Delhi District Court
State vs . Shri Krishan &Ors. on 28 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Shri Krishan &ors.
FIR NO: 242/99
P. S. Dwarka
ID No. 02405R0520102002
Date of institution of case :11.04.2001
Date on which case reserved for judgment :15.04.2014
Date of judgment :28.04.2014
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. B.S. Tomar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 23.01.1998 onwards
b) Offence complained of : U/S 498-A/406/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Shashi Bala
d/o Sh. Om Prakash
r/o RZ-54-55, Raj Nagar-
II, Palam Colony, New
Delhi.
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : (i) Devanand (Husband)
s/o Shri Krishan
local & permanent residence (ii)Shri Krishan(Father-in-
law)
s/o Sh. Bhadle Ram
(iii)Smt. Dhanpati (Mother-
in-law)
w/o Shri Krishan
All resident of 3238,
Mahender Park, Rani
Bagh, Delhi.
FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 1/25
St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
e) Plea of accused : Accused are falsely
implicated.
f) Final order : Accused are acquitted.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Devanand(husband of complainant), Dhanpati(Mother-in-law of complainant) and Shri Krishan( Father-in-law of complainant) have been charged for the offences u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC on the ground that from the date of marriage of accused Devanand on 23.01.1998 with complainant Smt. Shashi Bala, they subjected the complainant Smt. Shashi Bala to cruelty in-connection-with demand of dowry and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of stridhan articles of complainant.
2. On 27.05.2008, accused Sri Krishan was additionally charged for the offence u/s 354 IPC for using criminal force upon complainant Shashi Bala with intention to outrage her modesty.
3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses on its behalf to prove its case.
4. PW1 is SI Manjeet Singh, Duty Officer, who exhibited copy of FIR no. 242/99 as Ex. Pw1/A and stated that on 13.11.1999, after lodging the FIR, he had handed over the carbon copy of FIR to SI Balram for investigation.
FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 2/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
5. Pw2 is Smt. Dhanwanti i.e. mother of complainant Shashi Bala. She stated in her examination-in-chief dated 01.06.2010 that her daughter was married to accused Devanand on 23.01.1998 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at their residence in Palam Colony, New Delhi and sufficient articles were given in marriage. She stated that soon after the marriage of her daughter, mother of accused Devanand namely Smt. Dhanpati demanded Rs. 2 lacs from her but she showed her incapability due to which accused Shri Krishan i.e. Father-in-law of her daughter insisted his wife Dhanpati to pour acid in the mouth of the complainant or to throw it over her face and this fact was told to her by her daughter. She further stated that thereafter, physical and mental torture started with her daughter and accused persons started beating her, and thereafter her daughter was left at her parental house by accused Devanand and his cousin Monu.
6. In her further examination-in-chief dated 05.12.2012, Pw2 stated that due to harassment to her daughter at her matrimonial house, she developed mental retardation and she was admitted in Sunil Nursing Home for treatment and thereafter they lodged case in the court and by the order of the court, her daughter joined her husband at rented accommodation in December 1999. She further stated that on 13.10.2000, her daughter was blessed with baby boy in Safdarjung hospital and all the expenses of the delivery FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 3/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
were borne by them. She alleged that when her daughter was pregnant, mother-in-law of her daughter had pressurized her for abortion, due to which she took her daughter in February 2000 and she remained in her parental home till her delivery. She stated that after the delivery, her daughter was not taken back by her husband. She further alleged that during stay at rented accommodation also, her daughter was ill treated by her husband due to which complaint was made to the police.
7. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw2 stated that marriage of her daughter was solemnized at Dharamshala, Kabir Ashram and about 750 people attended the marriage but there were only 50 persons from their side. She admitted that her daughter stayed only for two and half months with her in-laws and thereafter she stayed at her parental home. She denied the suggestion that her daughter was in love with other person and was forcefully married to Devanand. She denied the suggestion that her daughter had told this fact to Devanand. She stated that demand of Rs. 2 lacs was made from her daughter after about 8-10 days of marriage only by her mother-in-law. She stated that she does not remember the date when her daughter was left at her home by her son-in-law.
8. In her further cross-examination dated 23.02.2013, Pw2 stated that she does not know the exact date when her daughter FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 4/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
was beaten up at her matrimonial house. She stated that her husband went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and took back her daughter and informed the police in writing about the same. She stated that she cannot tell if said information is on judicial file or not.
