Delhi District Court
Fir No. 490/2004;Ps Kalkaji State vs . Pawan Kumar & Ors. 1 Of 26 on 21 December, 2018
Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila Court02 (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No: 490/2004
PS: Kalkaji
U/s : 498A/34 IPC
State v. Pawan Kumar & Ors.
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 12.07.2006
Cr.C No. : 86331/2016
Name of the complainant : Rajni Devi
d/o Sh. Ram Prasad
r/o B542, Navjeevan Camp.
Govindpuri, Kalkaji, N.Delhi.
Name & address of the accused : 1. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Vipin Kumar
2. Vipin Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Charan
3. Kripa Devi
W/o Sh. Vipin Kumar
All R/o Shivaji Nagar colony
Ondela Road, District
Dhaulpur, Rajasthan.
4. Pinki
D/o Sh. Vipin Kumar
R/o Prakash Nagar colony
Ondela Road, District
Dhaulpur, Rajasthan.
FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 1 of 26
Offence Complained of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 498A/34 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 20.12.2018
Date of announcing of order : 21.12.2018
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on and after 17.06.1998, accused Vipin Kumar alongwith other coaccused persons treated the complainant with cruelty and demanded dowry from the complainant and harassed her.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant dated 17.11.2003 she has stated that she got married to accused Pawan Kumar on 17.06.1998 in her native village of Madhopura, District Dhaulpur, Rajasthan and further one year prior to the complaint, she had been residing with her brother namely Rambir Singh in Delhi. Soon after her marriage, accused persons used to taunt the complainant for bringing less dowry and abused her. From the second day of her marriage, complainant was treated with cruelty by her husband and her husband used to lock her inside the door and give her beatings by 'belt'. Accused Pawan Kumar used to say to the complainant "tere bhai ne do lakh rupaee shadi me lagane ka vaida kiya tha jabki tere bhai ne mushkil se 70,000/ rupaee layaye hai, ab mai roz tere kam se FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 2 of 26 kam sau belt marunga jisse ki tujhe aur tere bhai ko yeh pata lag sake ki vaide se mukarne ka kya anzam hota hai". After fifteen days, when her brother came to take the complainant from her matrimonial house of Rajakhera, she informed her brother regarding the aforesaid acts and behaviour of the accused persons and the beatings given to her on 20.06.1998 and also told her brother that due to the beatings, the metallic part of the belt had hit her eye and she had suffered injuries. When she disclosed the aforesaid fact to her brother, he asked her as to why she had not disclosed the same earlier, upon which she stated that she was under fear. Thereafter, the family of complainant tried to pacify the complainant and told the complainant to adjust in the matrimonial house. Considering that the brother of the complainant had four more unmarried sisters and also since the brother of the complainant had four daughters, complainant remained quiet. Further, the brother of complainant had mortgaged his house in the marriage of the complainant and she agreed to reside in the matrimonial house. Thereafter, on one occasion when the complainant again visited her parental house and her father in law had come to take her from Delhi since at that time she was residing at her brother's house in Delhi, her father in law demanded one colour television and scooter from her brother, but the brother of the complainant showed his incapacity and complainant's father in law showed his unhappiness and took away the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant reached her matrimonial home, all the accused persons again started atrocities FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 3 of 26 upon the complainant and she was not offered proper food and not treated with dignity and made to work the whole day and at that time, she lived in the matrimonial home only for two months. Thereafter, she again taken back by her brother to Delhi and at that time, also all the accused persons demanded a scooter and a colour TV from the complainant and at that time, complainant lived with her brother in Delhi for the whole year since none of the accused persons came to take her back to the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the parents in law of the complainant started doubting the capacity of the complainant to bear children and got a medical check up done. At that time, a Panchayat was held where the matter was settled and complainant went back to stay in the matrimonial house. During that time, her husband was employed with Army and complainant was taunted that the accused persons would get her husband married to another lady and also demand dowry since he was in Government job. On 27.12.2002, her parents in law had got the medical checkup of the complainant conducted and was given an injection because of which complainant lost her consciousness. At that time, in the aforesaid condition complainant was taken from her matrimonial house to her parental house at Dhaulpur. On 05.01.2003, when there was a death in the family of complainant and she went to attend the same, only in her wearable clothes at