which were amounting to Rs. 65,500/ and he had also given utensils of about Rs. 22,500/ in the marriage of his daughter.
6. He further deposed that from the side of accused persons, about 94 gms gold and 200 gms silver were gifted to his daugther in the marriage and same is still in their possession. Rs. 50,000/ which were gifted by the accused persons being Mooh Dekhai was also still in the possession of accused persons. All the dowry articles which were purchased from Rs. 7,70,000/ was in possession of accused persons except the 15 articles which were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He deposed that the accused persons were demanding a house and a shop since the time of marriage, he had to perform the marriage his daughter for the sake of society.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 7 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal 7. Sh. Om Prakash Verma (Jeweller) was
examined as PW4. He deposed that been running a jewellery shop in the name of Om Prakash Verma Swarankar for about 30 years. The receipt dated 25.03.1999, 22.04.1999 and 22.04.1999 were issued from his shop.
8. Sh. Krishna Gupta was examined as PW5.
He deposed that on 30.03.1999 and on 31.03.1999, he went with Narender Garg at Sarai Khawaja to give money to one Jagdish Goel. Narender Garg handed over cash of Rs. 50,000/ to Jagdish Goel in his presence. After that, they returned to their houses. On the next day i.e 31.03.1999, they again went to the Sarai Khawaja to give money to Jagdish Goel. Narender Garg against handed over cash of Rs. 40,000/ to Jagdish Goel in his presence and they returned back to their houses.
9. Inspector Vijay Kumar was examined as PW6. He deposed that on that day, complaint in this case was marked to him by the SHO for investigation alongwith original complaint and list of stridhan. Then after inquiry, Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 8 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal he got the FIR registered on 24.05.2001. During investigation on 17.06.2001, accused persons produced some of dowry articles in the PS and same was taken into possession. He further deposed that in the meantime, complainant and her father also came to PS who identified their articles. They also gave remaining list of dowry articles and same was taken into possession. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS and he handed over the file to MHC(M).
10. Inspector Rajesh Kumar was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 22.09.2001, he was posted as SI. On that day, investigation of the case was marked to him. During investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained the photocopy of receipt of dowry articles. He deposed that on 17.11.2001, he arrested the accused Mamta, Smt. Beena, Naveen Goel, Jagdish Goel, Budhiman vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/E and conducted their personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/F to Ex.P7/I. On 29.10.2001, complainant produced him a medical document and the same was taken into possession Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 9 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal and photocopy of affidavit and was submitted in his challan. He also seized the FDR received by him from the Court of Sh. V.K. Jain vide order dated 02.11.2001. Seizure memo of the same as Ex.PW7A. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared a challan and file the same in the Court through SHO concerned.
11. Statement of accused persons under section 311 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them. They opted to lead evidence in their defence.
12. Yogesh Aggarwal was examined as DW1. He deposed that he had been residing at the above said address and proprietor of the shop situated at Katan Pahari, Faridabad, Haryana. He deposed that he was aware of both the parties in the case as they were also running their shops. He made introduced between the parties. After some time of marriage, he came to know that some dispute arouse between the parties. Many times, the Panchayaat was held to settle the matter between the parties and he Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 10 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal had joined the said Panchayat. Despite settlement of Panchayat, father of the complainant did not follow the condition of settlement. There was no handing over of money in the relation, it was a simple marriage and he deposited stridhan of the complainant in PS. There was no demand of dowry made on the side of husband. He had attended the marriage as well as engagement. No demand of any article was made by the groom or by his relatives at the time of marriage or at the time of engagement. The main dispute between the parties as there was a shop of utensils of Ramesh, father of complainant. The complainant used to sit on the said shop prior to her marriage and also after marriage. Main dispute between the parties that the father of the complainant does not wish to send the complainant to her matrimonial home as she used to sit at his shop.