9. In her further cross-examination dated 26.03.2013, Pw2 denied the suggestion that her husband had gone to matrimonial house of her daughter on 04.02.1999 regarding taking of said articles by her daughter and taken her back and her daughter had taken 14 sarees and two gold jhumke with her at that time. She was confronted with document i.e. DD No. 11 dated 04.02.1999 and the same was exhibited as Ex. Pw3/D1. She denied the suggestion that her daughter had lodged false case against her in- laws since she wanted to reside separately from them. She denied the suggestion that in-laws of her daughter never demanded any dowry and never tortured her for demand of dowry.
10. Pw3 is complainant Shashi Bala who stated that she is educated upto matric and her marriage was solemnized on 23.01.1998 with Devanand at Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and sufficient articles were given in marriage but after few days of her marriage, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar, cousin of her husband and her husband started torturing her mentally and physically for demand of more dowry. She stated that FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 5/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
after few days of her marriage, but she does not remember the exact date, the accused persons had given her threats to pour acid over her face and due to this threat, she became depressed and went into mental depression. She further alleged that her mother-in-law had demanded cash amount of Rs. 2 lacs from her parents on telephone in her presence and due to this fact, she became ill.
11. In her further examination-in-chief dated 20.08.2010, Pw3 exhibited her complaint given to the police as Ex. Pw3/A and stated that during CAW Cell proceedings, her husband had refused to take her back. She stated that by the order of Ld. Presiding Officer, she was sent back to her matrimonial house and her husband took her to Punjabi Bagh in rented house where she remained for about two months and there she became pregnant. She stated that when her mother-in-law came to know about this fact, she told her to abort the child due to which she returned to her parental home and she was blessed with male child but her husband did not pay any heed towards her or her child and did not pay any maintenance to both of them.
12. The Ld. APP cross examined the witness with permission of the court since she had not revealed the entire facts in her examination-in-chief. In her cross-examination by Ld. APP, Pw3 stated that it is correct that she had called her mother on FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 6/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
telephone and disclosed the incident of threat of throwing acid by accused persons upon her, and her father and brother had come to matrimonial house. She admitted that it is correct that her father-in-law and mother-in-law abused her father and brother at the matrimonial house. She further admitted that on 08.04.1998, her husband and mama's son monu left her at parental house and she was medically treated at Sunil Nursing Home where doctors disclosed that due to harassment, she had undergone depression. She also admitted that after few days, her mother-in-law called up at her home and told that her son is unemployed and if her parents could give Rs. 2 lacs, then they would take her back to the matrimonial house. She admitted that her mama Dharamvir and her Fufa had gone to her matrimonial house and requested them not to raise such demand and thereafter her father-in-law brought her back to matrimonial house on 14.12.1998.
13. In her further cross-examination by Ld. APP,dated 12.01.2011, Pw3 stated that in her matrimonial home, she was made to reside at third floor of the house and used to prepare food alone and her mother-in-law used to tell her husband not to touch her or she will commit suicide by jumping before the train and her mother-in-law also used to instigate her husband to beat her. She admitted that her mother-in-law used to tell her that till she is alive, she will not let Devanand come to her. She also admitted that on FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 7/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
27.01.1999, her father-in-law Sri Krishan came to her room at 2 a.m. at night and caught her hand and he was drunk at that time. She also admitted that her mother-in-law had told her to bring Rs. 2 lacs or she will have to sleep with her father-in-law. She exhibited the list of stridhan articles (running into 3 pages) as Ex. Pw3/B and the marriage card as Ex. Pw3/C and photographs of marriage as Ex. Pw3/D. She correctly identified the accused persons in court. She further stated that during inquiry, her husband gave articles as per admitted list but they were in broken condition and she had refused to receive the same.
14. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel dated 05.09.2011, Pw3 stated that she was living with her mother but not doing any work and her mother was also not employed and her father had expired. She stated that she has two brothers who are doing private jobs but she does not know how much they earn. She stated that her son is aged about 11 years. She stated that she had given prior complaint before this complaint to the police but no action was taken by the police. She further stated that she lived for two months with her husband separately from her in-laws from 26.12.1999 to 18.02.2000. She alleged that she had made complaint to the police on the same date when her in-laws had threatened to pour acid upon her but she does not recollect the date, month or year. She alleged that beatings were given to her FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 8/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
by her in-laws after about 8-10 days of marriage.