Dhaulpur and thereafter, came to stay in Delhi since none of the accused persons came to take her back. At that time, accused persons had put a condition that the complainant should allow FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 4 of 26 her husband to get remarried and perform another marriage. On 25.04.2003, there was a Panchayat held in the village where the accused persons agreed to take the complainant back to her matrimonial home from Delhi but even then they did not abide by the decision of the Panchayat. Further on 21.02.2003, accused Vipin Kumar (father in law of the complainant) had visited Delhi and forcefully tried to obtain the signatures of complainant on a blank stamp paper which was refused by the complainant and her brother and when complainant refused, accused Vipin Kumar extended threats to the complainant. On the same day, accused Vipin Kumar also extended threats to the brother in law of the complainant by saying that he would kill the complainant by poisoning her. Upon coming to know about the same, complainant was scared. Further, on 21.05.2003 accused Pawan Kumar visited Delhi and extended threats to the complainant and forced the complainant to divorce him and allow him to perform second marriage and also told the complainant that he would never take her back to the matrimonial house and at that time, her husband was posted with Army as a gunner in 127 LT. Regiment c/o 56 APO.
3. Pursuant to this complaint dated 17.11.2003 against the accused persons, FIR was registered on 29.05.2004 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 12.07.2006. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused persons. Charge FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 5 of 26 was framed against accused persons on 20.10.2018 upon order of charge dated 16.01.2012 for the offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as three (03) witnesses.
PW1 Rajni Devi (complainant) deposed that she got married with accused Pawan Kumar on 17.06.1998 according to Hindu rites and ceremony at her parental house situated at Rajakhera, District Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. In her marriage, all furniture articles, utensils and jewellery items and cash amount as per list of dowry articles from Sl. No.1 to 36 Ex.PW1/A were given to accused. Apart from those articles, one gold necklace, four gold bangles, two gold rings, one gold maangteeka, one silver tagri, one pair of silver anklet, one wrist watch and 21 sarees with their accessories as per list Ex.PW1/B were given to her by relatives of her husband in her marriage. Her marriage card was Ex.PW1/C, her photograph with accused Pawan Kumar was mark A. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial house alongwith hre husband. In her matrimonial house, her mother in law namely Kripa Devi and father in law namely Vipin Kumar and her nanad Pinki alongwith her husband/accused Pawan Kumar used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry articles by saying that "tere bhai ne do lakh rupaee dene ko kaha tha aur matra sattar hazar rupaee diya"
FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 6 of 26 and they used to beat her. After fifteen days of her marriage, her brother Rambir Singh visited her matrimonial house, she informed about the whole atrocities to him after which, he took her to her parental house. Her brother had made several requests to the father of accused Pawan Kumar through other relatives. Thereafter, her father in law came to her parental house after 1011 months of her marriage and took her to her matrimonial house. At that time, she was residing with her brother Rambir at Delhi and while her father in law came at the residence of her brother to take her back, he demanded one coloured TV and one motorcycle. In her matrimonial house, she was again tortured and harassed by her husband, parents in law and Nanad by demanding coloured TV and scooter and they used to beat her for fulfilling the aforesaid demand through her brother. During that period, her husband got job in Army service, then her mother in law used to torture her by saying that "tu marja, mere ladke ki naukri lag gai hai, mai uski doosri shadi kar doongi, char paach lakh rupaee mil jayenge". On one occasion that is 02.10.2002, she was taken to the hospital at Dhaulpur for checkup by her parents in law and they told her that she could not give birth of a child. Her parents in law used to taunt her by saying that "mera akela ladka hai, tu banjh hai, vansh chalana hai". On 05.01.2003, her father in law left her at her parental house in the last ritual ceremony of her aunty at her parental house and from that day, no one came from her matrimonial house to take her back. Her brother and parents made several requests to her FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 7 of 26 husband and parents in law to take her back in presence of Panchayat in which her parents in law apologised and ready to take her back. Her father in law came to her parental house with one stamp paper and compelled her to put signature thereon as he wants to get divorce her from his son/accused Pawan Kumar. She refused to sign the same thereafter, he threatened her that he will get his son married with another woman as she was not able to give birth of a child. Her husband alongwith her parents