Delhi District Court
State vs Chanchal Chakraborty on 18 December, 2018
Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila court (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No: 191/2008
PS: Kalkaji
U/s : 498A IPC
State vs.Chanchal Chakraborty
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 06.07.2009
Cr.C No. : 86383/2016
Name of the complainant : Smt. Tapashi Chakraborty
D/o Sh. Liton Shah
R/o H.No.1777A/8, Govind
Puri Extension, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
Name & address of the accused : Chanchal Chakraborty
S/o Sh. Nikhil Chakraborty
R/o Pocket L, G38
Sheikh Sarai, PhaseII,
New Delhi.
Offence Complained of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 498A IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of arguments : 06.12.2018
Date of announcing of order : 18.12.2018
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 1 of 70
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that since the marriage of the complainant Smt. Tapashi Chakraborty with accused Chanchal Chakraborty, he subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassed for bringing less dowry.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant dated 18.02.2008 on which the FIR was registered, complainant has stated that she was highly educated and had done B.A. in Philosophy in 1994 from Kolkata Univresity and got married to accused in the year 1995 at Kolkata. It was her love marriage with the accused and all the rituals were performed from the house of complainant and all the family members of the accused except his father had agreed for the marriage of complainant with the accused. Soon after her marriage, complainant was tortured mentally and physically be her husband and her father in law. Further, she was residing with her husband for 10 years in Delhi (at the time of filing of present complaint) and since then complainant has been mentally and physically tortured and in the aforesaid act, accused was supported by his father, his sister and brother in law and cousin brother namely Laltoo. Often the complainant was sent to her mother's house and was not given any financial help by the accused. Her son was kept in a hostel at Dehradun against the will of her son. Further, the complainant was admitted to mental hospital (VIMHANS) twice without her consent and was given injections and the same was again done without the FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 2 of 70 consent of the complainant and the husband of complainant wanted to turn her insane by giving such medicines. Whenever the complainant objected or refused to take the aforesaid medicines, she was given beatings and abused by the accused. Further, she was taken to mental hospital without sending information to any of her family members. Further, she had been residing with the accused only with the intention to save her marriage and for the sake of her minor son. Further, the complainant had filed her another complaint 28.01.2008 to CAW cell wherein she had again reiterated the aforesaid facts. Further, complainant had again filed her detailed complaint dated 18.03.2008 to CAW cell in which she had narrated that her son was studying at Dehradun and he was sent to boarding school without the consent of the complainant while she was admitted at VIMHANS hospital. Further, the complainant wanted her son to be brought back from the hostel but the accused was adamant to make the child stay in a boarding school. Further, that she got married to accused on 07.06.1995 and her parents had given her several articles in marriage like gold banarsi Saree, bed, almirah for which cash amount was given. However, the father of the accused was unhappy with the articles given in marriage and abused her by calling her Kangal and also stated that after the marriage of complainant with accused, his life has been spoiled. On one occasion, her father in law had poured hot water on her but complainant saved herself but was only injured in her leg. When FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 3 of 70 the complainant saved herself, her father in law abused her by saying "ek din jala ke maar dunga". At that time, accused also started behaving in the same manner with the complainant. Thereafter, complainant was threatened to be dropped back to her mother's house and when complainant objected, she was given severe beatings because of which, she started bleeding from her nose and mouth. Further, the accused always wanted the complainant to go back to her parental house. After four months of her marriage, when complainant became pregnant, accused alongwith her father and sister in law got the child of the complainant aborted in a preplanned manner, in a private clinic. Further, accused decided to live separately with the complainant that the same was only with the intention to oust the complainant from the matrimonial house and dropped the complainant to her parental home and himself shifted to Delhi. Thereafter, for two and half years, complainant was not brought by the accused. However, complainant waited for the accused to return back to her in September, 1998 complainant came to live with the accused in Delhi but she was not kept well by the accused. On 15.08.1999, accused took the complainant again to Kolkata on the pretext of attending a marriage of his friend but left the complainant in Kolkata and himself came back to Delhi. Further, accused filed a divorce case against the complainant only with the intention to mentally torture the complainant. Complainant was tortured by not FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 4 of 70 giving her money for day to day expenses, not giving her medical expenses, by not coming home, by treating her as a mental patient, by not eating the breakfast packed by the complainant, by forcefully aborting the child of the complainant thrice after marriage, by administering medicines to her with the intention to declare her insane, by not providing her proper accommodation.
3. Pursuant to this complaint dated 18.02.2008 against the accused, FIR was registered on 28.04.2008 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 06.07.2009. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused Chanchal Chakraborty and vide order dated 19.12.2016, charge was framed against accused Chanchal Chakraborty for the offence punishable U/s 498A IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten (10) witnesses.
PW1 Tapashi Chakraborty (complainant ) deposed that she met with accused Chanchal Chakraborty 8 years before her marriage with him and she had a love affair with him before her marriage and finally on 06.06.1995 she got married with accused Chanchal Chakraborty in Marriage Registrar office at Kolkatta. On 07.06.1995 she got married with accused Chanchal Chakrabory according to Hindu rites and ceremony in banquet hall situated at FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 5 of 70 Kolkata. On the next day she along with accused went to her matrimonial home i.e. Duttapukur Station Road, P.O. Duttapukur, P.S. Barasat, North 24 Paraganas, Pin No. 743248. Father of accused was against their relation and marriage with accused. In matrimonial house, her fatherinlaw had pushed her with his leg while she went before him to take blessing after her marriage and he threatened her by saying that "tu kitne bar shadi kiya kitne bar tu widwa hua, shadi tu kar liya lekin main tere ko shanti se jeene nahi dunga, tere ko mental and physical torture kar kar ke til til kar ke khatam kar dunga aur shadi ka maja bhi samjha dunga." As accused was Brahmin and she was a non Brahmin, then her father inlaw used to all time tease her by saying that "tu neech jati ki ladki hai, tu platform me rehti hai, tere mummy mere bete ko pakar nahi paya isiliye mere bete ke piche tere ko laga diya." Her parents had spent around Rs.2 lacs in her marriage by giving 12 tola gold including one necklace/sita har, one earing/sita earing, one chain, two ear tops, one pair bangles, two pair churi, four nose ring, three ladies ring, one nowabadhano, one gents ring, threefour gold button, one ladies wrist watch and one gent wrist watch, one VIP suitcase and other articles and other gifts to family member of accused as per list of articles given to police official dated 28.03.2008 which was Ex. PW1/A and six/seven tola gold was also gifted to her by her relatives at the time of her marriage which was mentioned in the above said list also. But family members of FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 6 of 70 accused i.e. her fatherinlaw namely Nikhil Chakrabory, elder sisterinlaw namely Kuri @Mamta Chakraborty and her husband namely Bubu @Subhashis Chakraborty, used to tease her that they had not received sufficient gift from the side of her parents and if her husband would marry in another family then they would receive more dowry articles as per their choice. Fatherinlaw used to throw the household utensil and clothes gifted by her parents in the corridor of house. On 10.06.1995, her fatherinlaw told her husband to bring her jewellery items from her upon which her husband came to take the same from her but she refused to provide the same, then her fatherinlaw abused her and directed her husband to vacate the matrimonial house with her and assaulted her by showing shoes towards her. Her fatherinlaw used to abuse her parents and used to push her to vacate the matrimonial house. In the month of October 1995, her fatherinlaw had thrown hot water upon her due to which she had sustained injury on her leg and he threatened her saying that "tu yahan se nahi jayegi toh tere ko ej din jala ke mar dunga." Thereafter, her husband also started to harass her by beating with leg and fist blows and belt. Her husband used to beat her in a such a manner that blood was oozing from her mouth and nose. Her husband along with her fatherinlaw, sister inlaw and her husband used to threaten her to leave the matrimonial house. Her husband told her to bring money from her parents and if she did not comply the same then he tortured and FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 7 of 70 harass her physically and mentally and one day he made her insane and thereafter, he would give divorce on the ground of her insaneness. In the month of September 1995, she conceived for the first time and her husband along with her fatherinlaw, sisterin law and her husband forcibly got aborted on 19.10.1995 at Union Drug and Clinic House, 18 Surya Sen Street, First Floor, in front of College Square, Kolkatta12 near the residence of sister of her fatherinlaw and uncle of her husband. She even tolerated all the above said harassment and cruelty made by her husband and his family member as she wanted to save her marriage. On 10.03.1996 (Sunday), at night time her husband after entering into her room, directed her to pack her bag as he had taken a rented house and then she along with him would reside their to get rid of the behaviour of her fatherinlaw. Then she requested to take her jewellery items and other items from the possession of her father inlaw then her husband told her that it was not right time for taking the same and he told her that the same were brought later on. At that time she was wearing one ear tops only and remaining all her jewellery items kept in possession of her fatherinlaw and she along with her husband left her matrimonial house at the instruction of her husband having one bag containing her fourfive wearing cloths. Thereafter, her husband took her to railway station Duttapukur and she asked him as to where they were going upon which he told that he had taken rental house at Kolkatta and while FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 8 of 70 they were in train, her husband told her that he had not taken any rented house in Kolkatta then she was shocked and asked him as to why he has done so, then the accused taken her Sealdah Railway Station and she realized that it was a plan of her husband and his family to throw her out from her matrimonial house and accused directed her to go to her parental house for some days and when he would arrange rented house, he would bring her from there. Then she opposed the same and requested him to come with her together at her parental house. Thereafter, on the protest of bringing water bottle her husband went out of railway station and run away from there, after leaving her alone at railway station at around 11.