Delhi District Court
Fir No.30/02 State vs . Mukesh Kumar Etc. Ps: Nangloi on 9 October, 2014
FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi
IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT03),WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc.
FIR No.30/02
PS Nangloi
U/s 498A/406 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0534212002
2. Date of complaint : 11.01.2002
3. Name of complainant : Anuradha
4. Name, parentage & addresses
of the accused persons : Accused no.1 Mukesh
Kumar S/o Late
Sh. Raghuvir Singh
Accused no.2 Virender
Singh S/o Late
Sh. Raghuvir Singh
Accused no.3 Guddi
W/o Virender Singh
All accused R/o T223,
Prem Nagar, near
Senior Secondary
Public School, Kirari,
Nangloi, Delhi.
4. Offence complaint of : U/s 498A/406 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of order : 27.09.2014
State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 1
FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
1. Accused have been forwarded by the SHO of PS Nangloi to face trial U/s 498A/406 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that complaint was made by the complainant PW Anuradha that during the subsistence of her marriage with accused Mukesh Kumar since 08.03.2000, accused no.1 Mukesh Kumar alongwith accused no.2 Virender and accused no.3 Guddi subjected complainant to mental and physical cruelty in order to compel her to meet their illegal demands for dowry and accused Mukesh Kumar criminally misappropriated the istridhan entrusted to him and did not returned the same despite demanded by her. On this complaint, FIR was registered, accused were arrested and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to all the accused persons free of cost U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Finding a prima facie case against all the three accused persons, all the three accused persons namely accused no.1 Mukesh Kumar, accused no.2 Virender Singh and accused no. 3 Guddi are State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 2 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi charged U/s 498A IPC and accused no.1 Mukesh Kumar is also charged U/s 406 IPC, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution to prove its case examined following witnesses namely : PW1 HC Ishwar Singh, PW2 Complainant Anuradha PW3 Pushpa Chauhan, PW4 SI Sudesh Ranga, PW6 HC Babu Lal and PW7 HC Dharambir Singh.
Although, PW5 SI Vipin Kumar was partly examined only but his further examination in chief was not completed and he was not cross examined by the accused persons so, part examination in chief of PW5 SI Vipin Kumar given in this case could not be relied upon and it is not admissible. Further, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Kishan Vs. State 1975 Vol.III CLR Page 157 wherein it has been laid down that "right of cross examination is a valuable right and witness examined in chief not becoming available for cross examination for any reason then the effect is that Court is not entitled to rely upon his testimony".
6. Statement of all the three accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 3 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi were recorded separately wherein they all denied the allegations levelled against them and accused no.1 Mukesh Kumar stated that it is a false case and all the istridhan articles has been taken by the complainant and they had never demanded any dowry from the complainant and complainant remained at the matrimonial house only for 14 days and thereafter she herself left the matrimonial home and went to her parents house because complainant was having a love affair with some other boy before the marriage and complainant used to tell him that her marriage has been got done with him forcefully by her parents and then complainant did not return back to her matrimonial house and he also went to the parental house of the complainant to bring her back but the complainant refused to come alongwith him and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Also, accused no.2 Virender & accused no.3 Guddi stated that it is a false case and since they have got settled the marriage of Mukesh and the complainant and Mukesh and complainant used to live with them and therefore, complainant was having a grievance with them and at the time of marriage, complainant's father was not present and the complainant was shown to them for Mukesh by the complainant's Mausi and complainant's Bua and then one day after the marriage, when the complainant was staying in her matrimonial house, the younger sister of the complainant brought a love letter for the State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 4 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi complainant and the complainant was reading the said love letter and when Guddi asked about the said letter then the complainant did not showed the said letter to Guddi and tore the said letter and then the mother of the complainant came alongwith four people and told them that they do not want their daughter to stay in their house and when they refused as complainant has got newly married to Mukesh and they should live happily then complainant has filed the present false case and they have been falsely implicated in this case. All the three accused persons chose not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
8. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined formal witnesses like PW1 HC Ishwar Singh and he stated that on 11.01.2002, on receiving a complaint through the Reader of SHO, he registered the present FIR and the copy of same is Ex.PW1/A and after registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and original complaint to SI Vipin Kumar for further investigation. PW7 HC Dharambir Singh was examined and he stated that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Register No.19 in respect of this State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 5 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi FIR and the photocopy of the record in this matter is Ex.PW7/A and the case property mentioned therein was released on superdari to Anuradha on 15.02.2002 as per record.