15. In her further cross-examination on the same date, Pw3 stated that after the directions of Hon'ble Judge of Patiala House Courts, it was decided that she and her husband would live in separate accommodation and she came to her matrimonial house on 26.12.1998 and thereafter on the next day, they shifted to rented accommodation in one room set at first floor and she had taken her double bed, sofa set, utensils and clothes from her matrimonial house to rented house. She stated that all the jewelery given to her by her parents and in-laws was retained by her mother-in-law except a pair of ear rings but she did not make any complaint to the police at that time that her mother-in-law had not returned her jewelery articles.
16. Pw3 admitted that when they were residing separately, her mother-in-law used to bring household articles and ration but she stated that nobody used to come to meet them from her in-laws or parent's house. She stated that on 18.02.2000, she left her matrimonial house and she as well as her brother and mother made police complaint but she admitted that no such complaint was on judicial record. She stated that she had told the police that accused used to demand dowry from her but she was confronted with document Ex. Pw3/D1 where the word "demand of dowry"
was not mentioned. She denied the suggestion that she had taken FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 9/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
two jhumkis and 14 sarees with her but she was confronted with document Ex. Pw3/D1 where it was mentioned that she had taken the said articles. She admitted that at the time of her marriage, her father-in-law had suffered with an accident and had plaster on his arm. She stated that in the year 1998, she remained at her matrimonial house for about two and half months.
17. In her further cross-examination dated 10.02.2012, she stated that she does not remember the date when her father-in-law had asked her to abort her pregnancy. She further stated that she does not remember the date of incident when her father-in-law had held her hand. She denied the suggestion that her father-in-law had not held her hand in drunken state. She further denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law had not demanded the amount of Rs. 2 lacs or had not threatened to sell her. She denied the suggestion that her in-laws were ready to return all the articles as per admitted list and she also denied that articles were not in broken condition and she had intentionally not accepted them.
18. Pw3 conceded that she cannot produce any medical treatment papers or MLC regarding beatings given by the accused persons to her. She asserted that she had given the documents of her treatment for depression to the IO but admitted that the documents were not on judicial record. She stated that she cannot tell which specific articles were entrusted to which accused FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 10/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
persons which they refused to return. She voluntarily stated that all of them had not returned her stridhan articles collectively. She asserted that her parents had entrusted her dowry articles to her in-laws and jewelery was entrusted by her to them. She denied the suggestion that she had taken all her belongings to the rented accommodation with her and she had voluntarily not taken the articles from rented accommodation, though her husband had never objected to the same. She denied the suggestion that she was never harassed or subjected to cruelty on account of dowry by her husband and in-laws. She also denied that she was having illicit affair with one person and threatened her husband not to touch her or she will commit suicide. She denied the suggestion that she had deserted her husband.
19. Pw4 is IO/Inspector Balram Singh who stated that on 23.01.1998, investigation of the case was handed over to him and he visited the house of complainant on same day but he again said that he was assigned investigation on 13.11.1999 and he visited house of complainant on 23.11.1999, where he met with complainant, her parents and brothers and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C and complainant handed over to him, the list of stridhan articles, photographs of ring ceremony and photographs of marriage and marriage card.
20. Pw4 further stated that he called the bridegroom and his FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 11/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
family members and they also handed over one list of articles to him which is Ex. Pw4/A. He stated that complainant was also present in police statement at that time and she replied that the articles mentioned in the list of accused persons were only 1/3rd of the articles given in marriage and further told that articles were in damaged condition. He stated that he went to the house of accused persons and found that articles mentioned in the list Ex. Pw4/A were damaged. He further stated that accused persons secured anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and he formally arrested accused persons and released them on bail vide bail bond Ex. Pw4/B to Ex. Pw4/D respectively and thereafter, he was transferred from police station and handed over the file to MHC(R). He correctly identified accused persons in court .
21. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw4 stated that he visited the house of accused two times to arrest them but he does not remember the date and he could not find the accused persons at their house. He admitted that accused persons were ready to return the articles as per admitted list and he also admitted that application was moved by complainant to SHO claiming cash amount in lieu of articles and the application is Ex. Pw4/3.