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. She tried to search her husband at railway station around half an hour but she did not find him. Thereafter, she went to her parental house and she narrated about the incident to her parents. She alongwith her parents went to her matrimonial house on the next day but her fatherinlaw shut the door after pushing them and he did not allow them to enter into the house. Thereafter, they returned back. In April, 1996 she received one letter from Gram Panchayat dated 19.03.1996 at the house of her parents, addressed to her father. In that letter it was offered that some mediation or settlement talks could be initiated between her and the accused. On 08.04.1996 her uncle namely Sudhir Chandra Saha sent a letter to the Panchayat for fixing the date for the aforesaid talks. During the same month when they visited the FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 9 of 70 Panchayat at Dutta Pukur Station Road, for the aforesaid talks but accused did not appear before Panchayat and no talks could take place. Thereafter, they all went to her matrimonial for talking to the family of accused but the family of accused ill treated them. When they returned home, she filed an application in the month of April, 1996 to Mahila Samiti. On 14.06.1996 the Head of Mahila Smiti sent a letter to the concerned Head of Mahila Samiti of having jurisdiction of Barasat North 24 Parganas to look into the matter. She kept visiting the aforesaid office but the matter could not be resolved since accused did not appear. On 20.08.1997 she went to the local PS of her area that was Muchipara Thana and lodged a general diary report regarding missing report vide no.2034 of accused since he was not available and could not be contacted anywhere. Thereafter for a long time, accused could not be contacted by her. However, in the year 1998 during the month of February and March, accused contacted her through her common friend and apologized her and also informed her that he was working at Delhi. He also told her that he shall take her with him to Delhi after some time. On 04.06.1998 accused took her with him for a vacation to Darjeling. Thereafter, they returned on 11/12.06.1998 to Calcutta. Thereafter, accused returned to Delhi and she remained at Calcutta at her parental home. He also promised that he should take her with him in the month of September, 1998. On 18th September, 1998, she boarded the train FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 10 of 70 for Delhi with accused and reached Delhi on 19.09.1998. Thereafter, accused kept her well only for sometime, but later his behaviour towards again deteriorated. He used to consume liquor and give her beatings. Further, in May, 1999, she got pregnant but accused was unhappy with the same and forced her to abort the child against her wishes and this was the second time he behaved in the same manner. During the aforesaid period accused used to give her beatings and even used to harass her by tearing her clothes. Accused used to give her beatings by fists and blows because of which she used to get severely injured and even bleed. At that time, accused used to force her to watch porn for which she objected, but he used to force her to do the same things which he watched on porn. On 15.08.1999, there was a marriage of his friend at Calcutta namely Subir Dutta, for which accused booked return tickets for both of them. The tickets from Delhi were booked for 12.08.1999 and they reached Calcutta on 13.08.1999. Thereafter, accused dropped her at her parental home and told her that he was leaving for his parental home and should return to take her for marriage. During that time when she tried to contact the accused he kept avoiding her and also started giving lame excuses. On the date of marriage of the friend of the accused she got ready but he did not come to take her. On the next day, she visited the house of the friend of the accused, who was living nearby to her parental home alongwith her brotherinlaw and upon reaching FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 11 of 70 there, she was informed that accused had attended the wedding and thereafter she took address of the friend whose marriage was performed the previous day, to meet the accused but upon her confrontation of not taking her to marriage, accused did not reply satisfactorily. On 18/19.08.1999, the reception of his friend had taken place and accused came to take her but had sent his friend namely Shubham to take her back from the reception as he used to live near her parental home. She attended the reception and accused told her to go back to her parental home alongwith his friend Shubham and also promised her to meet on the next day. Thereafter, on the next day she tried to contact the accused but he did not take her call and upon her calling his friend, she was informed that accused had already left his friend's place and was not taking her phone calls. Thereafter, she gave a call to the elder sister of accused namely Mamta Chakrabarty but she was told by her to not bother her by calling. On the next day, she went to her matrimonial home at Duttapur Station. On her way she met one person namely Deepak, friend of accused, and upon talking to him, she got to know that accused had left for Delhi and his father had handed over the return ticket to be cancelled. Thereafter, upon her request, Deepak handed over the ticket to her. Thereafter, she gave a call to her brother in law to arrange for money since she had requested him, that she wanted to leave for Delhi on the same day. Thereafter, she alongwith her mother came to Delhi on the same FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 12 of 70 night after booking ticket. On the next day in the night when she reached Delhi and went to the rented accommodation at H.No.219, Second Floor, DDA Flats, Gali No.2, Madangir, Delhi. She was not allowed to enter the same and was told by landlord that the house had been vacated by accused in the morning. Thereafter, on the same night, she alongwith her mother went to PS Ambedkar Nagar and narrated the entire incident to police who asked a constable to accompany her to the aforesaid premises and to request the landlord to let her enter the house. She was allowed to enter the house but none of the articles of the house were there and the house was empty. On the same night, they requested a neighbour who was also working in the same office as of her husband to allow her to stay there and his name was Mr. Sona Banerjee. Next day, she visited the office of accused and over there she was informed that accused was not working there. Thereafter, she alongwith her mother stayed in the house of the aforesaid person for ten days. During the same time, she again visited PS Ambedkar Nagar where on one occasion, accused visited the police station and told her that he has filed divorce petition. On 30.08.1999, she came back to Calcutta. Thereafter, she received a notice regarding divorce from the accused for the appearance on 07.10.1999. Thereafter, she reached Delhi and requested the employer of accused to help her to find a job and thereafter, she started working at Chandrani Pearls, Green Park.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 13 of 70 During that time accused kept a watch on her and often tried to talk to her and even apologized her. At that time, she was living separately from the accused but she used to meet him. At that time, her father expired and therefore, accused accompanied her to Calcutta to attend the last rites of her father and after retuning from there in the year 2000, they both started living together in Delhi. In between she was also informed by accused that he has withdrawn the divorce case but later she came to know that it was dismissed. From the year 20002008, she lived with the accused in Delhi. In the year 2001, she gave birth to her son. At that time, after the birth of her son, accused kept her well only for sometime but again started beating, harassing, physical torturing her and misbehave with her after consuming liquor. In August, 2002, she again conceived but accused forced her to abort the child for the third time. In the year, 2004 when she confronted the accused about his extramarital affair, he told her that she was doubting him and did not want people to believe her. In the end of year 2003 or beginning of 2004, accused told her that since their son was stubborn in nature he should be shown to a psychiatrist for counselling and thereafter, they visited a doctor known to accused. At the time of visit to the doctor, accused told her that with the counselling of child, counselling of parents should be done. During the time they were visiting one private clinic namely Manas and VIMHANS. There she found that her file and her son's file FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 14 of 70 were prepared for counselling but not of her husband. Further, in the year 20002001, when she was living with the accused, she found two letters from the bag of the accused written by his father and one of his friend namely Pankaj, mentioning about the pre planning of the accused to divorce her and also to create documents of the doctor to procure certificate, and also how to address the situation if she would report the matter to court. She also read in the letter written by his father the manner in which accused should divorce her and also that he had already looked for a girl for remarriage of the accused. During the year, 2004 accused visited Mumbai and when he returned, she found some slips from the laptop bag of the accused wherein he has mentioned all filthy things and she also got to know that accused was having an extra marital affair with a girl. She also found a condom packet from the bag of the accused, from which one of them was used and when she confronted him, he told her that the same was perhaps taken by one of his colleagues of office. That time she had heated conversation with the accused and he gave her severe beatings and also told her that she was doubting him. Thereafter, she held his feet and when he was trying to take away her son, she requested him to leave the child. Thereafter, he spilled all the food and left the home. In the midnight, accused came back home and slept. On the next day morning i.e. 10.04.2004 one lady attendant, one gents attendant, one duty doctor and one duty Nurse came to their house FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 15 of 70 and when she asked them they told her that they had come from VIMHANS and had been sent by doctor Amiya Banerjee. During that time, she had not opened one of the door and while talking they told her that they had come to take her to the hospital for checkup. Then she objected and told them that she did not wish to accompany them and also that she had been visiting the concerned doctor for her son and not for herself. In the meantime, accused opened the door and all these persons entered her house. They all were forcing her to accompany them but she objected and enquired from them about the place they were taking her and the reason for the same. She also requested them to inform either her family or the neighbour or the local police, the place they were taking her and the purpose for the same. However, they did not hear her requests and meanwhile gave her some injection, due to which she became unconscious. During all the scuffle, she was crying loudly and even her son was crying badly. She did not have any consciousness due to the injection. When she regained her consciousness, she found herself in hospital and she requested the staff to let her meet her son but she was again given an injection. When doctor came, she told him that the accused had preplanned the same to obtain divorce from her and he should help her and also requested him to let her speak to her family but the doctor did not listen her. During her stay, she came to know from the hospital attendant staff/ Superintendent that on the day when she had a fight FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 16 of 70 with the accused in the night, he had visited VIMHANS and had informed the hospital that she had become violent and had spilled all the articles of the house when the same was untrue. On 30.04.2004, she was discharged from the aforesaid place. She also informed regarding the same to her mother after being discharged and she told her to stay with the accused as she wanted her to make her family and also told her that since accused had money and was influential, she would not succeed if she file any complaint and he would leave her again as he had done earlier. In the year 2005, she again conceived for the fourth time and she did not want to tell accused since he would force her to abort the child, but he came to know regarding her pregnancy and again asked her to abort the child. She refused for the same but accused threatened her by saying that he shall not accept the child after birth and shall sent her back to Calcutta. Thereafter, he took her to several doctors for the abortion but she always informed the doctor regarding her unwillingness to abort the child. At that time, accused took her to Dr. Sadhna Kala, B216 or B316, C.R. Park. At that time, she was given medicines