Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Gupta on 19 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA
COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
State Vs Sunil Gupta
FIR No. 85/2008
PS Nanakpura
MC No. 405/2016
ID No. 02405R0736632009
Date of institution of case : 09.12.2009
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 09.12.2016
Date of judgment : 19.12.2016
Advocates appearing in this case:-
Ms Kanwaljeet Kaur, Ld. APP for the State assisted by Sh. Satish Kumar, ld counsel for complainant
Sh. Basant Gupta, Ld. counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT U/s 498A IPC:
a) Date of offence : On and after 14.05.2007
b) Offence complained of : Section 498A/406/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Meenu Gupta
D/o Sh. Anand Mittal
R/o 17B, Pocket-F, Mayur Vihar Phase-II
New Delhi.
d) Name of accused, his : Sunil Gupta
parentage, local & s/o Sh Iqbal Krishan Gupta
permanent residence r/o Pratap Colony, Kurukshetra, Haryana
e) Plea of accused : Accused is falsely implicated
f) Final order :Accused Sunil Gupta acquitted for the offence u/s 498A IPC
FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20
State Vs Sunil Gupta
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that complainant Meenu Gupta gave a complaint in CAW cell on 10.06.2008. In this complaint it is stated that complainant married to accused Sunil Gupta on 14.05.2007. From the very beginning accused Sunil Gupta told the complainant her father had not given enough in the marriage and therefore, she should not expect love from any family member and shall have to bear all sorts of harassment and torture. Even during the honeymoon and particularly on 28.05.2007, accused Sunil Gupta slapped the complainant and threatened to kill her if she did not ask her parents to give cash. He continued to torture her by using filthy language, not allowing her to eat and pressurizing her for bringing cash. After returning from the honeymoon, accused Sunil Gupta and other in-laws used to threaten and beat complainant on one pretext or the other and would repeatedly ask her to bring cash and other materials from her parents to meet their dowry demands. On 13.06.2007 accused told complainant that he will continue to torture her and her father will not be able to do anything. On 11.07.2007 accused threatened the complainant for switching on fan by saying that electricity is expensive and her father had not given dowry or FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta electricity bill amount. Accused and the other in-laws also pressurized complainant to get a fridge from her parents. She was harassed and beaten for this demand and consequently, on 27.07.2007 complainant's parents gave a fridge. Thereafter, the demands of accused and the other in-laws increased considerably. On 16.07.2007 accused tried to strangulate the complainant and threw her out of the matrimonial house. Complainant's father, sisters and sisters' husbands went to the matrimonial house of complainant to sort out the matter but they were subjected to harsh treatment and abusive language. Accused used to beat the complainant almost regularly and when on 22.09.2007 she complained to the other in-laws, they also threatened her. On 01.11.2007, accused and the other in-laws gave beatings to complainant for resisting the sister in law from taking her diamond necklace. On the day of Diwali on 09.11.2007 accused and the other in-laws gave beatings to complainant when the sisters of complainant did not come and they did not find any gifts for themselves. Later, accused demanded money from complainant to purchase a new bed. Due to continuous harassment and threats, complainant asked her father to give money and he gave Rs. 50,000/- on 05.01.2008. On 07.03.2008 when the due date of complainant's FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta delivery was very near, accused gave merciless beatings to complainant because some utensils fell from the kitchen slap. The other in-laws supported the accused saying that she should be beaten because her father had defrauded them and not given anything in dowry. Complainant alleges that her in-laws got her ultrasound done at Nanda Diagnostic Centre and again at Janta X Ray to determine the sex of her child. When they came to know that complainant is carrying a female fetus, they started pressurizing her to abort the pregnancy. The complainant was due to deliver on 09.03.2008 but accused did not take her to a doctor even though her labour started. On 10.03.2008 also accused did not take her to a doctor and the other in-laws instigated him by saying that she will suffer dire consequences if her father does not accede to their demands. On the telephonic call to her doctor, accused took complainant to hospital. Complainant gave birth to a girl child and accused and the in-laws did not come to see her in the hospital and sent her directly to the parental house saying she need not return if she does not get Rs. 2 Lakhs. Complainant states that she was forced to live in her parental house by her in-laws between 30th June to 1st July, 17th July to 17th August, 9th September to 15th September, 20th October to 30th October, FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta 22nd November to 25th November,10th December to 17th December and 25th January to 27th January.