in law demanded motorcycle, colour TV and amount of Rs.2 lakhs and to bring the same from her parental house. She made a complaint to CAW cell, Nanakpura which was Ex.PW1/D. During crossexamination on behalf of accused PW1 deposed that she had not placed on record any bills of purchase of the items of list of dowry articles on record. She voluntarily state that the same was not placed on record since the articles were given to her from the old jewellery available with her parents. She had not filed any complaint against the accused persons when they started taunting her for brining less dowry to any police station since she wanted to live in her matrimonial house. When she informed regarding the behaviour of accused persons and their demands of dowry to her brother, he did not file any complaint with the police against the accused persons. The complaint Ex.PW1/D filed before CAW cell was got written by her counsel. She did not have any medical document in respect to her medical checkup conducted at the behest of FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 8 of 26 her in laws on 02.10.2002 regarding the fact that she could not give birth to children. It was correct that she had never visited her matrimonial home after 05.01.2003. It was correct that on 04.06.2004, a settlement was arrived between her and the accused persons in the proceedings of the present matter before Patiala House court. Thereafter, copy of aforesaid settlement was shown to the witness alongwith English translation and the same was Ex.PW1/D1. She have not placed on record any document regarding the Panchayat held in which accused persons had compromised and apologised for their behaviour. It was correct that she did not participate in the Panchayat, however, her brother had gone to attend the panchayat. Thereafter, a copy of the Panchayatnama dated 22.08.2003 was shown to the witness which she denies to know about and the same, was mark X1. Thereafter, a certified copy from the concerned RAC department (Assistant Commandant, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan) was shown to the witness which she denies any such statement given by her in the department of accused Vipin Kumar, the same was Ex.PW1/D2. Thereafter, photocopy of the divorce petition No.63/30.09.2003 was shown to the witness which she denies the same has been withdrawn by the accused No.1 and the same was pending, the copy of the same was mark X2. It was correct that the settlement was arrived between her and the accused persons before Family court, Saket in a petition u/s 125 CrPC filed by her on 11.03.2014. It was also correct that the aforesaid settlement was for an amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs. It was FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 9 of 26 correct that in the aforesaid settlement, it was stated by both the parties that upon receiving the amount, she shall cooperate with the accused persons in quashing of the present FIR. It was correct that in view of the settlement, she had received Rs.1 lakh from the accused No.1. However, she had returned the amount of Rs.1 lakh to accused No.1 in the court proceedings but she did not remember the date of the same. Thereafter, photocopy of the proceedings dated 11.03.2014 was shown to the witness and she admits the aforesaid proceedings to be correct which was Ex.PW1/D3. It was correct that she had not handed over the amount of Rs.1 lakh to accused No.1. However, she had deposited the same in the court but she did not remember the name of the court or the date on which she had deposited the same in the court. It was correct that she had not deposed regarding the incident dated 05.04.2006 in her examination in chief as stated by her in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC on 15.05.2006 Ex.PW1/D4. It was wrong to suggest that on 05.04.2006, accused being in Indian Army was on duty and the record pertaining to the same was Ex.PW 1/D5 (OSR). Witness denied all the suggestions put to her. PW2 Rambir Singh (brother of the complainant) deposed that he was the brother of complainant. His sister got married to accused on 17.06.1998 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage was solemnised at village Rajakhera, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. In the marriage, he alongwith his father had given ample dowry to the complainant, more than their capacity. In the marriage, they had given FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 10 of 26 one almirah, sofa set, washing machine, one cycle, utensils, clothes to the family of accused persons. They had also given silver and gold jewellery to his sister in her marriage. They had spent around Rs.2 lakhs in the marriage of his sister and had given Rs.70,000/ to Rs.80,000/ cash alongwith jewellery of gold and silver. After marriage, complainant went to her matrimonial house at Rajakhera. Soon after marriage, almost after one week, accused persons that is her mother in law, husband, sister in law namely Pinki and father in law started raising demands from his sister to bring more dowry and taunted her for not bringing a motorcycle and a colour TV in marriage. After 15 days of marriage, when he visited the matrimonial house of his sister to bring her to the parental home, she told him regarding the same. After one and half