by VIMHANS doctor but she stopped taking it since she had conceived without the knowledge of the accused. Upon her visiting the aforesaid doctor who told her that since she was taking medicines from VIMHANS, the child born would have been abnormal but she again told her that she wanted to continue with the pregnancy. The aforesaid doctor also visiting Doctor at FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 17 of 70 Moolchand Hospital. On 15.01.2005, accused took her to Moolchand hospital for the purpose of checkup and while she was talking to doctor a nurse came and gave her some injection. When she regained consciousness, she found that her child had been aborted of 2 ½ months. Thereafter, she kept crying. Thereafter, accused met Doctor Amiya Banerjee at VIMHANS and informed him that she had stopped taking medicines prescribed by him. However, she did not remember the exact date of reception it might be 17.08.1999 to19.08.1999. On the last day, she had inadvertently deposed regarding the address of rented accommodation at house No. 219, 2nd floor, Madangir situated at Gali No. 2, however, it was situated at Gali No.9 and she had inadvertently mentioned date of her 4th time conceivement as in the year of 2005 on last date of her testimony dated 07.09.2017 which was in fact in the year 2004 and in 15.01.2005, she was forcefully aborted by accused person. On the same day i.e. 15.01.2005, she was taken back at her rented house at Pocket K 8, 2nd floor, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi19, and resided there with accused from December 2003, from the Moolchand hospital. At that time she was severe bleeding and when she asked to accused Chanchal Chakraborty as to why he had aborted her without her consent, then he started to beat her by giving fist blow on her eye due to which, she sustained black mark/swelling. From 17/18.02.2005, accused did not come at their rental accommodation and on 21.02.2005 at about 10.00 AM, FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 18 of 70 accused Chanchal Chakraborty came there. During that period when she asked about his whereabout on his mobile phone, then accused replied her that he was on his site i.e. place of work in Delhi. On 21.02.2005, after arrival of accused Chanchal, one Duty Doctor, one nurse, two attendance (one male and another female) came at her house from VIMHANS and they suggested her that she have to go VIMHANS. She asked them as to why she have to go there, then, they told her that her husband had requested for the same to concerned doctor of VIMHANS and thereafter, they were sent at her house for taking her to VIMHANS. As, her husband had told concerned doctor that she had stopped taking medicine prescribed by him then, aforesaid persons from VIMHANS were sent for taking her back. She further told the aforesaid persons from VIMAHNAS that she had stopped taking medicines as she was pregnant at that time. She refused to accompany the aforesaid persons unless they inform her parents. However, despite her insistence they did not inform her parents and she told them to atleast inform her neighbourers but they even refused to inform her neighbourers regarding taking her to the hospital. Thereafter, she was taken forcefully by the aforesaid persons and at that time, since she wanted to change her clothes, she was not allowed and after great perseverance, she was made to change her clothes in the presence of the aforesaid persons which even included male doctors and attendants. Thereafter, they took her VIMHANS FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 19 of 70 hospital all this while, her son was crying. Prior to this, whenever she told the accused that she would file a case against him, and he used to always threaten her by saying that he would send her son away. On 11.03.2005, she was discharged from VIMHANS hospital. During her absence on 22.02.2005, her husband had sent away her son to a boarding school away from her. Her stay at VIMHANS hospital was extended only at the behest of the accused since he wanted her to stay at the hospital for a longer time. On 11.03.2005, she reached back home and found that her son was not present and all his belongings and pictures were also removed. Thereafter, when she confronted the accused of his behaviour and told him that she shall complaint the matter, he told her that now he shall get her admitted at Shahdara Mental hospital. Thereafter, in the year 2006 accused remained well with her. All this while, accused used to give her some medication due to which she would feel drowsy. During the time when accused used to forcefully gave her some medication because of which she used to feel drowsy, and whenever she refused or objected the accused for giving her such medication, he used to give her beatings. Thereafter, when she told him that she shall complaint against him regarding his aforesaid act, he used to threaten by saying that he shall send her son to a distant place where she would never be in a position to meet or see her son and also threatened her that on the next time, he shall admit in a mental hospital at Shahdara instead of getting her admitted at FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 20 of 70 VIMHANS. He used to also tell her that he shall shift himself abroad and no one would come to know regarding the whereabouts of her son or herself or of the accused by any person or by her parents. The aforesaid behaviour of the accused continued with her. On 26.01.2008, since it was a holiday, she heard accused talking to his Mausi's son namely Sanjeet Chakraborty on phone that he would admit her again for the third time in a mental hospital. She was scared and thereafter made a call to her mother on 27.01.2008 and requested her to visit her by even taking a unconfirmed train ticket. Thereafter on 29.01.2008, her mother reached Delhi and during talks, asked her husband to hand over her previous medical documents at the mental hospital to her but he said that he had lost the same. Further on 28.01.2008, she had even visited PS C.R. Park and had given a complaint to the duty officer regarding the complaint against her husband but he refused to accept it and did not take on record and suggested her to approach the CAW Cell, on 27.01.2008 or 28.01.2008 when she visited PS C.R. Park. Thereafter on 28.01.2008, she had visited CAW, Srinivas Puri and filed a complaint against her husband. On 06.02.2008, she along with her mother visited the doctor who had treated her at VIMHANS Hospital namely Dr. Amiya Banerjee. Her mother confronted the doctor for not informing her regarding her admission and treatment in the hospital but he did not give any satisfactory reply. However, on that day, the concerned doctor gave FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 21 of 70 a written certificate to them stating the cause of her admission in the hospital. After her complaint on 28.01.2008, she and her husband were called for counselling. The medical certificate given by the doctor to her on 06.02.2008 was Mark A. In the year 2005 also on 16.11.2005, accused had given her severe beatings due to which she had suffered a fracture in her right hand. At that time after giving beatings, accused had taken her to GM Modi Hospital at Press Enclave Road, Saket, to his known doctor where she was given medical treatment. Since she had suffered a fracture, she was not able to do household work due to injury but accused did not even employ a maid to do the household work and instead had asked her mother to come from Kolkata and look after her. She had the Xray report for the same but on 03.02.2008 when they were shifting their house to Block No.10, Dakshin Puri, accused had removed and misplaced the same despite the fact that she had kept the same in the bag. On 06.02.2008 when she had visited VIMHANS Hospital with her mother on the directions of Dr. Amiya Banerjee the administration of the hospital had given her a copy of her medical treatment at their hospital. Further on 03.02.2008, during the pendency of the counsellings sessions before the CAW Cell, the accused made them shift from their house to the house at Dakshin Puri which was not even intimated to her. Accused had not intimated her the area where he wanted to shift or the house. Accused had taken her to the area where poor FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 22 of 70 persons were residing as compared to the area of C.R. Park. Upon knowing the same, she immediately went to PS Dakshin Puri along with her mother to complaint regarding the aforesaid behaviour of the accused since he wanted her to live in the locality which was not worth the place which she was used to at C.R. Park, despite the fact that he was earning more than Rs.70,000/ per month at that time. Thereafter police officials had asked her husband to mend his ways and wanted to settle the matter. On 04.02.2008, she visited the MD Sh. Anil Dhal of the company where her husband was employed along with her mother. Upon her aforesaid visit, Sh. Anil Dhal also made her husband understand the same. Thereafter on 09.02.2008, her husband shifted them to House no.1777A/8, Gali no.8, 4th floor, Govind Puri Extension, New Delhi19. On 16.02.2008, accused told her that he had to visit outside Delhi and left the house. However after 16.02.2008, when she made a call to the accused to know about his whereabouts, on which he replied her that he would not return back home since she had filed a complaint against him at CAW Cell. Thereafter, she went to CAW Cell and informed regarding the same. She filed a complaint before the CAW Cell on 18.02.2008 and the same was Ex.PW1/B. Even prior to that, she had filed a complaint in CAW Cell on 28.01.2008 which was Ex.PW1/C. Thereafter, her husband did not return home and on 18.03.2008, she gave a detailed complaint to the CAW Cell vide Ex.PW1/D. Thereafter she had handed over the list of dowry FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 23 of 70 articles at the CAW Cell on 28.03.2008 which was Ex.PW1/A. During her counselling sessions at the CAW Cell, accused used to appear but never thought of visiting the house. At that time, accused did not attend the counselling sessions regularly and even upon the advise of the CAW Cell did not take her and did not go himself to the counselling sessions before the psychologist whose name was Dr. Rajat. He did not even pay her any maintenance amount at that time. On 11.03.2008 and on 16.03.2008, she had given a complaint at PS Kalkaji regarding the behaviour of the accused vide DD No.32B dated 11.03.2008. During that time, accused made a phone call to her landlord and asked her landlord to make her vacate the aforesaid rented premises. On 16.03.2008, she had filed a complaint before PS Kalkaji regarding the fact of the landlord asking her to vacate the rented premises since her husband had refused to pay the rent. The photocopy of DD No.32 B dated 11.03.2008 was Mark B. The complaint dated 16.03.2008 was Mark C. Thereafter the SHO concerned directed a constable Rajkumar to visit her landlord who visited and pacified the landlord. On 13.03.2008, she had received a summon from the court regarding the divorce petition filed by the accused. Thereafter since the investigation in her matter was not taking place, she again wrote an application on 27.09.2008 and sent the same through speed post, the copy of the same was Mark D to the SHO and the IO concerned for recovering the istridhan articles given in her FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 24 of 70 marriage. During investigation, she had handed over her documents containing a letter written by father of the accused to him and also a letter written by Sh. Pankaj to the accused who was his friend and the certificate dated 06.02.2008 given by the doctor to her but the IO had removed the same and had not placed the same on record and thereafter she moved an application before the concerned court which was allowed and she had filed the aforesaid documents Mark B, Mark C and Mark D and also the photocopy of the letter written in Bengali by the father of the accused which was now Ex.PW1/F (OSR) and the translation of the same was Mark E1. The photocopy of the letter written by the friend of accused dated 28.07.1999 was PW1/E (OSR) and the translation of the same in English language was Mark E2. The original document pertaining to the diagnosis slip handed over to her and her mother upon visiting Vimhans hospital on 06.02.2008, the same was Ex. PW 1/G (which was earlier mark A). She had also sent an application on 27.09.2008 to PS Kalkaji for seeking recovery of her stridhan articles lying with her husband which was mark F which she had also sent by speed post. The speed post receipt in respect to the same was Ex. PW1/H. Her complaint dated 28.03.2008 to the CAW cell pertaining to her list of