13. Sh. Karan Singh was examined as DW2. He deposed that the accused Jagdish belonged to his village. He was son of his good friend. He was present at the time of settlement of marriage of Naveen Goyal. There was no Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 11 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal demand of dowry at the time of settlement of marriage from the side of Jagdish Goyal. This relation was for one rupee. At the time of Lagan Sagai of Naveen Goyal, there was no demand from his side. Ramesh Chand Garg, father of the complainant gave to Naveen Goyal as per his desire. At the time of Vidai, he was also present and at that time also, there was no demand from the side of Jagdish Goyal or his family members. After 1 - 1 ½ months, disputes arose between complainant and accused persons and he asked from Jagdish Goyal told him that the father of the complainant wanted that Naveen Goyal should reside with the complainant at the parental house of the complainant. Thereafter, upon the complaint of complainant, the present case was registered and accused persons returned dowry articles to the complainant as per list. Thereafter, they went to the house of Sh. Ramesh Chand Garg and asked him to settle the dispute amicable. Matter could not settled. No other defence witness was examined. Hence, DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
14. Final arguments heard on behalf of all the Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 12 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal parties. Carefully perused the record.
15. Ld. APP for State has argued that testimony of the complainant has remained unrebutted and she has categorically stated all facts. The complainat was not cared for in the matrimonial house and was made to do household work. She was given beatings by the inlaws and was not given any treatment by the inlwas and that it is a cruelty in itself. Father of the victim has deposed that he gave money to the accused which is corroborated by PW5.
16. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused has argued that there is no specific allegation against accused. It is argued that marriage was solemnized in exchange of one Rupees only and no dowry was given or taken at the time of marriage. He further argued the complainant used to sit in the bartan shop of her father and for this reason the father Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 13 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal of the complainant wanted Rekha and Naveen to stay in their house and differences arose then Navin did not relent. It was further argued that the complainant was showered with gifts., gold and cash at the house of in laws and no act of cruelty was committed against the complainant who was well taken care of in the house in laws and submits that all the accused persons have been falsely implicated.
17. 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.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 14 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal 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."
18. 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 Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 15 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal 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 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 Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 16 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal a view to make the life of the woman so burdensome or insupportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life.
19. The marriage of accused was solemnized on 04.05.1999. There is no dispute to the existence of marital relations between accused Navin and complainant at the time of the incident.
20. The complainant wife had not filed any criminal complaint against any of the accused persons for 2 Years after the marriage and the first complaint came to be filed in the Year 2001 which is a type written complaint and is not in the handwriting of the complainant wife.
21. As per the deposition o prosecution witnesses, a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ was given to the Groom side on two occasions a month prior to the solemnization of marriage, however, there is Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 17 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal nothing on record to show that this amount was given as dowry as consideration for marriage. A cash amount of Rs. 1,70,000 was also given to Sh. Jagdish Goel, occasion of Lagan Sagai, and Rs. 1,00,000/ for purchase of household articles. However, there is nothing on record to show that this amount was demanded by the accused as dowry consideration for marriage. Further, 15 tolas of gold and 340 gms silver was also given to Sh. Jagdish Goel in the form of gold and silver jewelery. However, there is no proof on record to show that the accused had made any demand for these articles as a consideration for marriage.
22. Per contra, PW1 has, during cross examination admitted that the accused never made any demand for any car, cash or jewellery. Thus, in view of the admission of the Prosecution's witnesses and in the absence of any proof of these articles were given by the father of the victim in response to the demand for dowry from the side of the accused, the necessary presumption is that these articles and cash were given voluntarily as a gifts in the marriage and not as a dowry or consideration for Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 18 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal marriage.
23. The other allegation is that the accused had made a demand for a house and a shop at the time of marriage itself. The exact particulars of this demand such as, the type of shop and house demanded, area and location thereof etc are neither mentioned in the complaint nor has the same come on record in any other manner. The exact time of demand, such as whether the demand was made prior to fera's ceremony or after fera's but prior to vidai ceremony has not come on record either in the complaint or in the testimony of any witness. Further, it is not stated as to who all were present at the time of the alleged demand. Who had made the demand, whether it was the fathernlaw, or the motherin law or nay one else. The marriage was solemnized in presence of several guests and relatives from both sides. Any of these could have deposed as to the conduct of the accused persons at the time of marriage, i.e, whether they tried to stop/stall the wedding due the alleged nonfulfillment of their socalled demand. Let alone examining these Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 19 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal persons, none of the Prosecution's witness has deposed as to in whose presence was the demand made and what was the reaction of the accused on the nonfulfillment of the alleged demand. Per contra, the prosecution witness es PW1/complainant has deposed that there was no delay between the fera ceremony which took place at night and the Vidai ceremony which took place early morning.