years of the marriage of complainant with accused Pawan Kumar, he got a job in Army. After that, the accused persons also harassed his sister by saying that she was not capable of having children. Thereafter, accused persons got a checkup of his sister conducted at Dhaulpur, but he did not know what was the result of the same. However, thereafter, accused persons started taunting his sister for not being able to give birth to children. They also started taunting his sister by refusing to keep her in the matrimonial house and they also told the complainant that since accused Pawan Kumar was employed at a good place, they shall get him remarried in a decent family and had left his sister at the parental home of Rajasthan and took her back only after 78 months. He did FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 11 of 26 not remember the year of the same. In the year 2003, on 05.01.2003 accused persons left the complainant at the matrimonial home since there was a demise in the parental home and thereafter, did not take the complainant back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant came to Kalkaji, Delhi since he wanted his sister to reside with him in Delhi. On 25.04.2003, a Panchayat was held in the village Rajakhera, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan wherein the father of accused Pawan Kumar agreed to take his sister back to the matrimonial home in the presence of the Panchas. However, even then the accused persons did not take his sister back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, he made several efforts by talking to the accused persons to take his sister back to the matrimonial home. However, they did not take her back. He did not remember the year but after that accused Vipin Kumar reached his house at Delhi alongwith a stamp paper in which he said that a divorce be granted by the complainant. However, he and complainant refused for the aforesaid demand of divorce and his sister refused to sign on the stamp paper. Thereafter, having no other option, his sister filed a complaint with the CAW cell, Nanakpura, Delhi against the accused persons. To his knowledge, accused Pawan Kumar had already remarried on 16.07.2005 and has three children from his second wife without seeking divorce from his sister.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused PW2 deposed that he had not placed on record any document, bill or FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 12 of 26 receipt in respect to the dowry articles, jewellery etc. purchased by him for the marriage of the complainant. He had arranged an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for the marriage of his sister after mortgaging his property measuring 50 sq. yards situated at Sangam Vihar, from his personal earning and also earning received from agriculture produce. He had not placed on record any document to substantiate his aforesaid amount arranged for the marriage of his sister. He did not have any photograph to show his handing over of Rs.70,000/ to Rs.80,000/ in cash to the accused persons at the time of marriage or his bank account statement of aforesaid withdrawal. He did not have any medical document to show that his sister was incapable of having children. He voluntarily stated that that documents are in the possession of father of accused Pawan Kumar. He had not stated to the police official in his statement u/s 161 CrPC or in the court that the medical documents were in possession of accused Vipin Kumar. He told regarding the fact that accused Pawan Kumar would get marry to another woman of a decent family by accused Vipin Kumar. It was correct that he had not stated so in his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC that accused Vipin Kumar wanted accused Pawan Kumar to be married in another rich family. The statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC was Ex.PW2/D1. He had not placed on record any document pertaining to the settlement before the Panchayat on 25.04.2003, however, there was no written order of Panchayat and the same was only verbal. It was correct that after 05.01.2003, neither his sister ever FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 13 of 26 visited her matrimonial home nor he had sent her to her matrimonial home. He voluntarily stated that she did not go since the accused persons never came to take her back. It was correct that a settlement was arrived between his sister and the accused persons in respect to the present matter at Patiala House Court Ex.PW1/D1 on 04.06.2004. He had not placed on record any document pertaining to his efforts for compromising the matter between his sister and the accused persons like phone call records, letters or any complaints to the accused persons. He stated that he did not file any complaint to any police authority since he wanted his sister to live with the accused persons in the matrimonial home peacefully. He had not disclosed in his statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW2/D1 regarding the fact that the father of accused had visited his place and wanted to take signatures of his sister on the divorce papers. He had not placed on record any document to show that accused Pawan Kumar got remarried on 16.07.2005 and has three children from his second wife. Witness denied all the suggestions put to him.