dowry articles was mark G. During investigation, IO did not cooperate with her and had not even placed the documents pertaining to the divorce petition filed by the accused in the year 1999 which was dismissed. The present FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 25 of 70 FIR was registered only upon her complaint Ex.PW1/B dated 18.02.2008 and the FIR was registered on 28.04.2008. The police officials did not register the FIR on her detailed complaints dated 18.03.2008 and 28.03.2008. Even after subsequent filing of the complaint, she was pressurised to withdraw the present complaint by the IO, accused and his advocate. During investigation, she had handed over the photographs of the marriage to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/I and the photographs of marriage were Ex.PW1/J running into four pages. During investigation, she had handed over the marriage card to the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/K and the marriage card was Ex.PW1/L. During investigation, she had also filed a complaint before the Higher authorities on 06.01.2009 regarding the fact that the investigation was not being conducted in a fair manner by the IO. The copy of the same was Ex.PW1/M, which was sent by speed post also to L.G. on 28.01.2009 and also to DCP, Sarita Vihar, South East District on 08.02.2009. She has brought original photograph alongwith negative in which accused had been seen enjoying party and consuming liquor and photocopy of the same attached with the judicial file running into seven pages was Ex. PW1/N (colly). She had given her medical report pertaining to her first and fourth abortion and during the birth of her child and her treatment running into 33 pages which were mark H. Medical report was Ex.PW1/O running into six pages and Ex.PW1/P running into nineteen pages. On 19.03.1996, accused FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 26 of 70 had given a letter to her parents through Gram Pradhan making allegations that there is some dispute between her and her husband which was mark I and translated copy of the same was mark J and in reply of aforesaid letter her uncle Mr. Sudhir Chandra Saha had given reply vide letter dated 08.04.1996 which was mark K and L. She had filed a complaint against the behaviour of accused before Mahila Samiti at West Bengal Democratic Mahila Samiti and the same was subsequently forwarded to the jurisdiction of the concerned Mahila Samiti wherein the official concerned was named Ms. Aparna Gupta and sent by Smt. Renu Ghosal on 14.06.1996 and the same was mark M. The photocopy of the returned ticket of the train which was cancelled by the accused was mark N dated 20.08.1999 and thereafter she had again booked a ticket to reach her matrimonial home and the copy of the same was mark O dated 20.08.1999. All her jewellery articles given in marriage and subsequently purchased by her in the year 2007 by her personal savings and some amount given to her by the accused, including all her stridhan articles are still in possession of the accused. The original bills pertaining to her purchases of jewellery articles in the year 2007 was Ex.PW1/Q dated 12.06.2004 and 10.03.2007. During crossexamination, PW1 deposed that she had passed graduation (Hons. of Philosophy) from Kolkatta University in the year 1994. At the time of marriage her father was doing garment business i.e. collecting from whole seller and FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 27 of 70 delivering to retailer. She did not have personal knowledge as to what was monthly income of her father at the time of her marriage. In the year of her marriage, her mother was working as an attendant at Orient Nursing Home in Kolkatta and she did not know her monthly income. It was wrong to suggest that she was deliberately not disclosing monthly income of her parents during the period of her marriage. At the time of her marriage she was not working. Prior to marriage she had no knowledge about monthly income of her husband. Upon being asked whether during the period from her marriage, the birth of her child, if she had any knowledge about monthly income of her husband, she replied that she did not have knowledge about the same. She did not make any complaint to the police or any authority regarding the behavior of her fatherinlaw while she went before him to take blessing after her marriage. At one occasion she saw her fatherinlaw in her matrimonial house prior to her marriage while she was attending function to be held there and it was correct that at that time accused Chanchal had introduced her with his family members but not his father. It was wrong to suggest that accused Chanchal had introduced her with her father also. It was wrong to suggest that father of accused Chanchal was not against her marriage and he had never threatened her after her marriage and he had never teased her by any caste remarks. It was correct that she had no bill regarding the 12 tola gold and expenses of her marriage of Rs. Two FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 28 of 70 lacs which was alleged to be given and spent in her marriage by her parents. It was wrong to suggest that she had produced false list of articles before CAW Cell and her parents had never spent amount of Rs. Two lacs and given 12 tola gold in her marriage. She did not remember whether she had made any complaint prior to this complaint against her fatherinlaw, elder sisterinlaw and her husband regarding the fact that they used to torture saying that they had not received sufficient gift from the side of her parents in her marriage and if her husband would marry in another family, they will receive more dowry articles as per their choice. She voluntarily stated that she did not file any complaint in the year 1995). It was wrong to suggest that her fatherinlaw had never thrown the household utensils and clothes gifted by her parents in the corridor of house. It was wrong to suggest that her fatherin law did not ask her to bring her jewelery articles on 10.06.1995 and he did not abuse her for the same and her fatherinlaw did not direct her husband to take her away from her matrimonial house and that he had never assaulted her by showing shoe. She did not make any written complainant regarding behavior of her fatherin law that he had thrown hot water upon her due to which she had sustained injury on her leg and she was not medically examined at that time. It was wrong to suggest that no such incident had occurred due to which she did not make any complaint and she did not take medical treatment. It was wrong to suggest that she was FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 29 of 70 permanent mental disorder/acute obsessive compulsive disorder and schizophrenia. It was wrong to suggest that after her marriage she had started to show her abnormal behavior towards her husband and her inlaws and started to scold her sisterinlaw. She did not remember the exact duration or days for which she remained in her matrimonial house. Her child Ayush remained with her till 22.02.2005 and thereafter he was shifted to hostel of Glen Hill Public School, Darjeeling and during his hostel period, she used to visit and meet her during his vacation period. It was wrong to suggest that her child was sent to boarding school due to her behavior of acute obsessive compulsive disorder. It was wrong to suggest that she used to give 56 times baths to her son. It was wrong to suggest that she could not feed her son. It was wrong to suggest that she did not let anyone touch and see her child. It was wrong to suggest that she did not let her child move from bed. It was wrong to suggest that she did not allow anyone to take care of her child, particularly to change garment and bed of her child and she had marked imaginary line Laxman Rekha in the matrimonial house and she did not allow her child to cross the same and no one was permitted to enter into the same and that she did not allow her child to play outside of house due to which her child had become mentally as well as physically ill. It was wrong to suggest that she was not treating her child with motherly love and used to torture him. It was wrong to suggest that she did not bring up her child FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 30 of 70 with care and protection. It was wrong to suggest that due to the ill mental health of the minor child he was sent to a school at the age of two years. It was correct that her husband took her in VIMHANS Hospital, Delhi. It was wrong to suggest that she was diagnosed being schizophrenia by the aforesaid hospital and concerned doctor suggested to admit her. It was correct that she was admitted in the said hospital from 10.04.2004 to 30.04.2004. It was wrong to suggest that court had ordered for her medical checkup. She did not remember if on 02.08.2008 a court order was passed by the court of Hon'ble Judge Sh. Vinod Kumar (ASJ) for her medical checkup about her mental health. She was not taken by the police officials for any medical checkup however, she was informed by the police officials that a board has been constituted for her medical checkup for mental health. She did not remember if she was shown any order of the court by the police officials regarding her medical checkup to assess medical checkup to assess mental health. She did not remember if any written notice was given to her by the police for the aforesaid checkup. She did not remember if she was given written notice thrice by the police officials to inform her regarding the constitution of medical board for her medical checkup to assess mental health. It was wrong to suggest that she purposely did not join the proceedings before the medical board despite her knowledge regarding the same. It was wrong to suggest that she did not appear before the medical board FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 31 of 70 since she was knowing that she was suffering from Schizophrenia and acute form of obsessive compulsive disorder. Even today, she could stay with the accused if he mends his behaviour and for the sake of her minor child. Her minor child was presently in the custody of the accused since the year 2017 as her child was restricated from his boarding school. She did not know if her son wishes to live with her today as accused does not allow her child to talk to her. She had not spoken to her child for several months now and had spoken to him only once or twice after he was restricated from his boarding school. It was wrong to suggest that her son was offered by his school to visit abroad and she did not support in making of the passport of her child. She did not remember if there was any order of the court from the court of Ld. Principal Judge Family Court, Sh. Rakesh Siddharth on 22.11.2014 in case No.G14/37 titled as Chanchal Chakrabarty Vs. Tapasi Chakrabarty in which she was directed to cooperate in issuance of passport for her minor child. It might be correct that she was present during the aforesaid proceedings of the aforesaid Family Court. It was correct that she had not mentioned regarding the fact of the incident of September, 1995 regarding her forced abortion in her complaint Ex. PW1/C dated 28.01.2008 though she had stated the same during her examination in chief. She did not remember today if she had mentioned regarding the aforesaid fact of abortion in her complaint to the Mahila Samiti in the year 1996. She did not FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 32 of 70 remember if she had filed a complaint against the accused to any authority regarding her forceful abortion. Her husband took her to the clinic where her abortion was conducted on 19.10.1995. She did not remember today as to what was the medical procedure by which her child was aborted. She did not remember the salary of her husband in the year 1995. It was correct that the father of the accused was unhappy with her matrimonial alliance with the accused. She did not know if the accused was not financially supported by his father. From March, 1996 till 18.09.1998, she stayed separately from the accused but during the aforesaid period accused had even taken her to visit Darjelling on 04.06.1998. During February and March, 1998 accused even tried to communicate with her through our common friend. In September 1998 when accused brought her to Delhi and they again started living with each other, he was working at Studio Printer and his office was situated at Gurudwara road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. She did not remember the salary of accused in September 1998. When accused was working as General Manager with TIC Integrated Event Marketing company, he was drawing a salary of Rs.70,000/ and above. The aforesaid company had two more names that is TIC Event Management Group and The Innuendo Communications. She did not remember