24. Further, no complaint was made from the complainant's side against the alleged demand. The complainant's father was running a 'Bartan Shop' at that time and it would not have been possible for him to gift a House and Shop to the accused persons even at a later stage. Thus, if the demand for House and the shop was made as alleged, there is no justification forthcoming, as to why no complaint was made against any of the accused persons at the time of marriage itself or at any time soon afterwards. No justification has come forth as to why the complainant kept quiet for a long period of 2 years without making any complaint.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 20 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal
25. In the normal course of events, an accused who is upset over nonfulfillment of demand for dowry would not shower the complainant with Gifts and jewelery. As per the own admission of complainant and her father, the complainant was presented with 94gms of gold and 200 gms silver and 1516 sarees worth Rs. 22,000/ and had further receipt Rs. 15,000/ to 20,000/ as muhdikhai from the side of the inlaws. There is no evidence on record to show that any of the accused inflicted any cruelties upon the complainant immediately after marriage due to nonfulfillment of demand for a house and shop. Per contra, it is evident from the testimonies of complainant and her father that there were post marriage celebrations such as Muhdikhai etc at the house of accused and the complainant was showered with gifts from relatives.
26. The complainant had alleged that she was given beatings on 13.07.2000, when she was 21/2 months pregnant due to which she started bleeding. It Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 21 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal was further alleged that she had suffered miscarriage due to beatings. The prosecution has not proved medical records of the complainant in support of this allegation. Per contra, the medical record MarkN only shows that the complainant was being treated for irregular periods and anemia. There is no evidence or MLC on record to show that the alleged miscarriage was suffered due to the alleged beatings. Furthermore, There is no evidence on record to show that the alleged beatings was on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. As discussed above, cruelty per se is not sufficient to bring home the offence under S.498 A IPC.
27. There was no complaint by the complainant during the first two years of marriage and the first complaint came to be filed on 21.04.2001. No justification for delay in filing the complaint has been furnished by the prosecution.
Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 22 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal
28. As per the deposition of prosecution witnesses, there is no demand of cash, jewelery, vehicle etc by the accused persons. The only demand pertains to one shop and house. Even this demand is vague as there is no evidence on record to show that a specific type of house or shop i.e having a specific area or in a specific locality, was demanded by these accused
29. PW1 in her cross examination has admitted that her father, sister, brother and brotherin law visited her in the matrimonial home occasionally and she also visited her parents home many times while she was staying at her matrimonial house. The distance between the matrimonial house and the parents house is only 4 km. and the complainant could freely contact her parents, if she was faced with any difficulty.
30. There is only one incident of alleged Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 23 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal beatings stated by the complainant which is also not supported by any medical documents of the complainant. Even in this, there is on record to show that this beatings was on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry by the complainant or her parents.
31. The father of complainant has deposed that his daughter used to visit the matrimonial home. She had visited them 10 days after the marriage and stayed with them for 2 to 4 days. His son has also visited the complainant in her matrimonial home 23 times. No complaint made by complainant during this period.
32. 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. Prosecution has further failed to show any proximity or chain of events to establish the fact that Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 24 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal accused persons systematically committed cruelty against the complainant with a view to force her or her parents to meet the unlawful demand of dowry to bring home the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC. On the basis of documents on record and the contradictions as pointed out earlier, benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused
33. Now coming to allegations in respect of offence u/s 406 IPC, there are no allegations of entrustment of dowry against to any of the accused person. 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 any accused. There is no evidence of refusal to return the streedhan articles are their misappropriation or conversion by any of the accused persons. In these circumstances, the offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against any of the Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 25 of 26 FIR No.256/01 State vs Navin Goyal accused persons.
34. 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 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 28.05.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate Manila Court,SED/Saket New Delhi/ 28.05.2014 Pronounced in open court on 28.05.14 Page no 26 of 26