Delhi District Court
Fir No. 650/2007 State vs . Suresh Verma & Ors. Page Number 5 Of 5 on 20 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Aakanksha Vyas
FIR No. :650/2007
PS : Model Town
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
State v. Suresh Verma & Ors.
J U D G M E N T :
a) Case no. : 5284032016
b) Name of the complainant : Ranjana
c) Name parentage and address
of accused : 1) Prahlad Kumar Verma S/o late
Sh.Madan Lal, R/o H No.5,6,7, Kamla
Nagar, Delhi & 2) Usha Verma W/o Sh.
Suresh Verma, R/o 42/43, UB, Jawahar
Nagar, PS Roop Nagar, Delhi.
d) Offences charged : Accused Prahlad Kumar Verma
charged u/s 498A/34 & 406 IPC and
u/s 174 A IPC & accused Usha
charged u/s 498A/34 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Not guilty
f) Date on which judgment was
reserved : 19.03.2018
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of decision : 20.03.2018
FIR no. 650/2007 State vs. Suresh Verma & Ors. Page number 5 of 5
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
JUDGMENT
1.On 18.06.2007, a complaint was lodged by the complainant Ranjana Verma in CAW cell against her in laws namely Prahlad Verma (husband), Sharda (mother in law), Suresh (Jeth), Usha Rani (Jethani) and Anita Rani (Nanad) alleging cruelty on account of dowry demand and refusal to return her istridhan articles. It was stated by her that she got married to Prahlad Verma on 08.07.1989 at Delhi and in her marriage, her parents spent a lot of money but her in laws were not satisfied and harassed her for money on various occasions. It was further alleged by the complainant that her parents were compelled to give costly items to her in laws on various festivals as well as on birth of her children. She was often beaten by her husband and all her in laws used to abuse her in front of her children. In April 1995 when her sister was to get married, her father was compelled to pay Rs. 20,000/ to her mother in law so that she could attend the marriage. Further, her mother was compelled to pay Rs. 35,000/ in respect of two committees which were encashed by her husband in 1995. The complainant also alleged that her Jeth Suresh and her husband Prahlad Verma conspired to throw her and her children out of the matrimonial house due to which she was compelled to live with her parents along with her children for a year and later her father had to pay Rs.50,000/ to her husband so that she could come back to her matrimonial house. The complainant further alleged FIR no. 650/2007 State vs. Suresh Verma & Ors. Page number 5 of 5 that her husband and her in laws compelled her father to repay two loans of Rs.75,000/and Rs.50,000. In 2001 when her in laws wanted to sell their flat, they pressurized the complainant to obtain Rs.40,000/ from her mother to clear the electricity bills of the said flat. The complainant also alleged that her husband had sold some of her jewellery and had also had an extra marital affair. Lastly, the complainant alleged that after she shifted to a rented accommodation with her husband, her husband did not give any financial assistance to her to meet the household expenses and in 2003, when she asked for Rs.500/, he held her neck and pushed her on the floor. As per the complaint, since 2003 the complainant had been living separately from her in laws along with her children.
2. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, FIR no. 650/2007 dated 12.10.2007 was lodged and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Prahlad Verma (husband), Sharda (mother in law), Suresh (Jeth), Usha Rani (Jethani) and Anita Rani (Nanad).
3. The accused persons were summoned. Accused Prahlad Verma had already been declared absconder on 26.03.2010 and he was subsequently arrested vide kalandra u/s 41 Cr PC on 07.01.2012 and sent to judicial custody and later on a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him u/s 174 A IPC on 29.10.2013. Vide order dated 09.02.2012 of Ld ASJ Sh S K Sawriya, accused Prahlad Verma was granted bail. Vide order dated 08.05.2013, proceedings against accused Sharda and Suresh stood abated as they had expired. After hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 24.01.2017 accused Anita Rani was discharged while charge was framed FIR no. 650/2007 State vs. Suresh Verma & Ors. Page number 5 of 5 upon the accused persons Prahlad Verma and Usha Rani u/s 498 A/34 IPC and against accused Prahlad Verma u/s 406 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.03.2018 the charge against accused Prahlad Verma was amended and he was also charged with the commission of offence u/s 174 A IPC to which he however, pleaded guilty.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution filed a list of nine witnesses, the public witnesses being the complainant and her father Sh A N Batra. U/s 294 Cr PC the accused persons admitted the genuineness of recording of FIR in question i.e. Ex.P1. Both the public witnesses i.e. complainant and her father were summoned through DCP concerned on all available addresses but the report of summons was received back unserved. As the public witnesses remained untraceable, the remaining witnesses were not summoned being only police witnesses and their testimony being formal in nature. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed. As nothing incriminating came on record against the accused persons, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr PC was dispensed with and defence evidence was also closed as accused did not wish to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the final submissions were heard.
5 It is the cardinal principle of criminal law that it is the duty of prosecution to prove its own case beyond all reasonable doubt. In so far as the offences u/s 498 A and 406 IPC are concerned, in the present case, the principal witnesses were the complainant and her father who remained untraceable despite best efforts. Summons sent to them through DCP concerned also came back unserved. Accordingly, the prosecution was unable to prove the commission of offences FIR no. 650/2007 State vs. Suresh Verma & Ors. Page number 5 of 5 u/s 498 A and 406 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Prahlad Verma stands acquitted of the offences u/s 498 A/34 and 406 IPC and accused Usha Rani stands acquitted of the offence u/s 498 A/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court (Aakanksha Vyas)
on this 20th day of March, 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila Court02,North West
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR no. 650/2007 State vs. Suresh Verma & Ors. Page number 5 of 5