PW3 Ram Prasad (father of complainant) deposed that he was the father of the complainant Rajni. He did not remember the exact year in which his daughter got married to accused Pawan. He had spent an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in the marriage of his daughter and the same was performed at Rajakhera, Rajasthan. Accused Pawan was the son of accused Vipin and they belong to Raja Khera, Rajasthan. He had given all the articles of household having utensils etc. and all FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 14 of 26 the household articles to his daughter in her marriage. After the marriage, accused persons namely Vipin and Pawan started demanding one motorcycle and a coloured TV from them. His daughter returned back to the parental home after 15 days of her marriage. Subsequently, wife of his brother had expired and his daughter visited the parental home. His daughter told him that she was not kept well by the accused persons but he pacified her by saying that she has to adjust and things will settle between her and the accused persons in the matrimonial house. However, the behaviour of accused persons did not change towards his daughter. Accused persons denied to take his daughter back to the matrimonial home and said that they would take his daughter back only once their demand of motorcycle and TV were fulfilled. He had no capacity to fulfill the demands of accused persons. His daughter has been staying with him at the parental home for past 20 years. All the accused persons including accused Pawan refused to keep his daughter and shunted her out from the matrimonial house. He being a father of a daughter could not help the situation. His daughter was not even blessed with the child. Once a Panchayat was held in the native village of the accused persons at Rajakhera where the matter was discussed at length with the accused persons but they refused to take his daughter to the matrimonial home.
During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that he had arranged for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from his work of farming and some of the amount was contributed by his son who was working in FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 15 of 26 Delhi. His wife had also given her old jewellery to her daughter in her marriage. He did not have the bills of purchase of the articles given in marriage to his daughter since he was not aware that he need to keep them safely and the marriage was performed long ago. Accused persons had demanded a motorcycle from him. Witness was confronted with statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/D1 wherein the aforesaid fact of demand of motorcycle was not recorded. He did not file any complaint to any police authority when his daughter told him that she was not kept well by the accused persons. Witness denied all suggestions put to him.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
6. Accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.
7. Final arguments were heard on both sides.
8. It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter complainant has levelled specific allegations against the accused persons in her complaint dated 17.11.2003 Ex.PW1/D and has reiterated the same in her testimony before the court. It is also FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 16 of 26 argued that the complainant has corroborated herself with the complaint Ex.PW1/D and the version of the complainant has been supported by the other witnesses. It is also argued that all prosecution witnesses have stated that the complainant have been treated with cruelty by accused persons and the same amounts to the offence u/s 498A IPC. It is also argued that the complainant have been treated with utmost cruelty and therefore, all accused persons are liable to be convicted. It is argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for complainant that in the present matter the bills of the jewellery articles of the complainant were not in her possession since it was an old marriage and further all the medical documents of the complainant were in the possession of the accused persons and further that accused persons are guilty for the offence u/s 498A IPC since their bail was cancelled by the Hon'ble High Court since they did not join the investigation and since the accused persons have not led any defence evidence, the complaint Ex.PW1/D stands proved and all accused persons are liable to be convicted.
9. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the complaint of the complainant is devoid of merit. It is also argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is filed after five years of the marriage and prior to that the complainant had never filed any FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 17 of 26 complaint against the accused persons to any authority. It is argued that the complainant filed her complaint for the first time only on 17.11.2003 and never prior thereto which itself shows that the complainant had never suffered any cruelty upon the hands of the accused persons. It is also argued that on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegations of cruelty of any nature upon the complainant by the accused. As per complaint Ex.PW1/D dated 17.11.2003 parties got married on 17.06.1998 in Rajasthan. The allegations in the aforesaid complaint have not been reiterated in the testimony of complainant as PW1. It has also come in evidence in the testimony of PW1 that she was in constant touch with her family after her marriage and used to visit her parental home. However, there is no corroboration in the testimony of PW1 as compare to other witnesses. Further, the complainant for the first time filed her complaint before the CAW cell only on 17.11.2003 and does not reiterate her own allegations during her testimony recorded before the court. It is also argued that after filing of the complaint Ex.PW 1/D, the matter was settled between both the parties before the mediation cell, Patiala House court and started living together in the matrimonial house and during that time, complainant also made a statement before the present court that she wishes to withdraw her complaint but later refused to do the same. Further, complainant again settled the matter with the accused persons before Principle Judge, Family Court, Saket and even received the consideration amount but FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 18 of 26 subsequently, refused to move quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court. It is further argued that the respondent has relied upon document Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D3 and document mark X1 to X4 which show the conduct of the complainant and therefore, none of the allegations of the complainant stand proved and therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
10. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
Observations qua offence u/s 498A IPC :
(i) The case of the prosecution rests on the assertion that during almost five years of the marriage between the parties, complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of failure by her to meet unlawful demands of dowry raised by the accused persons.
It is admitted that the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 17.06.1998 and thereafter, she remained in her matrimonial house till 05.01.2003 i.e. she remained in her matrimonial home only for a period of five years. Accused has denied these allegations and raised manifold defences.
(ii) It has been stated by the complainant in her complaint Ex. PW1/D that after her marriage with the accused Pawan Kumar, the family of the accused was unhappy with the dowry given in the marriage and FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 19 of 26 she was taunted for bringing less dowry. Further, her mother in law used to give her severe beatings because of which she had suffered injury and accused Pawan Kumar had given her severe beatings by using a belt because of which she suffered injury on her head and also was ill treated by her sisterin law. On the day when the complainant went to her parental home with her brother in Delhi, and her father in law came to take her back, he had demanded a colour TV and motorcycle from the brother of the complainant and also threatened that they would not keep the complainant in the matrimonial home if she would not fulfill the aforesaid demands. However, the aforesaid facts are not reiterated by her as PW1 and instead she has stated that a demand of motorcycle and a colour TV was made. Further, the complainant has deposed that she was ill treated by the accused persons and her mother in law used to taunt her that she was unable to have children and did not wish the complainant to live in matrimonial house. Further, accused Pawan Kumar being the husband of the complainant taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and even demanded maruti car and has not been stated by her during her testimony before the court. The complainant did not corroborate her own complaint Ex. PW1/D and therefore, complainant admitted during her cross examination on behalf of the accused that she did not have any bills of purchase of dowry articles. She admitted that she had not filed any complaint against the accused persons when they started taunting her for brining less dowry to any police station. She admitted FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 20 of 26 that when she informed regarding the behaviour of accused persons to her brother, even he did not file any complaint to the police and her complaint Ex.PW1/D was written by an advocate through her brother upon her dictation. She admitted that she had never visited her matrimonial home after 05.01.2003 and also admitted that she had settled the matter with the accused persons in Patiala House court on 04.06.2004 and the copy of the same was Ex.PW1/D1. She admitted that she had not placed on record any document regarding the Panchayat held in which the accused persons apologised for their behaviour. She was also put her statement made to the Assistant Commandant of accused Vipin Kumar Ex.PW1/D2. She also admitted regarding her settlement dated 11.03.2014 and the proceedings of the court Ex.PW1/D3. She was confronted with her statement u/s 161 CrPC which was Ex.PW1/D4. Further, PW2 and PW3 being the brother and the father of the complainant have not corroborated the complainant in material aspects and as deposed that the complainant had narrated to him regarding the harassment by the accused persons soon after the marriage, that is within 10 days of her marriage. The aforesaid facts are not stated by the aforesaid witnesses. Credibility of such an allegation is also dubious for the reason that there is not even any averment made by the complainant against the accused persons of having committed cruelty for demand of dowry which could lead the complainant to commit suicide.
FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 21 of 26
(iii) It has been asserted by the complainant in Ex. PW1/A that "after few days of her marriage" accused and his family members started demanding a colour TV and a scooter. To the contrary as PW1, complainant vaguely stated that accused demanded a motorcycle and a colour TV and also demanded other articles from the complainant but there is no specification of the amount of cash demanded by the accused or his family members after few days of marriage or even the amount paid by the complainant to the accused in fulfillment of any of his demand. The allegation of demand are unspecified and also obscure. As such, the allegations of demand of dowry by the accused lack credence.
(iv) Further as per complaint Ex.PW1/A there is no specification of the manner in which the complainant was mentally or physically harassed by the accused or his family. The complaint as well as testimony of PW1 is silent on the specific date, month, year, event or occasion of any beating given to the complainant by the accused or the manner of such beating i.e. slapping, kicking, keeping her without food for days etc. Admittedly, the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding any such alleged beating or harassment prior to the present complainant and are, therefore ambiguous and vague.
(v) It has also been alleged by PW1 that the behavior of accused was callous and indifferent to her however it has not been elaborately clarified as to how did PW1 infer the behavior of accused to be callous or found him to be indifferent. There is neither any averment FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 22 of 26 nor any piece of evidence in the form of a medical report or otherwise, to draw a logical inference of such a threat to be of a nature likely to have driven the complainant to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life limp or health. In absence of any assertion to this effect, it cannot be assumed that such a threat or alleged callous or indifferent behavior of the accused was with a view to coercing her to meet any demand for property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand. Reliance is placed upon decision in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 2645 53/2005 decided on 12.10.2007 wherein following observation was made : ".....Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
Explanation (b) to Section 498A provides that cruelty means 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.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 23 of 26 definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the Section...."
(vi) Similar view was adopted in the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 observed that offence U/s 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. Further, while interpreting the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498A must have FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 24 of 26 nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section498A IPC.
(vii) It has also come in evidence, during cross examination of PW1, that the complainant was in constant touch with her family members. The family members of the complainant allegedly took the complainant from her matrimonial home when she was given beatings by the accused and allegedly demanded a colour TV and scooter, however, the same is not reiterated by other witnesses. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the story of the complainant and out of three public witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, apart from the complainant other two witnesses are only hearsay and interested witnesses. In such an eventuality, veracity of allegations of cruelty appear to be in doubt. Further, Ex. PW1/D and list of dowry articles Ex.PW1/B and the photographs of the marriage or the marriage card does not reveal anything of the sort of marriage to have been ostentatiously displayed.
(viii) Even the allegations that the accused used to gave beatings to the complainant have not been corroborated by any reliable piece of evidence. There are discrepant statements regarding the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant are discrepant and devoid of specific details and as such does not inspire confidence of the court.
FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 25 of 26
(ix) Also, there is no evidence such as a medical report, photograph or otherwise to prove any physical injury to the complainant which she would have received had she been assaulted.
(x) Further, during the trial IO SI Rameshwar Dayal had expired and was dropped from the list of witnesses. Further, the averments of demand by the accused persons before or after marriage are not corroborated by any independent witness such as neighbourers or any other relatives or any documentary proof of such handing over of cash to the accused or even the exact date, month, year or occasion of such handing over of money. As such there is no convincing evidence on record to believe the allegations of the prosecution regarding commission of offence u/s 498A/34 IPC. Accused persons are accordingly acquitted of offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.
11. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that prosecution has failed to prove offence U/s 498A/34 IPC against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
On 21.12.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate,
(Mahila Court02), SouthEast,
Saket, New Delhi.
Digitally signed
by SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.12.22
13:25:09 +0530
FIR No. 490/2004;PS Kalkaji State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. 26 of 26