9. Prosecution to prove its case also examined the most crucial witness i.e. PW2 Anuradha i.e. complainant cum victim and she stated that she got married with accused Mukesh and he is present in the Court and as per Hindu Rites and Customs, her mother spent Rupees Two Lacs in the marriage and gave TV, Sewing Machine, bed, dressing table, one table with four chair, one box and utensils and other domestic articles, one pair of Balli (gold balli), one gold nath, one pair of silver pajeb, two silver Mangal Sutra apart from clothes and after the marriage, she went to her matrimonial house where she started living with her husband accused Mukesh and her jeth accused Virender and her jethani accused Guddi and all the accused persons are present in the Court today. She further stated that for the first few days she was kept properly in the matrimonial house but after some days, she was beaten by her husband accused Mukesh Kumar and her jethaniaccused Guddi on account of bringing insufficient dowry articles and they were demanding one scooter and Rupees One Lac and accused Mukesh State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 6 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi Kumar had burnt her hand with 'bidi' and the scars are still visible on her hands and after 15 days of marriage, she was left at her parental home by accused Mukesh on account of Rupees One Lac and she tried to compromise the matter but accused Virender and accused Guddi had told her clearly that until and unless she brought Rupees One Lac and scooter from her parental home then only she would be allowed to enter in the matrimonial home and she told the same about to her mother and she had also talked to all the three accused persons but all in vain, thereafter she lodged a complaint with the police which is Ex.PW2/A and she gave the list of dowry articles which is Ex.PW2/B and accused Mukesh Kumar had given the list of balance dowry articles on 19.11.2000 which is Ex.PW2/C and on 17.01.2002 she was called by the police and accused Mukesh Kumar and accused Virender had brought the dowry articles in the police station which the police has taken into possession at her instance vide memo Ex.PW2/D and still some of the dowry articles were in the possession of her husband and in laws and she had demanded the same but the same has not been returned by them and accused Mukesh Kumar had illicit relation with accused Guddi and on that account also she was beaten by accused Mukesh Kumar and accused Guddi and several times she demanded her istridhan articles back from her husband Mukesh and her in laws but they did not returned State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 7 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi the same despite her request.
10. Prosecution to prove its case also examined PW3 Pushpa Chauhan and she stated that her daughter Anuradha got married with accused Mukesh present in the Court today on 08.03.2000 and she had spent Rupees Two Lacs in the marriage and given the dowry articles as per her status as per list Ex.PW2/B and after the marriage her daughter went to her matrimonial house and started residing with her husband accused Mukesh and her jethaccused Virender and her jethaniaccused Guddi present in the Court today and after few days of the marriage, her daughter told her that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused persons for bringing insufficient dowry articles and they were demanding Rupees One Lac and a scooter and she showed her inability to gave the same and tried to sort out the problem but the accused persons were adamant and even demanded Rupees One Lac and a scooter from her and her daughter was beaten, tortured and harassed by the accused persons for not bringing the scooter and Rupees One Lac and her daughter was left at her house by the accused persons just after 15 days of the marriage and since then she is residing with her and she tried to sort out the matter but all in vain and her daughter lodged a complaint with the police and police recorded her statement and on 17.01.2002 some of the dowry State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 8 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi articles were brought by the accused persons and same were taken into possession by her daughter vide memo Ex.PW2/D.
