Delhi District Court
Savita @ Nida vs State And Ors on 15 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 86/2020 (RBT 86/2020)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. Savita @ Nida,
D/o Sh. Rishi Pal,
R/o H.No. 55, Village Munirka,
New Delhi
..............Appellant
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Mohd. Arif
S/o Mr. Sultan Mohammad,
R/o H.No.55, Village Munirka,
New Delhi.
3. Sultan Mohammad
S/o Mr. Noor Mohammad,
R/o H.No.55, Village Munirka,
New Delhi
4. Zulekha
W/o Mr. Sultan Mohammad,
R/o H.No.55, Village Munirka,
New Delhi
..........Respondents
CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 1 / 20
Digitally signed
SUNIL by SUNIL
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16
17:40:28 +0530
Instituted on : 30.07.2020
Reserved on : 22.02.2024
Pronounced on : 15.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. preferred by Ms. Savita @ Nidha against the judgment dated 23.05.2020 passed by Ld. MM-02, Mahila Court, South in Crl. Case No. 2031838/2016 pertaining to case FIR No.60/2011, PS Vasant Vihar titled as "State Vs. Mohd. Arif & Ors." whereby respondent no.2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as respondents) were acquitted for all the offences.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
An FIR for the offences U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Vihar on 15.02.2011 on the basis of written complaint of appellant addressed to ACP, CAW Cell, South District. Investigation was taken up by police and after completion of investigation, all respondents were charge- sheeted for the offences u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Charge-sheet was filed for the said offences before Ld. Magistrate on 21.01.2012. Cognizance was taken by Ld. Magistrate on 08.11.2012 and respondents were summoned as accused for next date i.e. 02.05.2013. On 09.12.2015, charge was framed against all the respondents for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC in terms of order on charge dated 19.08.2015. Additionally, respondent no.2 and 4 were also charged for the offence u/s 506/34 IPC. All the respondents were discharged for the offence u/s 406/34 IPC.CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 2 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16
17:40:38 +0530
3. The prosecution has examined following 16 witnesses in support of its case:-
3.1 PW-1 Ms. 'Savita @ Nidha' is the complainant. She being the star witness, her testimony shall be discussed in detail later on.
3.2 PW-2 is Smt. Raj Bala. She is mother of the appellant. Her testimony shall also be discussed later on.
3.3 PW-3 is Ms. Seema. She deposed that she was residing in front of house of her jeth namely Chote Mohammad and Sultan. She was not aware about the facts of this case. She was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State with permission of the Court, however, nothing material to the case of prosecution could be elicited from her. She was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 despite opportunity. She was duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for remaining respondents.
3.4. PW-4 is SI Jag Roshni. She deposed that on 10.01.2011, she was posted at CAW Cell, South District as SI. She stated about complaint of appellant having been marked to her for further inquiry from ASI Lekha. She also stated about having prepared a report and having sent the same to PS for registration of FIR after approval from her senior officers. She proved her report as Ex.PW4/A. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.5. PW-5 is Retired ASI Ramphal. He was posted as Duty Officer at PS Vasant Vihar on 15.02.2011 from 04:00PM to 12:00 Midnight. He deposed about having registered the present FIR [Ex.PW5/B (OSR)]. After CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 3 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:40:48 +0530 making endorsement Ex.PW5/A on the rukka sent by WSI Manju. He also stated about handing over the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to WSI Manju. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
3.6. PW-6 is SI Manju. She deposed that on 15.02.2011, she was posted at PS Vasant Vihar as ASI. She stated about SHO concerned having handed over a complaint received from CAW Cell to her for registration of FIR which was handed over by her to DO. She further stated that after registration of FIR, DO handed over a copy of FIR and original complaint to her. She also stated that she made inquiry from the appellant and recorded her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. She also stated that thereafter, she got transferred from the PS. She was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity.
3.7. PW-7 is Ct. Rupender. He stated about having joined the investigation with IO/WSI Kiran Soodh while he was posted as Ct. at DIU.