the duration or the years during which accused was employed with the aforesaid company. Her husband was regularly attending the office. In May 1999 her FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 33 of 70 abortion was conducted in Delhi but she did not remember the exact place or clinic in which her abortion was conducted. She did not have any medical document pertaining to the aforesaid abortion and the same were in the possession of accused. The aforesaid abortion was conducted in private clinic. Accused took her to the aforesaid clinic. She had objected to the aforesaid abortion to the accused verbally. She did not remember if she had filed any complaint regarding the aforesaid abortion to any authority. She did not remember if she had filed any complaint against the accused when he used to give her severe beatings and tearing clothes to any authority during aforesaid period of 1999. Thereafter, five prints out of picture pertaining to locality were shown to the witness and witness submits that she was not aware about the same, the same were MarkZ1 to Z5. It was correct that her husband had bought TV fridge, CD player. Accused used to make her to watch porn videos in his mobile phone and even used to purchase CDs of the same. She did not know if in the year 1999 multimedia phones were available or not in India. She voluntarily stated that accused used to show her porn videos by bringing CDs from the very beginning of the marriage and she did not remember the year in which he showed her porn videos on mobile. On 15.08.1999 when they had to attend the marriage of the friend of the accused and she was ready, accused did not come to take her and at that time she made several calls to him on his mobile phone FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 34 of 70 but he did not pick her phone. She did not remember the mobile number of the accused used by him at that time. She did not remember the make of the company whose handset was used by accused. She had given a call to the accused from STD booth near her parental house. She did not remember the name of clinic in which accused forced her to abort the child in August 2002 but the same was situated in Delhi. She did not remember the procedure by which her child was aborted as she was given an injection after which she lost consciousness. She did not remember if she had filed any complaint against the accused in respect to aforesaid abortion in August 2002 before any authority. During the aforesaid abortion she was taken to clinic by her husband and her minor child. She did not have any medical document regarding the aforesaid abortion. In the year 2001 at the time of birth of her child Ayush she was residing with the accused. She voluntarily stated that her child was born in Kolkata and she had gone to Kolkata for her delivery but she used to reside with accused at that time in Delhi. She did not remember as to when she had left for Kolkata for her delivery. She could not say if she went to Kolkata for her delivery when she was eight months pregnant. She came to know regarding the extra marital affairs of the accused from some papers in which he had written to another woman. From the aforesaid papers she would come to know that accused had physical relation with another woman. She produced the aforesaid letters before the FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 35 of 70 Court. Thereafter, witness had produced photocopy of documents (10 slips) which were written in Bengali language alleged to have been written by the accused to some female and bears the signature of accused. The slips were Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PWD10. The signature of accused was present at pointA on Ex.PW1/D6. She did not have the Hindi or English translation of these slips written in Bengali language. To her knowledge accused had written the aforesaid slips for some woman namely "Sona" and that he had physical relation with the aforesaid woman as mentioned by him in slip Ex.PW1/D9 from pointA1 to A2. She found the aforesaid slips from the laptop bag of the accused. She had asked the doctor whom they were visiting for counseling of her son as to why the counseling file of the accused was not prepared when the same was prepared for her and for her son but he did not answer anything to her. The letters written by father and friend of the accused were found by her in the bag of the accused. In the year 2005 her child was aborted forcefully at Moolchand Hospital, Lajpat Nagar and she was taken for the same by the accused on the pretext of checkup to the same doctor who was giving her treatment and used to also sit at Moolchand hospital. It was correct that doctor advised her for abortion. She could not say if on 15.01.2005 her abortion was conducted only upon the instance of the accused. It was correct that she was advised by the doctor for abortion of child since the medication given to her for mental treatment could affect the child FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 36 of 70 and the child would have been born abnormal. However, she had informed the doctor that she had discontinued taking the medicine much prior. She did not remember if she had filed any complaint against her forceful abortion. She did not file any complaint against the accused when he gave beatings to her after the aforesaid abortion. She had not informed the accused before filing complaint against him. She had not consulted any other doctor to verify regarding the correctness of the medicines given to her during her treatment at Vimhans. She voluntarily stated that when she was admitted at Vimhans she came to know from the attendants who used to lookafter her told her that if she continued to take the medicines, she would become insane one day. She was informed regarding the aforesaid fact in the year 2004 and 2005. It was correct that she had not filed the English or Hindi translation of document Ex.PW1/D1 to D10 and to her knowledge in Ex.PW1/D2 the term "Sona" was used for describing cock. However, in her knowledge word "Sona" which was used in Ex.PW1/D3 was not describing woman. Upon being asked as to how she came to know regarding the extra marital affairs of her husband to another woman except the aforesaid slips to which she answered, she came to know the fact that her husband had extra marital affairs to another woman after seeing the condom packet (one of them was used) in his bag and came to know that one out of them was used as the packet FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 37 of 70 containing 10 condoms and one was not there and the packet of condom was also crushed.
She did not remember whether she had filed any complaint to any authority regarding extra marital affairs of her husband. To her knowledge, accused used to occasionally drink prior to their marriage. Accused did not take drink in her presence prior to her marriage. However, when she restrained him for taking drink he did not take drink in her presence prior to her marriage. Accused had never beaten her prior to marriage. She came to know that accused was talking to his Mausi's son namely Sanjit Chakraborty as he used to his nick name Laltu on mobile phone. It was wrong to suggest that she had not heard on mobile that accused was talking to his Mausi's son by saying that he would admit her again third time in the mental hospital. She did not remember whether she had made complaint to any authority about the incident dated 16.11.2005 where the accused allegedly given severe beating due to which she suffered fracture in her right hand. Her son Ayush used to visit their house at Delhi thrice in vacations from Doon International School in the year 2007. It was correct that her husband got her son admitted in swimming camp during the Summer Vacation, however, she did not remember the exact time and date. Thereafter, the witness was shown one printed photograph MarkZ6 to which she stated that she did not know the persons in the picture. Witness denied all suggestions put to her.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 38 of 70 PW2 Smt. Amresh (Attendant from VIMHANS Hospital) deposed that in the year 2005, she was working as a hospital attendant in VIMHANS hospital. She did not remember the exact date and month but in the year 2005, Sh. Gurdesh Singh being the Supervisor had received a call from husband of complainant Tapasi that complainant has to take VIMHANS hospital as she became violent. She alongwith one sister namely Julius, one doctor Manoj and one male attendant, she did not remember his name went to the residence of complainant. Complainant started weeping after seeing them. Husband of complainant told her to change the cloth as she was wearing nighty at that time. Thereafter, they took the complainant to VIMHANS hospital. At that time, complainant was very well and she was not like a patient of VIMHANS. Thereafter, patient was taken to the VIMHANS hospital as she was ready to come with them and no force was used against her to go to hospital.
During crossexamination, PW2 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that no call from husband of complainant was received by the Supervisor Sh. Gurdesh Singh.
PW3 Santosh (Worker from VIMHANS Hospital ) deposed that he knew complainant Tapasi Chakraborty and he was working as a hospital attendant in VIMHANS for around 89 years and during that period at one time, complainant had come to the hospital and her behaviour was normal and she was like FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 39 of 70 psychological patient. He did not know by whom she was sent to VIMHANS hospital. He did not know anything more about the matter. He was only working as an attendant in the hospital till the year 2009.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. The witness denied that on 10.04.2004, accused Chanchal Chakrabarty (husband of complainant) had made a call to Supervisor Gurdev Singh and had asked to reach his house and get the complainant to the hospital. He voluntarily stated that he used to do whatever was told by the Supervisor. It was correct that he had visited the house of the complainant and the accused alongwith one doctor and sister upon asking of the Supervisor. He was not aware about the same since he was standing downstairs. Witness was confronted with the statement u/s 161 CrPC, wherein the said fact was not so recorded. He did not know the husband of the complainant. The witness could not identify the accused.
Opportunity to crossexamine the witness was granted to the accused persons but they did not question anything from the witness.
PW4 Savitri (Attendant from VIMHANS Hospital ) deposed that she knew complainant Tapasi Chakrabarty as she had been admitted in VIMHANS hospital where she was working as a hospital attendant. To her knowledge, complainant was admitted in the hospital thrice. Once complainant was admitted for fifteen days FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 40 of 70 and two more times but the duration, she could not say, but the same was less than 15 days for the purpose of treatment. She had worked as an attendant of the complainant, while her employment with the hospital. Complainant used to behave normal with them and never shouted or quarreled with them. She was first time brought by the hospital staff but she could not say if she was admitted without her wish and despite the fact that she was normal and did not require any medical treatment.
During crossexamination, PW4 deposed that she had never met the complainant in East of Kailash during any Satsang. Complainant had never allured her or threatened her to depose in her favour.
PW5 Ayush (Son of the complainant ) deposed that he was the son of the complainant and the accused. At present, he was residing with his father since the year 2013. Prior to that, he was residing with his mother (complainant). When he was residing with his both parents, they used to live cordially with each other. He remained in hostel for his studies from the year 2004 onwards till 2016. During his aforesaid stay at hostel, he used to visit his parents only twice a year during his summer and winter vacation. He used to visit his parents in Delhi even during the Diwali holidays for about 67 days. Whenever he visited, he never found his father ill treating or misbehaving with the complainant. They always used to remain cordial with each other. In his presence, FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 41 of 70 complainant never sent to any hospital forcefully. To his knowledge, no such incident of sending the complainant forcefully to hospital had taken place.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police and after seeking the statement u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW5/A, the witness denied to had ever made the statement to the police.