11. Prosecution to prove its case also examined PW4 SI Sudesh Ranga and he stated that on 22.05.2002, present case was marked to him and on that day, accused Mukesh present in the Court had surrendered in the Court of Sh. Paramjit Singh, Ld. MM, Delhi and accused Mukesh was arrested with the permission of the Court and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded which is Ex.PW4/C and one day police remand was taken but no recovery could be effected and Ct. Babu Lal was along with him during the whole investigation on that day and on next day, accused Mukesh was produced before the Court and he was sent to judicial custody.
12. Prosecution to prove its case also examined PW6 HC Babu Lal and he stated that on 22.05.2002, he alongwith IO SI Suresh Ranga in this matter had come in the Court of Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ld. MM, THC, Delhi in respect of investigation in this matter where the accused Mukesh Kumar surrendered himself before the Court and accused Mukesh Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 9 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi Ex.PW4/B and he told about the istridhan which was recorded vide memo Ex.PW4/C and he was taken on police remand for recovery of istridhan but he did not get the istridhan recovered from his house and his statement was recorded by the IO in this case and at this stage PW6 HC Babu Lal is unable to identify the accused Mukesh Kumar as a long time has already passed away after that incident. PW6 HC Babu Lal was also reexamined by Ld. APP for the State and in the reexamination, PW6 HC Babu Lal admitted that signature of accused Mukesh Kumar is available on arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and the personal search memo Ex.PW4/B and Confession Memo were made in his presence and he is unable to remember the face of the accused Mukesh Kumar so, he cannot say whether the person present in the Court is Mukesh Kumar. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the three accused persons should be accordingly convicted.
13. On the other hand, all the three accused persons have raised the only defence that complainant was having a love affair before the marriage with some other person and therefore, she wants to get rid of the marriage and accused GuddiBhabhi of the accused Mukesh has seen the complainant reading a love letter brought by her sister State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 10 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi and when the accused Guddi asked the complainant to show the love letter then the complainant had torn the said love letter and then complainant has filed the present false case to falsely implicate all the three accused persons. Ld. counsel for all the three accused persons contended that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination stated that her father had expired 10 years back and after death of her father, her mother was earning around Rs.2,000/ per month and she was married in the year 2000 and 34 months prior to her marriage, her father was missing and he came back to his home after 78 days of marriage and all the arrangement of her marriage was done by her mother from her own earnings. Ld. counsel for all the accused persons contended that when the complainant had herself admitted that her mother was earning a meager amount of Rs.2,000/ per month then how could her mother spent Rupees Two Lacs in the marriage and also how could logically the accused persons demand half of the said amount i.e. Rupees One Lac as well as a scooter from the complainant within 15 days of the marriage and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for all the three accused persons further contented that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination stated that now she do not remember the date, month or year when the accused persons had demanded scooter and cash of Rupees One Lac and she cannot say during the period of 8 days, State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 11 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi when she resided at her matrimonial home, who had demanded the dowry articles. Ld. counsel for all the accused persons stated that this shows that complainant is not aware of the date of demand and who demanded from her so, no demand has been made from the complainant by the accused persons and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for all the accused persons further contended that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination stated that she has no medical treatment paper regarding the burn wounds through 'bidi' given by accused Mukesh and she has not made any police complaint regarding burn injuries received by her at the hands of accused Mukesh and this fact shows that no burn injuries were received by her and this further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. counsel for all the accused persons further contended that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination stated that there was only one room in her matrimonial home and in the said room she alongwith her husband, her jeth and her jethani were living. Ld. counsel for all the accused persons contended that this shows that there could be no illicit relations between accused Mukesh and accused Guddi. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that all these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and therefore, all the three accused persons should be accordingly acquitted. State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 12 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi
14. Keeping in view the defence taken by all the three accused persons that complainant was having a love affair before the marriage with some other person and therefore, she wants to get rid of the marriage and accused GuddiBhabhi of the accused Mukesh has seen the complainant reading a love letter brought by her sister and when the accused Guddi asked the complainant to show the love letter then the complainant had torn the said love letter and then complainant has filed the present false case to falsely implicate all the three accused persons. To prove the said defence neither any evidence has been led by all the three accused persons nor the said love letter in the torn condition has been placed on record by all the three accused persons. Further, the said defence has not been put and suggested by the accused persons in the cross examination of any of prosecution witnesses. So, the defence taken by all the three accused persons is of no use to all the three accused persons as the said defence has not been proved by all the three accused persons.