He proved search memos as Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.8. PW-8 is Ms. Ameena. She stated that she was residing with her family at H. No. 55, Munirka, New Delhi where respondent Md. Arif was residing on the third floor. She also stated about him having been taken to her house in July 2011 and search having been conducted on the third floor where nothing was found by police. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 4 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16
17:40:57 +0530
3.9. PW-9 is Mr. Satish Verma. He was having a jewelery shop at 794/6, Doodh Wali Gali, Mehrauli, Delhi in name of Mona Jewelers. He stated about PW-2 Smt. Rajbala having come to his shop for preparing new jewelery articles after handing over her old jewelery to him. He proved Kacchi Rasid thereof as Ex.PW-9/A. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.10. PW-10 is Maulana Quazi Riyazuddin Amini. He stated about the appellant handing over affidavit Ex.PW-1/D3 and Ex.PW-1/D4 to him. He also stated that he had made inquiry from the appellant and respondent no.2 for their willingness and voluntariness for marriage and conversion. He further stated that thereafter, he made the appellant read kalma for conversion and issued a certificate of conversion Ex.PW-1/D1. He also stated about having performed the Nikah between the parties as per Muslim rites and rituals and also proved the Nikahnama Ex.PW-1/D2. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.11. PW-11 is Dr. Meenakshi, Asst. Professor, Safdarjung Hospital. She had proved the MLC dated 12.04.2011 and MLC dated 13.04.2011 pertaining to the appellant as Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B respectively after identifying the handwriting and signatures of concerned doctors. She also placed on record the authority letter in her favour alongwith copy of her identity card as Ex.PW-11/C (Colly). She was also duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.12. PW-12 is HC Amit Partap Singh. He had joined the investigation with WSI Kiran and Ct. Rupender on 16.07.2011. He deposed about the CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 5 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:41:05 +0530 steps taken by IO during investigation. He had proved arrest memo of respondent no.2 as Ex.PW-12/A alongwith his personal search memo as Ex.PW-12/B. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.13. PW-13 is Inspector Seema Singh. She had investigated the case after receiving the file on 29.03.2011 from MHC(R). She stated about having received the marriage photographs, marriage certificate, conversion certificate and few receipts of jewelery vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-
1/B. She also stated about SI Sandeep having given the copy of MLC of the appellant to her on 13.05.2011 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/A. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.14. PW-14 is Mr. Jagvir. He deposed that he was having a general store in front of house of respondent no. 2 from where he used to hear noise of quarrel frequently. He also stated that he knew respondent no.2 as a customer. He was put leading questions by Ld. APP for State however, nothing material to the case of prosecution could be elicited from him. He was also duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
3.15. PW-15 is SI Sandeep Yadav. He deposed that he received DD entry no.21A regarding quarrel whereupon he reached the place of incident and met the appellant who told him that she will go to the hospital and get her MLC done by herself. He further stated that he collected the MLC from government hospital and same was deposited for medical opinion. On receipt of MLC, FIR No.143/2011 was registered. He did not carry out any investigation in the present case. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 6 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16
17:41:13 +0530
3.16. PW-16 is Inspector Kiran Sood. She was investigating officer of the case. She deposed about steps taken by her during investigation. She proved her application for interrogation and arrest of respondent no.2 as Ex.PW-16/A and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW-16/B. She also proved arrest memo of respondent no.3 as Ex.PW-16/C and that of respondent no. 4 as Ex.PW-16/D. She was also duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels.
4. After that, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of respondents U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C. was recorded thereafter wherein they stated that it was a false case against them. Respondent no. 3 examined himself as a defence witness U/s 315 Cr.P.C. In his testimony, he placed on record several complaints made by respondents against the appellant as Ex. DW-1/A (Colly) alongwith copy of pension payment order/retirement book/paper and retirement order dated 31.03.2010 as Ex.DW-1/X (Colly) (OSR) (5 pages). He was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for State.
5. Thereafter, arguments were heard from both the sides and vide judgment dated 23.05.2020, Ld. Magistrate was of the view that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and for that reason, they were acquitted. Said judgment is being challenged in the present proceedings.
6. Arguments heard.
7. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that Ld. Trial Court CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 7 / 20 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:41:20 +0530 committed an error in passing the impugned judgment as material on record was not properly appreciated. It has been submitted that the testimonies of witnesses including that of appellant as PW-1 and of her mother as PW-2 were sufficient to prove the ingredients of alleged offences. It has been submitted that minor contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses were of no consequence and same should have been ignored by Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to explain the alleged contradictions in her testimony by pointing her attention to that portion by defence and in view of that, those contradictions were of no consequence. It has been submitted that respondent no.2 was convicted in case FIR No. 143/2011, U/s 325/342 IPC vide judgment dated 24.10.2014 of Ld. MM-01, Mahila Courts, Saket Courts and same was sufficient to corroborate the allegations qua cruelty being committed against her. Prayer has been made for setting- aside the impugned judgment and for conviction of respondents. He had relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Ashok Dogra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev. Petition 578/2006.