22. Pw5 is public witness Mukesh Kumar who is brother of complainant Shashi Bala. He stated that his sister was married to FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 12/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
accused on 23.01.1998 and after her marriage, she was not properly treated and she was being harassed for dowry and her in- laws were demanding Rs. 2 lacs from her. He further stated that after some days of marriage, when he visited the matrimonial house of his sister, he noticed broken tooth of his sister and on his inquiry, his sister narrated that she was beaten by her husband and in-laws. He further alleged that on 08.04.1998, accused Devanand brought his sister to her parental house and left her there and at that time, his sister was reeling under depression due to harassment caused by accused persons and they got her medically treated. He stated that even the demand of Rs. 2 lacs was made to him personally on telephone by Devanand and finding no solution through talks, his sister took shelter of law by moving complaint before police.
23. In his cross-examination dated 22.02.2014, Pw5 stated that demand of dowry was made after 3-4 months of marriage. He stated that his sister faced mental depression after marriage and his parents had taken her to Doctor but he did not know the details of treatment. He further stated that his sister had received injuries on her two front teeth of upper jaw due to which both the teeth were broken and bleeding was caused. He stated that the said incident took place within one year of marriage of his sister but he admitted that he had not taken his sister to the hospital for FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 13/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
treatment and voluntarily stated that her in-laws would not allow her to go for treatment.
24. Pw5 further stated that he had not seen any person beating his sister and the details regarding the incidents were told by his sister to him. He stated that the expenses of maintenance of his sister and her son are borne by him, his younger brother and his mother collectively. He stated that he is working in Delhi Jal Board and earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month and his mother is receiving pension of his father and his brother is working in private company but he does not know his income. He stated that they give entire salary to their mother and she takes care of household expenses including maintenance of his sister and her son. He stated that he does not know, how many times his sister had been beaten up by her in-laws but he was told over telephone many times. He denied the suggestion that no demand of Rs. 2 lac was made by accused persons from him or his parents. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons never beat his sister and never broke her teeth on account of demand of dowry.
25. Pw6 is IO/SI Ombir Singh who stated that on 29.12.2001, case file was assigned to him for further investigation and he inquired from complainant and recorded her supplementary statement but thereafter he was transferred and he handed over case file to MHC(R).
FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 14/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
26. Pw7 is IO/SI Rajesh Maurya who stated that on 29.03.2001, case file was handed over to him for further investigation and he formally arrested accused persons on 01.04.2001 as they were already on anticipatory bail and they were released on bail bond vide memos Ex. Pw7/A and Ex. Pw7/B and thereafter, he prepared chargesheet and filed it in the court.
27. After closure of P.E, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they stated that they are innocent and preferred to lead Defence Evidence. An application u/s 315 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of all the accused persons to appear as witnesses in the witness box and the same was duly allowed.
28. Dw1 is accused Sri Krishan i.e. father of accused Deva Nand who stated in his examination-in-chief dated 28.10.2013 that his son was married with complainant on 23.01.1998 and after about 10 to 15 days of marriage, his son Devanand started living depressed. He stated that his son told that his wife (i.e. complainant) was not willing to marry him since she was having affair with another boy. He alleged that complainant started going outside the house of her own and on his inquiry, she used to reply that she was going to make call from PCO and he told her number of times, that when there was a phone at home, why she was going outside to make call.
FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 15/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
29. Dw1 further stated that complainant's relatives came at their home and advised complainant to behave properly in matrimonial home but complainant did not mend her way and moved complaint against them and took all her jewelery articles including the jewelery gifted by in-laws to her parental home. Dw1 alleged that complainant wrongly blamed that he entered in her room on 27.01.1999 in drunken condition. He stated that as per order of the court in Patiala House Court, the complainant and his son Devanand started to live separately from him and his family members and they had no interference in their matrimonial life.
30. Dw2 is Smt. Dhanpati i.e. mother of accused Devanand who stated in her examination-in-chief dated 11.11.2013 that Shashibala i.e. complainant is her daughter-in-law and as per directions of the court, she was kept in a separate rented accommodation and they did not retain any stridhan articles of her daughter-in-law and she had taken all her stridhan articles with her.
31. Dw2 further stated that she never insisted her daughter-in-law to maintain any illegal relations with her husband. She stated that her daughter-in-law used to go out of matrimonial house whenever her husband Devanand was not present in the house and on inquiry, she used to pick quarrels with her. Dw2 further stated that they never threatened the complainant to pour acid on her. She FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 16/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
alleged that complainant used to taunt her son not to touch her by saying that " agar asal baap ka beta hai to mujhe haath na lagana, main kisi aur ko pasand karti hoon, mere maa baap ne meri shadi jabardasti kar di hai".