15. Keeping in view the contention of ld. counsel for all the three accused persons that the complainant has herself admitted that her mother has made all arrangements for her marriage and her mother was earning a meager amount of Rs.2,000/ per month and her father State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 13 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi was missing at that time then how could her mother spent Rupees Two Lacs in the marriage and how could accused persons logically raise such a high demands of Rupees One Lac as well as a scooter from the complainant within 15 days of the marriage and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of ld. counsel for all the three accused persons does not holds good due to the reason that PW3 Pushpa Chauhan mother of the complainant in her cross examination stated that she had arranged the money for the marriage of her daughter Anuradha by selling her own house and the house which was sold was situated near Lokesh Cinema Nangloi and the said house was sold 23 months prior to the marriage of her daughter for Rs.1,80,000/. So, PW3 Pushpa Chauhan has proved how she has made arrangements of Rupees Two Lacs which were spent in the marriage of her daughter. Further, the fact that the demand has been made by the accused persons of Rupees One Lac and a scooter within 15 days has been alleged by the complainant as well as her mother. Further, the fact the demand has been made is a different aspect then the fact of making arrangements for fulfilling the demand. Further the said demand for Rupees One Lac and a scooter alleged to be made by all the three accused persons has not been fulfilled and so the question of any logical reasoning in making the demand does not arose.
State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 14 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi
16. Keeping in view the contention of ld. counsel for all the three accused persons that complainant is not aware of the date of demand and who made the demand and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of ld. counsel for all the three accused persons does not holds good due to the reason that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination again further stated that the scooter and cash of Rupees One Lac was demanded by her husband, Jeth and Jethani. Further, the mere fact that a stray sentence has appeared in the cross examination of the crucial witness it does not effects the credibility of the said witness. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Case titled as Karamjit Singh V/s State (Delhi Administration) 2003 SCC (Cri) 1001 wherein it has been laid down that " the testimony of a prosecution witness could not be discarded merely on account of a stray sentence appearing in his cross examination".
17. Keeping in view of contention of ld. counsel for all the three accused persons that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination stated that she has no medical treatment paper regarding the burn wounds through Bidi given by accused Mukesh and she has not made any police complaint regarding burn injuries received by her at the hands State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 15 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi of the accused Mukesh and this fact shows that no burn injuries were received by her and this throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of ld. counsel for all the three accused persons does not holds good due to the reason that PW2 Anuradha in her examination in chief has clearly stated that her husband had burnt her hand with bidi and the scars are still visible on her hand. So, it shows that PW2 Anuradha has proved the burn injuries suffered by her at the hands of the accused Mukesh and the mere fact that she has not got the medical examination done and she has not made the complaint regarding the same does not effect the credibility of the crucial witness Anuradha because she being the injured has no reason to omit the real culprit and to implicate others falsely. Further, relying upon the judgment of State vs Subhash Pagi & Anr. 2004(4) Crime 343, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that, "Evidence of a victim or injured witness stands on a different footing as injured witness generally does not have any reason to omit the real culprit and implicate other falsely."
18. Keeping in view the contention of Ld. counsel for all the three accused persons that there was only one room in the matrimonial home and all the three accused persons as well as complainant were State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 16 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi living in the said room so, no question of any illicit relations between accused Mukesh and accused Guddi could arose and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of Ld. counsel for all the three accused persons does not holds good due to the reason that PW2 Anuradha in her cross examination stated that she had seen that her husband had illicit relations with her jethani Guddi and she had seen illicit relation of her husband and jethani Guddi at her matrimonial home. So, this shows that PW2 Anuradha had herself seen the said illicit relations between her husband and her jethani.
19. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the Offence U/s 498A IPC are that "accused being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty or harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand". To prove it prosecution examined its most crucial witness PW2 Anuradha complainant cum victim cum eye witness and she stated that she got married with accused Mukesh and her mother has spent Rupees Two Lacs in the marriage and after the marriage, she went to the matrimonial home where she started living State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 17 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi with her husband accused Mukesh, her jeth accused Virender and her jethani accused Guddi and all are present in the Court today. She further stated that for the first few days, she was kept properly in the matrimonial house but after some days, she was beaten by her husband accused Mukesh and jethaniaccused Guddi on account of bringing insufficient dowry articles and they were demanding one scooter and Rupees One Lac and her husband had burnt her hand with Bidi and the scars are still visible on her hand and after 15 days of her marriage, she was left at her parental home by her husband on account of Rupees One Lac and she tried to compromise the matter but her jeth accused Virender and jethani accused Guddi had told her clearly that until and unless she would brought Rupees One Lac and Scooter from her parental home then only she would be allowed to enter in the matrimonial home and she told the same to her mother and her mother also talked to all the accused persons but in vain. She has also proved her complaint Ex.PW2/A. Further, PW3 Pushpa Chauhan has fully corroborated the version of PW2 Anuradha. Also, the identity of all the three accused persons is well proved. Thus, prosecution is able to prove that all the three accused persons namely accused Mukesh being the husband of the complainant along with accused Virender and accused Guddi being the relatives of the husband of the complainant have harassed the State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 18 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi complainant with a view to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand for dowry. Thus, all the essential ingredients for the Offence U/s 498A IPC is fully proved by the prosecution.
20. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 406 IPC are that "accused being in any manner entrusted with the property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person so to do". To prove it, prosecution examined PW2 Anuradha and she stated that she got married with accused Mukesh and her mother had spent Rupees Two Lacs in the marriage and her mother gave TV, Sewing Machine, bed, dressing table, one table with four chair, one box and utensils and other domestic articles, one pair of Balli (gold balli), one gold nath, one pair of silver pajeb, two silver Mangal Sutra apart from clothes. She further stated that after 15 days of marriage, she was left at her parental home by her husband on account of Rupees One Lac. She further proved that she had given the list of dowry articles to the police which is Ex.PW2/B State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 19 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi and her husband had given the list of balance dowry articles on 19.11.2000 which is Ex.PW2/C and on 17.01.2002 she was called by the police and accused Mukesh Kumar and accused Virender had brought the dowry articles in the police station which the police has taken into possession at her instance vide memo Ex.PW2/D and still some of the dowry articles were in the possession of her husband accused Mukesh and her in laws and she had demanded the same but the same has not been returned by them and several times she demanded her istridhan articles back from her husband accused Mukesh and her in laws but they did not returned the same despite her request. Further, she has correctly identified the accused Mukesh present in the Court. Also, PW3 Pushpa Chauhan stated that on 17.01.2002, some of the dowry articles were brought by the accused persons and the same were taken into possession by her daughter vide memo Ex.PW2/D. Also, PW4 SI Sudesh Ranga Investigating Officer and PW6 HC Babu Lal stated that on 22.05.2002 accused Mukesh Kumar was taken into police custody for recovery of istridhan but accused Mukesh Kumar did not get the istridhan recovered from his house. So, this shows that certain istridhan articles of the complainant is still lying in the custody of accused Mukesh which has been misappropriated by the accused Mukesh and not returned to the complainant despite demanded by State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 20 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi the complainant. Hence, prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 406 IPC against the accused Mukesh.
21. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning as well as the fact that testimony of PW2 Anuradha complainant cum victim cum eye witness is clear, convincing and reliable and no material has come on record which falsify her evidence and PW3 Pushpa Chauhan mother of the complainant has fully corroborated the version of PW2 Anuradha. Also, all the essential ingredients of offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC has been fully established against accused no.1 Mukesh. Also, all the essential ingredients of offence punishable U/s 498A IPC has been fully established against accused no.2 Virender Singh and accused no.3 Guddi. I am of the considered view that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused no.1 Mukesh Kumar is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406 IPC and accused no.2 Virender Singh and accused no.3 Guddi are accordingly convicted for the offence punishable U/s 498A IPC. State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 21 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi Let, all the three accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence on 29.09.2014.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 27.09.2014 (EKTA GAUBA ) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court03/West/Delhi 27.09.2014 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 22 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT03),WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. FIR No.30/02 PS Nangloi U/s 498A/406 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 09.10.2014.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All the three convict in person with ld. counsel Sh. Mahesh Kumar Malawat.
This case is fixed today for orders on the point of sentence.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. counsel for all the three convict contended that convict Mukesh Kumar is a sole bread earner of his family and he has an old aged mother to look after. Ld. counsel for all the three Convict further contended that convict Guddi is also a sole bread earner of her family as convict Virender Singh is unable to do anything as the right side of convict Virender Singh is partly paralytic and convict Guddi is working as a labourer and she has her husband convict Virender Singh and three minor unmarried children State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 23 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi to look after. Ld. counsel for all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi has also contended that convict Mukesh Kumar is aged about 35 years, convict Virender Singh is aged about 45 years and convict Guddi is aged about 36 years and all the three convict are not previous convicts and therefore, all the three convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi may kindly be released on probation.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has contended that before granting any probation to all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi, inquiry should be got done to find out whether all the three convicts are previous convict or not.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi Keeping in view the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashabai & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 (2) SCC 224 wherein it has been held that " in cases of crime against women (like cases U/s 498A IPC etc.) State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 24 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi committed even by other women at the time of sentencing the deterrent punishment should be given and leniency in sentence is unwarranted."
In light of aforesaid law laid down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the fact that in the present case, the convict Mukesh Kumar being the husband of complainant alongwith convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi being the relatives of the husband of the complainant subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty in order to compel the complainant to meet their unlawful demand for dowry and convict Mukesh Kumar being the husband of the complainant also wrongfully misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant and did not returned the same to the complainant despite the same demanded by the complainant and in view of the fact that the convict Mukesh Kumar being the husband of the complainant and responsible to happily keep the complainant have victimized and harassed the complainant for demand of dowry and convict Guddi being herself woman had victimized another woman i.e. complainant who was her sister in law and the convict Virender Singh being the jeth of the complainant had also victimized the complainant and also nothing has been placed on record to prove that the convict Virender Singh is State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 25 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi paralytic and in view of the fact that in the present case the harassment of the complainant is continuing till date for the past around 12 years as the complainant is staying with her mother since the year 2002 and in view of the fact that the harassment of women for demand of dowry is increasing in today's scenario and in view of the facts and circumstances, all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi does not deserves to be released on probation.
I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served if for the offence punishable U/s 498A IPC, all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/ each to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months.
And, for the offence punishable U/s 406 IPC, the convict Mukesh Kumar is sentenced to simple imprisonment for State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 26 FIR No.30/02 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. PS: Nangloi a period of two years.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently qua convict Mukesh Kumar.
All the three convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi be given benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment has been supplied to all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi free of cost on the date of judgment itself i.e. 27.09.2014.
Copy of order on sentence be supplied to all the three Convict namely convict Mukesh Kumar, convict Virender Singh and convict Guddi today itself free of cost.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 09.10.2014 (Ekta Gauba) MM (Mahila Court)03 West,THC,Delhi/09.10.2014 State Vs. Mukesh Kumar etc. Page No. 27