(ii) State of U.P. Vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324.
(iii) Gian Chand & Ors Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3395.
(iv) Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC
177.
(v) V. Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710.
8. Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that the appeal may be disposed of as per law. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for respondents have submitted that there was no illegality in the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses including that CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 8 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:41:28 +0530 of appellant were not sufficient to prove the ingredients of alleged offences. It has been submitted that there were substantial improvements in the testimony of appellant as PW-1 before Ld. Trial Court as allegations in her complaint on the basis of which present FIR was registered were completely different. It has been submitted that the contradictions in the case of prosecution were not minor in nature which could have been ignored by Ld. Trial Court. It has been submitted that in this case, the marriage between the parties was inter-faith as they both belong to different religions and same was admittedly solemnized against the wishes of parents of appellant. It has been submitted that the real reason for filing present case against the respondents is that the appellant wanted to get transferred retiral benefits of respondent no. 3 but he refused to do so. It has been submitted that the appellant was still residing in the house belonging to respondents whereas they were forced to live elsewhere. It has been submitted that appellant had married one Mr. Subhash Rana without obtaining divorce from the respondent no.2. It has been submitted that there was virtually no evidence against the respondents on record and that the attention of appellant was brought to the portion of the examination-in-chief which was not so mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW- 1/A however she failed to offer any explanation thereof. Prayer has been made for dismissal of appeal.
9. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
10. Record shows that the respondents herein were charged with the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC. Additionally, respondent no.2 & 4 were charged CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 9 / 20 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:41:35 +0530 with commission of offence U/s 506/34 IPC. Section 498A IPC provides as under:-
"498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative 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 purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is 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 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."
11. As per Explanation(b) quoted above, only the harassment done to a woman with an object to coerce her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security can be termed as cruelty. Mere harassment in itself will not amount to cruelty. Similarly, mere demand of property etc. in itself will not amount to cruelty.
12. This Court is guided on this aspect by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,1990 CriLJ 407 in which it was observed that beating and harassment of a woman with a view to force her to commit suicide or CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 10 / 20 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:41:43 +0530 to fulfill illegal demands was essential to prove offence u/s 498A IPC. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Misc. No.1776-M/1990. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram And Ors. AIR 1996 SC 67 also made similar observation in context of Section 498A IPC.
13. Prosecution has examined two material witnesses to support its case qua allegations of commission of offence U/s 498A IPC. PW-1 is the appellant. In her testimony before Ld. Trial Court, she stated that at the time of her marriage with respondent no.2 on 05.02.2005 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies, her parents had gifted her cash of Rs. 5 lacs, gold jewelery i.e., two gold bangles, one gold chain, one set of ear-ring and two gold rings and that her in-laws used the entire amount of Rs. 5 lacs for constructing the second floor of their house. She stated that her mother-in- law started torturing her by saying that if she would have brought a daughter-in-law of her own caste, she wold have brought Car, AC, Fridge etc. whereas appellant has just brought amount of Rs. 5 lacs and nothing else. She stated that she went to her parental home when her daughter had become 45 days old and told each and everything to her mother whereupon they had arranged the dowry articles as demanded by respondents. She stated that on her return to her matrimonial home after 3 days, she had brought one AC, one double door fridge, washing machine, iron press, gas with cylinder, mixer and grinder, clothes for all family members (51 suits and 11 pants & shirts) and 51 utensils which were handed over to respondents. She also stated that in March 2006, her husband opened a new shop and needed money so he again asked for dowry money whereupon her mother sent Rs. 40,000 in cash to him. She further stated that from 2006- CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 11 / 20 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:41:51 +0530 2010, her in-laws used to fight and abuse her however, she ignored the same in order to save her matrimonial life. She also stated about respondent no.2 having beaten her twice in the year 2010 regarding which she had made call at 100 number. The first incident was stated to be compromised between the parties in the PS wherein her in-laws promised her that such an incident will not happen again. After the second incident dated 05.05.2010, she alongwith respondents was sent to CAW Cell where she gave a written complaint dated 10.11.2010 (Ex.PW-1/A). She also stated about respondent no.2 having beaten her again in January 2011. She stated that respondent no.3 used to tell her that she should live with him instead of her husband once he gets retired from service as he will get lot of money and no one will torture her then. She also stated that one day, her husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law tried to give her electric shock. She further stated that thereafter, the respondents asked for Rs. 5 lacs as her husband was to open a hotel and threatened her that if she will not bring the dowry money, they will throw her out of the house. Respondent no. 2 used to put allegations that she was having extra marital affairs with her brother and her uncle and used to threaten that he will kill her brother.