During crossexamination PW5 deposed that prior to March, 2008, he had observed some strange behaviour of his mother (complainant). Complainant used to be funky about her nature of asking him to wash his hands every now and then. She used to ask him to wash his hands at least five times after taking off or wearing his shoes. She never allowed him to hold the railings of the stairs while getting off them. Whenever he visited them from hostel, she did not allow him to touch his bag unless she had washed all the clothes inside it. Complainant also used to ask him to perform badly in his exams so that he would force coming to Delhi and stay and study here which he never like since he did not want to fail in his exams, though due to her pressure, he had performed badly in his exams. On one occasion, he had taken leaves from school and for the purpose of rejoining, he had to gave medical leave in his school and therefore, they visited one doctor to get his medical certificate made for the purpose of submission in FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 42 of 70 the school, but at that time complainant took out several bits of paper from her bag to press the bell of the doctor's clinic, since she did not want to touch the bell as the same was dirty and was something outside her house. Whenever he alongwith complainant and accused visited Lajpat Nagar or Sarojini Nagar market, complainant was extremely careful and obsessively careful for him not to get touch by any passersby or poor people. If he would cross any poor person or was brushed aside by any poor person or beggar, she would start shouting and yelling at him without any reason and would say that he should take bath. During his visit to his parents in Delhi, complainant would not allow him to go out of the house and cordon him into an area and would not allow him to go out. During his stay, no guest used to visit them and in his entire holiday, he used to stay in the house. Whenever he used to speak to his father on the phone from the phone of complainant, she would ask him to switch on the speaker and would habitually record all the conversation with his father and also wanted to hear all of them. Further, whenever she used to speak to his father, she would record all her conversation with him. Complainant did not allow him to meet his father and he was allowed to meet him only upon his visit to the hostel and used to tell him that his father has got married to another woman. His mother did not allow him to pursue his education abroad and told him that if he would go abroad, his father would not allow him to come back. It was correct that when FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 43 of 70 he had joined the swimming camp in the year 2007, complainant used to accompany him but during the said time, she would not allow him to take shower before or after swimming which was required. She would take him from the swimming pool in his wet clothes because of which he had even fallen ill. She used to ask him to wash his hands at least 50 times a day and upon his refusal used to give him beatings. In his presence, she had even given beatings to his Nani since she was particular about cleanliness. She had demarcated areas in the house where one could not enter and upon somebody not listening to her, she would quarrel and give beatings to that person. Her Nani was slapped by the complainant. It was correct that in the year 2007 during the Diwali occasion when he alongwith complainant and accused had gone to purchase crackers, complainant objected by saying that they all shall burst and started shouting in the market. During the time when he had stayed separately with the complainant and visited for the festival of Diwali, she did not allow him to celebrate the same. During the Diwali holidays, complainant never allowed him to join the school trip which was an option and always force him to come home for Diwali festival, which she never celebrated. It was correct that on four occasions, complainant did not allow him to visit abroad which was an option given by the school and once when he had to go abroad with his father, she refused to sign on the passport form. Due to the aforesaid reason, his passport could not be prepared.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 44 of 70 Even after once his passport was made, she did not cooperate with getting the Visa formalities which was for the purpose of education. He is residing with his father with his own wish.
Thereafter, the witness was reexamined by Ld. APP for the State and deposed that it was correct that he used to sometimes write diary. He voluntarily stated that he used to write diary or write in his notebook only upon the asking of the complainant. It was wrong to suggest that he had written in his diary about the love for his mother and he had also stated that he missed her and did not wish to stay in hostel upon his own wish.
Opportunity to crossexamine the witness was again granted to the accused persons but they did not question anything from the witness.
PW6 Retired SI Beer Sain (First IO) deposed that on 24.10.2008, he was posted as ASI in P S Kalkaji. On that day , he had received the present case file from MHC(R) at the instruction of SHO concerned as further investigation of present case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of landlord Shivaji, Kajal Shah (mother of complainant), Amresh, Savitri, Santosh u/s 161 CrPC and also recorded supplementary statement of complainant and statement u/s 161 CrPC of complainant's son Ayush Chakraborty. Accused Chanchal Chakraborty was formerly arrested on 04.12.2008 at PS Kalkaji and his personal search was conducted vide Memo Ex.PW6/A and FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 45 of 70 ExPW6/B and he was released on bail as he had already obtained anticipatory bail in the present case. As per the direction of the concerned court, he requested the complainant to go her matrimonial house for identifying her stridhan articles and recovery of the same but complainant was not intended to do so. After completion of investigation, chalan was prepared and filed before the court.
During crossexamination, PW6 deposed that during the course of investigation conducted by him, he had applied for constitution of Medical Board for medical test of complainant but complainant denied to appear in any medical board due to which, he did not further try to get constituted the Medical Board. He had given notice in writing to complainant for the same.
PW7 SI Usha Bhati (IO CAW Cell) deposed that on 18.02.2008, she was posted as ASI in CAW Cell, Sriniwaspuri and on that day, she had received a complaint Ex.PW1/D alongwith complaint Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C which was marked to her. During the proceedings conducted by her, statements of complainant Tapasi Chakraborty and her husband Chanchal Chakraborty were recorded by her which were Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A4. She also received complaint dated 28.03.2008 Ex.PW1/A (containing list of stridhan articles) during the proceedings before CAW cell. She tried to consolidate the matrimonial dispute between complainant and accused but there FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 46 of 70 was no chance of reconciliation between them. She prepared final report Ex.PW7/B alongwith details of proceedings conducted on 18.02.2008 and 25.02.2008 Ex.PW7/C. During crossexamination, PW7 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that she had prepared final report recommending for registration of present FIR at the behest of complainant. She had given opinion for registration of FIR on the basis of aforesaid complaint and inquiry for reconciliation between the parties to marriage, conducted by her. Complainant had not given any medical records for alleged abortion during the aforesaid proceedings. She did not verify the list of articles mentioned in ExPW1/A from the concerned shopkeepers.
PW8 Inspector Gajender (IO) deposed that on 28.04.2008, he was posted at PS Kalkaji. On that day, he had received original complaint ExPW1/A, ExPW1/B, ExPW1/C and ExPW1/D alongwith final report and detail of CAW Cell proceedings from CAW Cell, South District, New Delhi and he made endorsement for registration of FIR on complaint Ex.PW1/B. The concerned Duty Officer had given copy of FIR of the present case to him as further investigation of the present case was marked to him by concerned SHO. During the course of investigation, complainant had given her marriage card and marriage photograph which were seized vide memo ExPW1/J and EXPW1/I. As per the direction of court, he applied for constitution of Medical Board for FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 47 of 70 medical examination of complainant pertaining to schizophrenia disease for which AIIMS hospital denied to constitute medical board for the same and suggested that the matter be referred to Safdarjung Hospital or any other government hospital vide letter dated 05.07.2008 EX.PW8/A. Thereafter, he applied for constitution of medical board for aforesaid purpose vide letters dated 07.08.2008, 23.08.2008 and 21.10.2008 ExPW8/B, ExPW8/C and ExPW8/D and consequently, he received a letter from Safdarjung Hospital dated 23.08.2008 that medical board had been fixed on 28.08.2008 at 9.30 PM which was ExPW8/E. He intimated the complainant orally regarding the fixation of aforesaid date but complainant was not willing to appear on aforesaid date. He did not give her any written notice for the same. In the month of September the present case file was marked to another IO ASI Beer Sain for further investigation of the case.
During crossexamination, PW8 deposed that during the course of investigation conducted by him, he did not record statement of any other public witness. He asked from complainant regarding the name of witnesses and she told him that her family members were not present in Delhi at that time and they were in Kolkata. He did not collect any bill or receipt of the stridhan articles from the complainant as she did not give the same to him despite asking from her. He did not ask for any medical record pertaining to her alleged abortion as stated in the complaint from FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 48 of 70 the complainant but she had also not given the same to him. During the course of investigation, he did not conduct any inquiry regarding extra marital relation of the accused. It was correct that complainant had never given any other document to him except marriage card and marriage photograph.
PW9 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 04.12.2008, he was posted at PS Kalkaji. On that day at around 06:00 PM, accused Chanchal Chakrabarty came at PS and he was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/A and was released on bail as he had already obtained anticipatory bail.
Opportunity to crossexamine the witness was granted to the accused persons but they did not question anything from the witness.
PW10 Smt. Kajal Shah (mother of complainant) was examined but it was observed that the witness was not able to depose and had submitted that she is not able to speak or understand Hindi or English. She further stated that she can only understand or speak Bangali and therefore, the witness was dropped from the list of witnesses as her statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded in Hindi and IO deposed in court that the statement u/s 161 CrPC of aforesaid witness was recorded at the behest of complainant in Hindi and dictated by the complainant.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 49 of 70 Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC and he admitted the copy of FIR and rukka and the same was Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
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 examined two witnesses in his defence.
DW1 Sanjay Kumar (Record clerk, VIMHANS hospital) deposed that he had been working as a Record Clerk VIMHANS Hospital since year 2010. He had brought the record pertaining to patient Tapashi Chakrwarti for the period when she was admitted in the hospital from 10.04.2004 till 30.04.2004 and 21.02.2005 to 11.03.2005, copy of the same was Ex.DW1/1. The record pertaining to the period between 21.02.2005 to 11.03.2005 was Ex. DW1/2.
During crossexamination DW1 deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge regarding the present matter. He could not say if the complainant had visited the hospital on her own or was brought by some other person for the treatment.
