Delhi District Court
State vs . Kamal Singh & Ors. on 1 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03
P.S. : Vasant Kunj
U/S : 498A/34 IPC
CASE ID: 02403R0262872005
JUDGMENT
1.DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 07.06.2005
2.SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 507/2
3.DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 04.05.1998 till the year 2000
4.NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Smt. Shakuntla Devi
5.NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : 1. Kamal Singh (Husband) (Expired) S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o House No. 182 Mohalla Sangi Ka Vas Behind Post Office Rewari District Rewari, Haryana
2. Sher Singh (fatherinlaw) (Discharged) State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 1/12
S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass R/o House No. 182 Mohalla Sangi Ka Vas Behind Post Office Rewari District Rewari, Haryana
3. Smt. Heera Devi (motherinlaw) W/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o House No. 182 Mohalla Sangi Ka Vas Behind Post Office Rewari District Rewari, Haryana
4. Prahalad Singh (brotherinlaw) (Discharged) S/o Sh. Sher Singh R/o House No. 182 Mohalla Sangi Ka Vas Behind Post Office Rewari District Rewari, Haryana
5. Smt. Hansa (Sisterinlaw) W/o Sh. Lekh Raj R/o House No. B125 Kamandal Road Vikas Nagar Uttam Nagar New Delhi State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 2/12
6. Smt. Imla @ Indu (Sisterinlaw) (Expired) W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar R/o House No. 2196 Gali No. 1, Ragarpura Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar Delhi
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/S 498A/34 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
8. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED : 19.10.2013
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquittal
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 01.11.2013 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 09.08.2000 received at CAW Cell, Nanakpura from Shakuntala (hereinafter referred as the ''complainant''). A list of Istridhan was also submitted at CAW Cell by the complainant. Complainant and accused were summoned for exploring the possibility of compromise. An admitted list of State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 3/12articles was prepared in the CAW Cell during compromise proceedings. However, compromise could not be effected and matter was recommended for registration of FIR.
2. As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant married to accused Kamal on 14.05.1998. Soon after marriage, accused Kamal alongwith his relatives i.e. sister Sunita, Hansa and Imla and mother Heera Devi started demanding Rs. 50,000/ from the complainant. On refusal to pay the amount, they used to beat the complainant. Therefore, father of the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to accused Kamal on 18.12.1999. However, the accused persons were not satisfied. They once locked the complainant in a room and no food was given to her for three days. Kamal and his relatives used to drink every day. Kamal alongwith his mother Heera Devi used to beat up the complainant and his father and brother would incite them to do that. The complainant was not allowed to meet her parents and other family members. On 23.09.2000, the complainant gave birth to a son but no care was extended to her by her inlaws. She developed puss in her breast and asked her motherinlaw and sisterinlaw to help but they did not extend care due to which she suffered from fever. Her husband demanded Rs. 50,000/. On the account of ''Kuan Pujan'' on 22.10.2000, her father State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 4/12spent a sum of Rs. 55,000/ on ''Bhaat Ceremony'' but this was not liked by her inlaws and they fought with her parents and other family members and sent them back without offering any food and water. The complainant was also beaten up by her husband and other inlaws. Husband pulled her in the chowk and beaten her mercilessly due to which she became unconscious. On 28.10.2000, the parents and bhabhi of the complainant took her to parental house and she was given medical treatment at Safdarjung hospital. However, her husband did not come to take her back.
3. Investigation was conducted after registration of FIR. During investigation, certain articles of istridhan and silver jewelery were seized and a list of remaining articles was prepared. Four photographs of marriage and photocopies of certain receipts of istridhan were also seized. All the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court on 07.06.2005. Court took cognizance of the offence on the same day and the accused persons were summoned. Copies were supplied to them u/s 207 Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments were heard on the point of charge. Vide order dated 14.01.2008, accused Prahalad and Sher Singh were discharged. Accused State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 5/12Kamal and Imla expired during trial. Hence, the present judgment shall only deal with the guilt/innocence of accused Heera Devi and Hansa.
6. In order to prove its case, sixteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of the sixteen witnesses, seven are public witnesses, eight are police officials and one witness is medical official. Public witnesses:
7. PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 are the material witnesses of the prosecution.
8. PW1 is the complainant Shakuntala. She reiterated the contents of her complaint on oath. She also proved her complaint which is Ex.PW1/C, list of istridhan Ex.PW1/D, list of admitted articles of Istridhan Ex.PW1/E, seizure memo of dowry articles Ex.PW1/G, seizure memo of silver jewelery Ex.PW1/H, list of remaining articles Ex.PW1/I, seizure memo of receipts of istridhan and copy of execution form filed in execution petition, which is Ex.PW1/B, four photographs of marriage Ex.PW1/J, medical documents of Safdarjung hospital Ex.PW1/A1 to A6 and the photocopies of receipts of Istridhan Mark Y (collectively). During crossexamination, she admitted that she did not make any complaint against the accused persons prior to the present complaint and that there was no medical record substantiating the State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 6/12allegations of beatings. She further admitted that her sistersinlaw were married prior to her marriage and were staying separately. She also admitted that she entered into a second marriage after the death of her husband i.e. accused Kamal.