32. Dw3 is accused Devanand who stated in his examination-in-
chief dated 11.12.2013 that she was married with Shashi Bala on 23.01.1998 and on the very first night after marriage, complainant did not allow him to touch her and told that her parents had forcibly got her married to him and she was in love with other person. Dw3 further stated that from the parental home of Shashi Bala, her parents alongwith maternal uncle, fufa and bua came at his home and truth was told to them and they apologized and promised that such type of thing will never take place again but complainant did not change her behaviour towards him.
33. Dw3 stated that when he found no solution, he left her at her parental home and came back alone and thereafter complainant filed complaint against him in Women Cell where it was settled that they both will live separately from his parents. He alleged that his landlord told him that complainant used to go outdoor 4-5 times and when he asked her about this, she quarreled with him and called her parents and left the rented accommodation. He further alleged that when complainant delivered a baby boy at her parental home, he alongwith his parents went there to see the FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 17/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
baby but complainant and her parents misbehaved with them. He asserted that he never gave any beatings nor made any demand for dowry from her.
34. After closure of defence evidence, case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
35. During final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that accused persons have not committed any offence against complainant and complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case.
36. On the other hand, Ld. APP argued that the main public witness i.e. complainant herself has withstood the test of cross- examination and duly supported the case of prosecution and it is a fit case for conviction of accused persons.
37. After hearing final arguments and perusal of evidence on record, it has come to fore that Pw3 i.e. complainant Shashi Bala has not leveled any categoric and substantial allegations of demand of dowry against her husband and in-laws. She has just stated at one point in her examination-in-chief that her mother-in- law demanded cash of Rs. 2 lacs telephonically from her parents in her presence and thereafter she lodged complaint Ex. Pw3/A. She had failed to recollect the entire facts due to which she was FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 18/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
cross-examined by Ld. APP with permission of the court and all the facts mentioned in her complaint Ex. Pw3/A were revealed by her on specific suggestions of the Ld. APP. Moreover, she has nowhere stated in her entire examination-in-chief that accused Devanand i.e. her husband or accused Sri Krishan i.e. her father- in-law had ever demanded any dowry or cash amount from her or her parents. Her entire examination-in-chief or cross-examination or even her original complaint Ex. Pw3/A is silent in this regard . There is only single allegation of demand of Rs. 2 lacs against accused Dharamwati @ Dhanpati i.e. mother-in-law of complainant but complainant has failed to mention any date, month or year when such demand was raised by her mother-in-law.
38. Though the complainant has alleged that accused persons used to beat her for non-fulfillment of the demand but she has not mentioned any specific date, time, year or place, when and where she was harassed or beaten up by which of the accused persons and the allegations are very vague, general and sweeping.
39. Perusal of evidence of complainant further reflects that her marriage had taken place on 23.01.1998 and she had left the matrimonial house on 08.04.1998 and then she returned back to the matrimonial house only on 14.12.1998 and remained in matrimonial house for a short period and she again went back to her parental house in February 1999. She has admitted in her FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 19/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
cross-examination that she remained in matrimonial house in year 1998, only for two and half months. She has also admitted that when she returned back to her matrimonial house in December 1998, she started residing at first floor of the matrimonial house separately and used to cook food separately for her. She has also admitted that during court proceedings, efforts were made to reconcile the matter and she went to reside with her husband in rented accommodation from 26.12.1999 and remained in rented accommodation upto 18.02.2000. She also admitted that she had taken her stridhan articles to the rented accommodation. As per her own admission, nobody from her matrimonial house used to visit her in rented accommodation during the period she resided with her husband from December 1999 till 18.02.2000.
40. Thus from the own admissions of the complainant in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, it is reflected that complainant stayed in matrimonial house alongwith her in-laws only for a very short period of two and half months till 08.04.1998 and in this period, only single allegation of demand of Rs. 2 lacs by her mother-in-law was leveled by complainant. Thereafter, she returned back to matrimonial house twice but she started residing separately with her husband. She resided for about two and half months with her husband separately in matrimonial house from December 1998 to February 1999 and thereafter in rented FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 20/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
accommodation from December 1999 to February 2000. No allegation of any further demand against her husband has been leveled by her. She has leveled very vague and sweeping allegations against her husband that during her stay in the rented accommodation, her husband used to beat her but she failed to mention any date, month or time of beatings. No specific complaint of any particular date in respect of beatings by accused persons was lodged by the complainant and there is no medical document on record to prove that she had suffered any injuries due to beatings caused by accused persons. The complainant alleged that due to harassment caused by accused persons, she suffered depression and had to undergo treatment in a hospital but she has not placed on record any medical documents to substantiate her allegations.