DW2 Dr. Amiya Banerjee (Psychiatrist) deposed that he had worked at VIMHANS hospital from the year 1998 till the year FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 50 of 70 2008. He had worked there as Consultant Psychiatrist. He was M.B.B.S/MD in Psychiatrist. Thereafter, witness was shown document Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 and stated that it was correct that the aforesaid treatment papers pertain to a patient namely, Tapasi Chakraborty and the same pertains to VIMHANS hospital. Since he treated the patient in the year 2004, he was not sure if he could identify her. Thereafter, the witness was pointed towards complainant, Tapasi Chakrabarty and upon seeing her, the witness stated that she seems to be familiar face. He was the part of the five doctors unit which had given treatment to the aforesaid patient during her admission in the hospital at the time mentioned in document Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2. It was correct that he had given the treatment to the aforesaid patient during her stay in the hospital. The first discharged diagnosis on perusal of the aforesaid record shows that the patient was suffering from "schizophrenia, paranoid with obsessive compulsive symptoms". As per the second discharge summary the patient was suffering from "obsessive compulsive disorder". At that time when the aforesaid patient (complainant) was given treatment by him, he was having an experience about 11 years to treat such patient. Schizophrenia, paranoid with obsessive compulsive symptoms means illness where one of the symptoms was suspicion. Obsessive compulsive disorder means various kind of repetitive thoughts and behaviors. Paranoid was a subtype of schizophrenia. As per the record Ex.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 51 of 70 DW1/1 dated 17.03.2004, when the patient was admitted she was having symptoms like long standing insistence on cleaning, fear of contamination with severe degree of impairment without insight or resistance and also used to suspect husband's fidelity and of him conspiring against her, progressive aggression at home, with child like preventing him from going to school or play, keeping him at home all day. The aforesaid note of symptoms was prepared by him after talking to the patient and her husband. Upon perusing the document, he could say that during the course of the treatment of the aforesaid patient, the aforesaid symptoms were observed, but they subsided upon medication and treatment. Upon perusing document Ex.DW1/2 dated 21.02.2005, the witness deposed that when the patient was admitted she was having symptoms of also known to get hostile and aggressive and physical assault to the hired help at home and was also known to use one bar of soap for washing hand, fear of contamination and washing rituals present. Further, complainant was known to be very stubborn and difficult to manage at home, extremely suspicious and hostile, allso restricts activities of their servant and makes wash her hand and feet many times during the day, sleep marginally reduced and complainant was admitted in VIMHANS in April, 2004 and was being prescribed ziprasidone 40MG and sertraline 100 mg. Further, the complainant had not taken medication for the past six months".
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 52 of 70 During treatment, the aforesaid symptoms were observed but subsided upon medication.
Thereafter, witness was asked leading question to which he stated that the act of the complainant which has been described by PW5 amounts to aforesaid symptoms or disorder towards the complainant or to any person having such behaviour like;
1. being finicky about her nature of asking her child to wash his hand every now and then;
2. asking her child to wash his hand at least five times after taking off or wearing his shoes;
3. Not allowing her child to hold the railing of the stairs while getting off them;
4. Not allowing her child, Ayush to touch his bag unless she had washed all the cloths inside it at the time of his visit to the house from his hostile;
5. Asking her child to perform badly in his exams so that he is forced to come to Delhi and stay and study in Delhi;
6. While visiting the Doctor, taking out several bits of papers from her bag to press the bell of the doctor's house/clinic since the complainant did not want to touch the bell as the same was dirty;
7. While visiting outside with the child, being extremely obsessive for the child not to get touched by any passers by or poor people;
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 53 of 70
8. Shouting and yelling at the child when he gets touched by any poor person or baggers and forcing him to bath;
9. Habitually recording whole the telephonic conversation between the child of the complainant and his father;
10. No allowing the child to pursue his educational tours abroad and telling him that if he goes to abroad, his father would not allow him to come back;
11. Not allowing the child to take shower before or after swimming in the swimming camp in the year 2007 and taking him from the swimming pool in his wet cloths because of which the child fallen ill;
12. Forcing the child to wash hands at least fifty times a day and upon refusal by child, to give him beatings;
13. Giving beatings to the mother of the complainant in presence of the child of the complainant because she pretends to be particular about cleanness;
14. Not allowing the child to celebrate Diwali festival due to extreme fear of the crackers.
Upon being put the aforesaid question, the witness answered that psychiatrist diagnosis is not made on symptoms alone. The generalized nature of the symptoms and degree disability and distress, along with sustained observation of the patient was necessary to arrive at a psychiatric diagnosis.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 54 of 70 Upon being further asked if the aforesaid symptoms covered under the diseases, namely, schizophrenia or paranoid or obsessive compulsive disorder. The witness answered that any of the aforesaid 14 symptoms can be seen in patient with the above two disorder. However, just by themselves, they are not sufficient to establish the presence of this disorder.
During crossexamination of DW2 by Ld. APP for the State deposed that the aforesaid VIMHANS hospital was a private hospital. As per the record, on 11.04.2004, weekly round from 10.04.2004 to 16.04.2004, joint rounds on 14.04.2004, daily follow up note 18.04.2004, weekly record pertaining to 17.04.2004, joint round on 21.04.2004 were done. Further, he had regularly visited and observed the patient during her stay from 10.04.2004 to 30.04.2004 and during her stay between 21.02.2005 to 11.03.2005. In normal course of treatment when any patient visits hospital the OPD card was prepared but when the patient was admitted, the IPD (In Patient Department) Card was annexed with it and treatment was given on regular basis till the patient was discharged. Therefore, the symptoms disclosed upon which the treatment was given upon admission. He did not know who had made payment for the treatment given to the complainant. Witness denied the suggestions put to him.
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 55 of 70
7. Ld. APP for the state has argued that in the present matter all the witnesses have corroborated the story of the prosecution and there is no contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that all the witnesses have supported the story of complainant and the complainant has completely corroborated her complaint while deposing before the court. It is also argued that PW2 and PW3 being the independent witnesses have also corroborated that when the complainant was admitted in VIMHANS hospital, she was behaving normal and therefore, the accused is liable to have harass the complainant and tortured her by getting her admitted into a mental hospital only with the intention to cause danger to the health of the complainant and therefore, he is liable to the convicted.
8. However, on the other hand Ld. Counsel for accused Chanchal Chakrabory has argued that in the present matter there are several contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the prosecution have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that in the present matter accused Chanchal Chakraborty was charged for the offence U/s 498A IPC. He has argued that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused had ever treated the complainant with FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 56 of 70 cruelty. It is further argued that there was no unlawful demand of dowry made by the accused prior to or at the time of marriage or thereafter. It is further argued that the complainant was always treated by love and affection by accused but she could not adjust in the family of accused and wanted to live separately and even when the complainant had been living separately with the accused in Delhi from the year 1998 till 2008, it was the complainant who committed mental torture upon the accused since she was suffering from mental disorder and Schizophrenia and Obsessive compulsive disorder. It is further argued that the allegations of demand of dowry are made by the complainant as an after thought with the intention to falsely implicate the accused and there was no cruelty either physical or mental upon the complainant allegedly committed by the accused and there are no public witnesses examined by the prosecution and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. It is further argued that the alleged incident of abortions of the complainant are completely false and concocted as the averments made by the complainant in her complaint and in her testimony recorded are contradictory to each other and do not inspire confidence. It is further argued that the primary allegation of the complainant upon the accused that he had administered her medicines and injections and also admitted her in VIMHANS hospital only with the intention to declare her insane are also not probable and justified since it has already been FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 57 of 70 proved by DW2 Dr. Amiya Banerjee being a reputed and expert witness that the complainant was suffering from Schizophrenia and Paranoid with Obsessive compulsive disorder and further that she was given treatment for the same only upon the diagnosis and advise of the doctor and not upon the ill intention of the accused. Further, PW5 being the son of the complainant has also admitted that the complainant was suffering from mental ailment and the witness did not support the story of prosecution and was cross examined by the prosecution itself and therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.
9. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel and that the accused had raised manifold defences to these allegations including the apparent discrepancies in the version of different prosecution witnesses as also challenged the credibility of the complainant as a witness. Upon close scrutiny of the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence on record, the court finds force in the arguments and defence of the accused and concludes that the prosecution have failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the following reasons: Observations qua offence u/s 498A IPC : The case of the prosecution finds its genesis in complaint Ex.PW1/B dated 18.02.2008, Ex.PW1/C dated 28.01.2008, Ex.PW1/D dated 18.03.2008 and another complaint dated FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 58 of 70 28.03.2008 Ex.PW1/A wherein the complainant has leveled allegations against the accused of having beaten her up and demanded dowry from her.
It is alleged by the complainant that soon after her marriage with the accused in the year 1995, she was mentally and physically tortured by the accused and her father since the father of accused was unhappy with the marriage between the parties. She was ill treated by the father in law and was not welcomed in her matrimonial home. She was abused by her father in law on one pretext or the other and her husband accompanied in such abuses with his father. Within four months of the marriage, complainant became pregnant, her child was aborted without her consent by the family members of accused in Kolkata. Subsequently accused on the pretext of shifting to another house took the complainant out of the matrimonial house but it was found later by the complainant that accused had not taken any separate accommodation on rent and infact left the complainant near her parental home and did not return back to take the complainant. Subsequently, complainant visited her matrimonial house where she was again not welcome and ousted. Complainant lived in her parental home for about two and half years and it was only in the year 1998 that accused apologised to the complainant by going out on a vacation with her and later brought the complainant to live in Delhi. From the year 1998, complainant lived with the accused in Delhi, however, the FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 59 of 70 behaviour of the accused was not cordial towards the complainant and till she got pregnant for the second time, accused forcefully got the child of the complainant aborted that was in the year 1999. Again in the year 1999, complainant was taken to Kolkata on the pretext of attending a marriage of the friend of accused but again left the complainant and did not bring her back to Delhi. Subsequently, complainant again lived in Kolkata and accused brought the complainant back to Delhi only in the year 2000. At that time, accused had filed a divorce petition against the complainant which she withdrew. In the year 2001, complainant was blessed with a son, however, the harassment towards the complainant by the accused continued. In the year 2002, complainant again conceived but accused forcefully got the child of complainant aborted. In the year 2004, complainant was taken to VIMHANS hospital on the pretext of seeking counselling for the minor child but instead found that her medical papers for counseling were prepared at VIMHANS hospital. During that time, complainant found that accused was having an extra marital affair with another lady whose name, she did not know. On one occasion, complainant was forcefully taken from her house by the staff of VIMHANS hospital and at that time, none of the family members of complainant were informed. She was discharged on 30.04.2004. In the year 2005, complainant again conceived for the fourth time that her child was again aborted at the instance of the accused at FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 60 of 70 Moolchand hospital without the consent of the complainant. The same was done on 15.01.2005 when the complainant was taken to Moolchand hospital on the pretext of regular checkup and the child was aborted when the complainant was made unconscious by giving her some injection. Subsequently, complainant was again admitted to VIMHANS hospital on 21.02.2005 without her consent and forcefully admitted till 11.03.2005. At that time, her son was sent to hostel without her consent. Thereafter, in the year 2006 accused kept the complainant well but later again ill treated the complainant by mentally and physically torturing her and thereafter, in January, 2008 complainant came to know by overhearing the accused talking to his relative that he wanted to divorce the complainant. During that time, complainant filed her complaint with the CAW cell but the matter was not settled and accused did not join in the mediation proceedings. On 16.02.2008, accused left the complainant on the pretext of going to work and since then never return back home.