9. PW2 Kishan Lal is the father of the complainant. He also reiterated the contents of the complaint. During the crossexamination, he denied that his daughter had taken away all her jewelery.
10. PW5 Smt. Rajwanti is the mother of the complainant and PW6 Lakhpat Rai is her brother. They deposed in sync with the testimony of the complainant. They were not crossexamined by the accused persons.
11. The remaining three public witnesses are formal in nature. PW3 Jaswant Singh and PW7 Rajender Singh deposed that they are uncle of the complainant and they had attended her marriage during which articles mentioned in Ex.PW1/D were gifted to her.
12. PW10 Sampat Ram deposed that in the month of April, 2004, he had visited the matrimonial house of the complainant at Rewari with the police from where certain articles of Istridhan were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G. Police Officials:
State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors. FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 7/12
13. Out of the eight police officials, four police officials i.e. PW11 SI Rajesh Kumar, PW12 SI Pankaj Yadav, PW15 Inspector Jarnail Singh and PW16 Inspector Jagpal Kaur were the IO of the case but they did not conduct any effective investigation. They were not crossexamined by the accused for the same reason.
14. PW4 ASI Mohan Singh proved the arrest memo of accused Kamal, Sher Singh, Hansa, Imla and Prahalad. He deposed that accused Kamal and Sher Singh were arrested on 25.04.2004 while Hansa, Imla and Prahalad were arrested on 31.07.2004 and their personal search was conducted. He also deposed about the seizure of Istridhan on 25.04.2004.
15. PW8 W/HC Pavitra deposed about the arrest and personal search of accused Heera Devi, which was conducted on 26.05.2003.
16. PW9 HC Shyam Lal was the Incharge of Malkhana on 25.04.2004. He deposed that the articles of Istridhan seized in the present case were deposited in the Malkhana on the same day. He proved the entry in register no. 19, which is Ex.PW9/A (OSR).
17. PW13 W/SI Saroj Bala is the IO of the case, who deposed about the steps of investigation undertaken by her. She proved the arrest memo of the accused persons and their personal search memos as well. State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 8/12Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW8/A are the arrest memos of the six accused persons i.e. Hansa, Prahalad, Kamal, Sher Singh, Imla and Heera Devi respectively. Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW4/F, Ex. PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW13/B are the personal search memos of accused Imla, Prahalad, Kamal, Sher Singh, Heera and Hansa respectively. She was not crossexamined by the accused persons. Medical Official:
18. PW14 Dr. Raj Kumar proved the documents pertaining to medical treatment of the complainant which are Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A6. These documents suggests that the complainant had developed puss in her breast after delivery.
19. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons on 19.10.2013, which was denied by them. Accused Hansa said that she had no knowledge as to why the present case was lodged against her but it was a false case. Accused Heera said that on the eve of ''Kuan Pujan'' of the son of the complainant, a misunderstanding occurred between her and the brother of the complainant after which he took her away and she never returned to the matrimonial house. However, both the accused persons denied that they ever demanded any dowry from the complainant. State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 9/12
20. No evidence in their defence was led by the accused persons.
21. I have heard and considered final arguments. Record has been perused.
22. In the present case, the accused persons were charged for an offence punishable u/s 498A IPC which reads as under: "Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with the 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 demand."
23. It is clear from the perusal of the aforesaid Section that Section 498A punishes cruelty extended to the wife by the husband and his relatives. State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 10/12This cruelty can be physical or mental cruelty of such nature as is likely to cause grave injury on the person of the wife or as is likely to drive her to commit suicide, or else, it can be a cruelty in the form of demand of money or valuable security and consequent harassment for coercing the wife or her relatives to fulfill the said demand.
24. In the present case, the complainant has deposed that the accused persons used to demand Rs. 50,000/ from her and they used to beat her due to non fulfillment of the demand. However, she did not specify as to when such demands were raised by the accused persons. No specific role of accused Hira and Hansa was mentioned in the entire deposition. Dates when she was beaten up was not mentioned by the complainant. The allegations are general in nature. Regarding incident of Kuan Pujan, it is deposed by the complainant that all the accused persons had hit her but again no specific role of each of the accused persons was mentioned. In fact in the complaint Ex.PW1/C, the complainant mentioned the role of her husband Kamal to the extent that he pulled her in the chowk and had hit her due to which she became unconscious but nothing was said about the other accused persons. Manner of beating was not specified.
25. In the absence of specific role of accused persons Heera Devi State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 11/12and Hansa in demanding dowry or in harassing the complainant, they cannot held guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC.
26. The complainant deposed that the accused Heera Devi had kept all her articles given on the eve of Kuan Pujan by her father. However, accused Hira was not charged for this offence and in fact this allegation was not a part of the complaint as well. Therefore, the allegation cannot be read against the accused to her detriment.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Both accused persons are therefore acquitted of the offence charged.
28. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open court (JYOTI KLER)
on 01 November, 2013
st
M.M/Mahila Court/South District
New Delhi/01.11.2013
State Vs. Kamal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 328/03 Page No. 12/12