14. Interestingly, in her cross-examination, the appellant admitted that her parents had not agreed for their marriage as her husband was Muslim and she was Hindu. She stated that her parents started talking with her after 3 months of birth of her daughter on 20.01.2006. She admitted the suggestion that her parents did not give any gift articles or cash to her at the time of her marriage. This part of her testimony is in stark contrast to her examination-in-chief as per which several gold jewelery articles alongwith cash amounting to Rs. 5 lacs was given by her parents to her at the time of CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 12 / 20 SUNIL Digitally signed by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:41:58 +0530 her marriage with respondent no.2 on 05.02.2005. It is to be noted here that said portion of examination-in-chief of appellant is not even supported by her initial complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Apart from this, several other portions of her examination-in-chief were not there in her initial complaint Ex.PW-1/A and this thing was admitted by her in her cross-examination. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that no suggestion was given to her in this regard imputing any motive to her however, this Court is unable to see any such requirement in law. Once a witness has been confronted with her earlier statement given to police, it was for the witness to explain the contradictions between the two and in the absence of such explanation, necessary inference can be drawn against him/her. Failure of defence to impute any particular motive on the witness for such contradictions is not of any consequence in law. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gyan Chand (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts in the present case as in that case, Hon'ble Apex Court had noticed the failure of defence to put any question to IO in his cross-examination in respect of missing chits from the bags containing the case property/contraband articles which is not the case here. There is nothing in the testimony of PW-1 to suggest that she was ever harassed or any cruelty was committed against her in connection with demand of dowry. Although, she has mentioned about her having been beaten up twice by her husband in the year 2010 however, it is not her case that said beatings had anything to do with dowry demand. Though, she has mentioned in her testimony that the respondents used to ask for Rs.5 lacs as respondent no.2 was to open a hotel and had threatened her that they will throw her out of the house if she will not bring the dowry money however, those allegations are vague in the absence of material particulars including the date, time, year or place when such a demand was made. No such CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 13 / 20 SUNIL Digitally signed by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:42:06 +0530 particulars are there even in her initial complaint Ex.PW-1/A given to police on the basis of which present FIR was registered. The submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant to the effect that Ld. Trial Court should have taken into consideration the conviction of respondent no.2 in case FIR No. 143/2011, U/s 325/342 IPC, PS Vasant Vihar is also of no help to his case because as mentioned earlier, for proving the ingredients of offence U/s 498A IPC, it was mandatory to show that alleged cruelty/harassment being done to the appellant was in connection with demand of dowry from her/her relative which is certainly not the case of prosecution as per record.
15. The other witness i.e., PW-2 Smt. Rajbala (mother of appellant) had stated before the Court that the appellant got married with respondent no.2 on her own without her consent and that after some time, they both(appellant and respondent no.2) alongwith their daughter aged around 2 ½ months visited her. She stated that respondent no.2 left the appellant and their daughter at her house for 3-4 days. She further stated that when respondent no.2 came to her house, she gifted her daughter two gold bangles, two gold rings, two gold earrings, one fridge, one AC, one washing machine and some household articles i.e., clothes, utensils and Rs. 5 lacs cash. She stated that thereafter, her daughter left her house to live happily with respondent no.2 and that they stayed together for two years and after that, they started quarreling with each other. She stated that respondents used to harass her daughter and used to demand more money from her however, she could not give the same as she was not having it. In her cross-examination, she stated that her husband was a chawkidar in DDA and she was not aware about his salary at the time of marriage of her daughter. So, her testimony is also not containing any specific allegation CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 14 / 20 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:42:13 +0530 against the respondents pertaining to harassment meted out to the appellant in connection with demand of dowry from her.