Lack of evidence to show expending of alleged money/ dowry
10. However, allegations of the demand of dowry by the complainant do not find any credibility as the complainant has nowhere stated that the demands were made prior to or at the time of marriage and has failed to show the manner in which the aforesaid expenditure was arranged by the family of the FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 61 of 70 complainant as no source of income was disclosed by the complainant and no income proof was annexed by the complainant with her complaint or during trial in respect to the dowry articles mentioned vide Ex.PW1/A. PW1 conceded that at the time of her marriage her parents had given her the articles as per list Ex.PW 1/A, however, she did not mention the source from which the aforesaid expenditure was made or any bills or receipt of such expenditure and complainant admitted during her cross examination that she had no bill regarding the 12 tolas of gold and expenses of Rs.2 lakhs in her marriage which was spent by her parents. Further, no document of expenditure or income has been placed on record. These incomes as alleged by the witnesses itself raised doubt as to the exorbitant expending capacity of such witnesses in the marriage of the complainant. There is also no proof of handing over of any alleged cash amount to the accused by any of the prosecution witnesses and none of the witnesses have placed on record any document to show the manner and mode of payment of purchases or gifts given in the marriage by them. Inconveniencing allegations of prosecution witnesses.
11. Further, it has been alleged that soon after her marriage the complainant was harassed by the accused and within four months of her marriage, complainant was ill treated and tortured. However, if we carefully perused the testimony of PW1, she has failed to substantiate her allegation as she has not stated any incident or FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 62 of 70 date, month or time on which the accused had caused harassment to her and have demanded dowry but the aforesaid allegation of the complainant is extremely vague. None of the prosecution witnesses would cite with precision as to the exact demand alleged to have been raised or even the person who raised such demand. There is no amount alleged to have been demanded by the accused or the time when it was raised by the accused which itself casts a shadow on the story of prosecution. Further no date, time or year of such payment has been substantiated by the complainant. While PW1 alleges that on several occasions, she was given severe beatings but complainant conveniently abdicated from protesting or even raising alarm and did not inform any neighbour or any authority regarding the same and did not even endeavour to make a call at 100 number. This conduct of the complainant in itself is irrational and unexpected from any prudent and educated person in the given circumstances. Further, even the allegation that the accused used to give beatings to the complainant by locking her in room and accused would give such severe beatings by which the complainant would start bleeding from her nose and mouth are vague and ambiguous as during crossexamination PW1 has herself stated that she did not make any complaint to the police or any authority regarding the behaviour of her father in law or of the accused. Further, she admitted during her crossexamination that she did not file any written complaint against her father in law when he had FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 63 of 70 thrown hot water on her and she sustained injuries on her leg and further she did not get herself medically examined, she further stated that she did not remember if she had ever made any complaint against the accused or all his family members regarding the fact that they used to torture her for bringing insufficient gifts in her marriage.
12. The complainant has relied upon several documents like her marriage card Ex.PW1/I, photographs of marriage seized vide Ex.PW1/J, her application for seeking recovery of stridhan articles mark F, a letter allegedly written by father of the accused to him Ex.PW1/F and its translation mark E1, another letter dated 28.07.1999 allegedly written by cousin of accused to him Ex.PW 1/E, photographs of the accused Ex.PW1/N, copy of letter to Gram Panchayat dated 19.03.1996 and reference letter by Mahila Samiti dated 14.06.1996, police complaints dated 11.03.2008, 16.03.2008, documents pertaining to Orient Nursing Home, Kolkata dated 10.10.1995 mark H and documents pertaining to ultrasound dated 08.01.2005 Ex.PW1/O and prescriptions and treatment alongwith bill of Moolchand hospital dated 10.01.2005, 14.02.2005 of Dr. Sadhna Kalra and also the hospital reports pertaining to the treatment of the complainant at the time of the birth of her son, copy of tickets dated 20.08.1999 which were allegedly cancelled by the accused. However, if we carefully peruse the aforesaid FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 64 of 70 documents and specifically the medical documents relied upon by the complainant, it is pertinent to note that the photographs of the accused relied upon by the complainant do not reflect any of the incidents by which it can be stated that the accused caused harassment to the complainant. The documents pertaining to the complainant of Orient Nursing Home dated 10.10.1995 mark H nowhere reflect that she was not shown to the doctor as there are several medicines prescribed and does not show that the complainant was forced to undergo any termination of pregnancy. More so, the aforesaid doctor of the aforesaid hospital was never examined as a witness. Further, upon careful perusal of document Ex.PW1/O which are pertaining to January, 2005 wherein the concerned doctor has stated regarding the treatment of the complainant at VIMHANS hospital and again does not show that the pregnancy was terminated without medical consultation or consent of the complainant and further the aforesaid doctors were never examined by the prosecution as the bill of the aforesaid date that is 15.01.2005 specifically mentions MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) but the same does not show that the same was conducted illegally. Further the complainant has admitted during her crossexamination on behalf of accused that it was the doctor who had advised for her abortion at the Moolchand hospital and it was advised since the medication given to her for mental treatment would affect the child born and in all possibilities FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 65 of 70 the child would have been born abnormal. Therefore, the version of the complainant stating that her child was aborted four times by the accused without her consent are unreliable as the fact deposed by her is not proved by leading any cogent evidence. Further, the complainant has admitted that her mother was working as an attendant at Orient Nursing Home in Kolkata and she did not know her monthly income and therefore, it is difficult to believe that the child of the complainant was aborted without her consent in the same Nursing home where her mother was working as an attendant. Complainant has also admitted that she had never filed any complaint against the accused in the year 1995 and she did not remember if she had mentioned regarding the facts of abortion in her complaint to Mahila Samiti in the year 1996. She did not remember, if she had ever filed any complaint against the accused at any authority regarding the forceful abortion. She did not remember regarding the medical procedure by which her child was aborted on all the four occasions. She admitted that from March, 1996 till 18.09.1998 she stayed separately from the accused and came to stay in Delhi with accused only in September, 1998. She did not remember if she had ever filed any complaint against the accused when her child was aborted in May, 1999 and she did not know the place or clinic where the child was aborted and she did not have any medical documents pertaining to the aforesaid documents and also that she had never filed any complaint against FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 66 of 70 the accused when he used to give her severe beatings to any authority. She did not remember the exact duration for which she remained in her matrimonial house. She admitted that she was taken to VIMHANS hospital by her husband for treatment. Complainant also admitted that her husband had bought TV, fridge, CD player for her. The complainant has stated that her husband used to make her watch porn videos on his mobile phone but she did not remember if there were multimedia phones available in India in the year 1999. Complainant did not remember the mobile number of the accused used by him at that time and did not remember the name of the clinic in which her child was aborted in August, 2002 and she did not remember the procedure by which her child was aborted. Complainant/PW1 did not remember if she had filed any complaint against the accused in respect to the aforesaid abortion before any authority and she did not have any medical documents for the same. Further, she never consulted any other doctor to verify the correctness of the medicines given to her during her treatment at VIMHANS hospital. Further, she did not remember if she had ever filed any complaint against the accused regarding her extra marital affair. Further, she did not remember if she had ever filed any complaint against the accused to any authority for the incident dated 16.11.2005 when the accused had given her severe beatings and her right hand was fractured. With the aforesaid reply of the complainant given during her cross FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 67 of 70 examination, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has given evasive answers to the questions raised by the accused and did not give any cogent reply to ascertain the truthness of her allegations.
13. 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. There is not even any assertion by PW1 that there was any injury caused by accused. Further, the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW4 is of hearsay nature. Further, PW5 did not support the story of prosecution and was declared hostile. Remaining all witnesses were formal in nature. Further, if we carefully perused the testimony of DW2 Dr. Amiya Banerjee, he has deposed regarding the nature of ailment, its symptoms and treatment given to the complainant which are corroborated by PW5 being the son of complainant and therefore, are not contradicted by any of the prosecution witnesses.
14. In the entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses, there is nothing on record in the form of medical report or an otherwise corroboration in the testimonies of either of prosecution witnesses to lend support to the allegations or to enable the court to draw a logical inference of such alleged physical assault to be of a nature FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 68 of 70 likely to have driven the complainant to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life limb or health.
15. Reliance is placed upon decision in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 264553/2005 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 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...."
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 FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 69 of 70 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 nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section498A IPC.
16. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that prosecution has failed to prove offence U/s 498A IPC against accused Chanchal Chakrabarty beyond reasonable doubt.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 18.12.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate02
(Mahila Court), SouthEast,
Digitally signed
by SHEETAL Saket, New Delhi.
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2018.12.19
11:38:14 +0530
FIR No. 191/2008; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Chanchal Chakraborty 70 of 70