41. Though the complainant has alleged that once when her Mama, Fufa and Bua visited her matrimonial house, they saw that complainant had a "neel nisan" due to beatings caused by accused persons and her leg was also bleeding but she has not filed on record any medical documents to prove the same. Moreover, the other public witnesses i.e. Pw2 Dhanwanti, who is mother of complainant and Pw5 Mukesh, who is brother of complainant, have not corroborated the statement of complainant in respect of said incident.
FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 21/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
42. Pw5 Mukesh stated in his examination-in-chief that once he visited the matrimonial house of his sister and saw that she was injured and her tooth was broken due to the beatings caused by accused persons but complainant has nowhere mentioned this incident in her entire complaint or examination-in-chief and this amounts to material discrepancy in evidence of Pw3 and Pw5.
43. Pw5 also alleged that accused Devanand put demand of Rs.
2 lacs to him on telephone but complainant is completely silent regarding this fact also and she has not leveled any single allegation of demand of any dowry or cash amount against her husband in her entire complaint or examination-in-chief, and this is also a material discrepancy in evidence of both witnesses. Moreover, Pw5 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen anybody beating his sister and his sister had told him about the incidents. Thus, his evidence amounts to merely hearsay evidence.
44. Perusal of evidence of Pw2 i.e. mother of complainant reveals that she has admitted that she visited the matrimonial house of complainant only once on 18.02.2000 when she was residing in rented accommodation and that was to take the complainant back to the parental house. Thus, Pw2 is not an eye witness of any incident and her entire evidence is also hearsay evidence.
FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 22/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
45. After perusal of entire evidence of all the public witnesses, this court is of the opinion that the allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment in-connection-with demand of dowry leveled by the complainant and public witnesses against the accused persons are so vague and general in nature that they cannot be termed as sufficient to cover the case under definition of section 498-A IPC. The accused persons cannot be convicted only upon a single allegation of demand of cash amount of Rs. 2 lac, moreso when the allegation is very vague and general in nature. The complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations of beatings and cruelty by the accused persons, any medical documents or prior complaints. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of offence of cruelty or harassment in-connection-with demand of dowry as defined in section 498-A IPC, against accused persons. The cruelty or harassment to complainant can also not be termed as sufficient to drive her to commit suicide. Thus, the cruelty or harassment alleged by complainant can neither be covered under part (a) nor part (b) of section 498-A IPC. Therefore, all the accused persons are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted from offence u/s 498-A r/w section 34 IPC.
46. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, complainant or public witnesses have failed to exhibit any bills of stridhan articles, FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 23/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
which might have been given in marriage by her parents and complainant has not specifically stated any date, time and year when she specifically handed over her stridhan articles, to which of the accused persons and when she demanded those articles back from the accused persons which they refused to return on demand. No jewellers or shopkeepers have been examined on oath to prove that any articles or jewelery was purchased from any particular shopkeeper. Hence, all the ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 IPC have not been proved by the prosecution, to cover the case for offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s 406 IPC. Therefore, all the accused persons namely Sri Krishan, Devanand and Dhanpati are acquitted from the offence u/s 406 IPC also.
47. As far as offence u/s 354 IPC is concerned, perusal of evidence of all the witnesses reveals that only the evidence of Pw3 complainant Shashi Bala reflects that she has mentioned the fact that her father-in-law came to her room on 27.01.1999 at about 2 a.m. in drunken condition and caught hold of her hand. However, she did not recollect this fact on her own and it was only upon specific question of Ld. APP during cross-examination by Ld. APP that she admitted that her father-in-law had entered her room on said date. But she did not testify that he had any intention to commit any crime upon her or to outrage her modesty. Moreover, FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 24/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.
complainant has failed to file on record any complaint in respect of said incident. Just a vague and sweeping allegation that her father-in-law caught hold of her hand, cannot be sufficient to cover the case for offence u/s 354 IPC. Hence, accused Sri Krishan is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted from offence u/s 354 IPC also. Personal bond and surety bond of accused persons stand discharged. Original documents if any be released to the authorised persons on proper receipt and endorsement, if any, be cancelled. File be consigned to record room .
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 28th April 2014. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court Dwarka Courts: New Delhi FIR no. :242/99 PS: Dwarka Page no. 25/25 St vs. Shri Krishan & ors.