16. In this case, the marriage between the parties was an inter-faith love marriage without the consent of parents of appellant wherein admittedly, nothing was given by them to appellant or respondents. They had not even attended the marriage. Although, it has been stated by both PW-1 as well as PW-2 that certain household articles alongwith gold jewelery articles and Rs. 5 lacs in cash were handed over by PW-2 to PW-1 on her visit with her daughter to her parental house, however, there is no documentary proof to that effect on record. It is not clear as to from where the amount of Rs. 5 lacs was arranged by PW-2. Interestingly, the father of appellant Mr. Rishipal was not examined as a witness in the present case. Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were also completely silent qua him. It is not the case of appellant that her mother was gainfully employed somewhere. In these facts, the source of funds from which the household articles/gold jewelery articles etc. were purchased remains shrouded in mystery. Moreover, PW-9 Mr. Satish Verma was examined by prosecution to prove a rough estimate dated 12.03.2006 pertaining to gold articles i.e., two bangles, one chain, two rings and one pair of jhumki. In his testimony before the Court, he proved the said document as Ex. PW-9/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that PW-2 had not purchased jewelery from him after marriage of appellant. He denied the suggestion that since Ex. PW-9/A was a rough estimate, therefore, no jewelery articles were prepared or sold to PW-2. Said document is not sufficient to prove that the gold articles mentioned therein were in fact so prepared and handed over by him to PW-2 as same was not a proper invoice. It was also not containing the final amount paid CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 15 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:42:21 +0530 by PW-2 to PW-9. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as far as commission of offence u/s 498A/34 IPC by respondents is concerned.
17. As far as allegation regarding respondent no.2 and 4 having threatened the appellant to cause injury to her/ her relatives in case of her failure to meet their demands of Rs.5 lacs is concerned, as mentioned earlier, said allegation was vague in the absence of material particulars. It is settled law that mere extension of threat in itself was not sufficient to make out a case for offence U/s 506 IPC. The essential ingredient is as to whether such a threat has caused alarm in the mind of the victim. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja & Anr vs State of Karnataka & Anr Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015, in which it was held as under:-
"15..........It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant."
(emphasis supplied)
18. There is nothing on record to suggest that any such alarm was caused to the appellant due to alleged threat extended to her by respondent CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 16 / 20 Digitally signed SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.16 17:42:29 +0530 no.2 and 4. Accordingly, no case for commission of offence u/s 506 IPC was made out against the respondent no.2 and 4.
19. This Court agrees with the submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant to the effect that minor contradictions in the case of prosecution could not have vitiated entire trial however as discussed above, the material on record was not enough to prove the alleged offences. On the aspect of duty of appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in H.D Sundara & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 247/2011 wherein it was held as under:-
"8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercise appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal.
But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-
appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established.
Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 17 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:42:37 +0530 taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."
20. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents by way of impugned judgment and that no interference therewith is called for in appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
21. Before parting with this judgment, it is to be noted that during pendency of appeal before this Court, the appellant had filed an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondents for initiating appropriate proceedings against them for perjury. Respondents had filed their reply. Arguments were also heard from both the sides. The grievance of appellant is that in the reply to the appeal filed by respondent no.3 and 4, it has been mentioned that she has married one Mr. Subhash Rana @ Billa without getting divorce from respondent no.2 and one child was born out of said illegal marriage. Also, during arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 to 4 reiterated said false claim of appellant having married Mr. Subhash Rana without obtaining divorce. It was pointed out that respondent no.2 had sent a legal notice dated 15.03.2014 to her through counsel wherein it has been mentioned that he had divorced her in the presence of two witnesses on 25.02.2014. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that this fact in itself was sufficient to show that the submission regarding appellant having re-married without obtaining divorce from respondent no.2 was apparently false. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 to 4 submitted that the facts mentioned in the application filed by the appellant were not CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 18 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:42:45 +0530 sufficient to initiate proceedings against them u/s 340 Cr.P.C. On specific query of the Court as to whether the legal notice dated 15.03.2014 was so sent by respondent no.2 to the appellant, no satisfactory reply was given indicating that it was so sent by him. In such a factual background, it appears that the submissions of respondent no.2 to 4 before this Court to the effect that appellant re-married without obtaining divorce from respondent no.2 might be false. On the point as to whether respondents should be proceeded further for commission of an offence as referred in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., this Court is guided by Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Ors. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 402/2005 wherein it was held as under:-
"18. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 19 / 20 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.04.16 17:42:52 +0530 cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has to be discarded."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Applying said principles to the case at hand, this Court is of the view that it was not expedient to make inquiry into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). It is to be noted here that the fact as to whether respondent no.2 and 3 were divorced on 25.02.2014 was not of any consequence as far as present appeal is concerned and the alleged false submissions of respondents on this aspect would not have made any impact on the final outcome. Accordingly, the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant stands dismissed. Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA (Sunil Gupta) GUPTA Date:
Announced in the open 2024.04.16
17:43:01
Court on 15th April, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-06, +0530
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CA. No. 86/2020 Savita @ Nida Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 20 / 20