Accordingly, present FIR was registered for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. During investigation, it was found that the ultrasound of complainant at Nanda Diagnostic Centre and Janta X-Ray Lab was done on doctor's prescription. It was also found that complainant had a normal delivery and all tests before and after delivery were normal. The weight of the new born child was also normal. Further, the medicine and hospital bills were paid by accused. Complainant refused to go for search of her istridhan articles and also refused to accept articles as per admitted list. It was also found that the brother in law and sister in law of complainant got married before the marriage of accused and they live separately with their own families.
3. Arguments on charge were heard and charge for the offence u/s 498A IPC was framed against the accused Sunil Gupta to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Other accused were discharged.
4. Prosecution examined five witnesses in its support. 4.1. PW-1/ Meenu Gupta entered the witness box on 21.09.2013 and FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta deposed that she got married to accused Sunil Gupta on 14.05.2007. She was ill treated at the matrimonial house since the beginning. Her parents in law started demanding articles even though her parents had given Rs. 1 Lakh in cash in marriage on the demand of her parents in-law. After the marriage, accused and his parents started demanding fridge and furniture. Her parents gave Rs. 50,000/- on 05.01.2008 for buying furniture and gave a fridge on 27.06.2008 on the demand of her in-laws. After about 14-15 days of marriage, accused started beating her and his parents used to support him. Accused and the in-laws would harass complainant in one way or the other so that their demands of more money and electronic articles like fridge could be fulfilled. They also used to demand more jewellery. Accused and the in- laws would do nit picking in complainant's household chores. On 16.07.2007 accused tried to strangulate her since his demand was not fulfilled. Complainant managed to escape and informed her parents. Her parents came and took her to the parental house. After about 15 days complainant went to the matrimonial house with her parents and brother in law (jija). Accused and his family members misbehaved with them. Unwillingly accused and his parents agreed to provide residence to FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta complainant in the matrimonial house. Soon after the marriage, accused and his parents also took all of complainant jewellery for safe keeping but never returned the same to her. On 01.11.2007 complainant's sister in law took complainant's expensive sarees and her diamond set when complainant requested her not to take the same, she did not pay any heed. On Diwali 2007 complainant's brother in law taunted complainant because her sister had brought gifts but not brought diamond and gold sets for him, his wife and children. On this issue accused gave beatings to complainant. She also deposed that accused hit her when some utensils fell on the ground during her 9th month of pregnancy. She stated that when the accused and in-laws came to know that complainant is carrying a female fetus, they stopped giving her proper meals and forced her to abort the baby. On 09.03.2008 complainant went in labour but accused and the in-laws refused to take her to the hospital. However, some body advised them that a police case might be lodged and therefore, they took her to hospital. All the medical expenses were borne by accused but he did not take her to the matrimonial house. He took her to parental house only because she had delivered a girl child. While taking her to the parental house, accused demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs and told her FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta that she can live with him only if she brings the said amount. Thereafter, she filed complaint Ex. PW-1/A and gave list of articles Ex. PW-1/B and Ex PW-1/C. She also gave bills vide Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E. In her cross examination, she stated that she filed complaint u/s 12 DV Act Ex. PW-1/D1. She stated that on 28.05.2007 she was on her honeymoon with accused and no other family member was present. She explained that the abusive language referred to in para 2 ii were used by her in-laws when she was leaving for her honeymoon. She stated that accused and her in-laws had demanded expenses for her honeymoon and this fact is not mentioned in her statement u/s 161Cr.PC. She stated that on 13.06.2007 she was beaten by her in-laws and accused. She stated that on 16.07.2007 no demand was made from her. However, she voluntarily added that demand of Rs. One Lakhs was being regularly raised by accused prior to the incident. She stated that on 01.11.2007 her husband had abused her for resisting the sister in law for resisting the taking away of sari and jewellery. She stated that her health was normal during pregnancy. She stated that although accused had paid the hospital bills but he had taken money from her father. 4.2. PW-2/Sh. Anand Mittal entered the witness box on 26.04.2014 and FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta deposed that he is the father of complainant. He stated that in July, 2007 when he was talking to complainant over the phone, she broke down. He got suspicious and went to her matrimonial house. He found complainant in a shocking condition and took her home with the permission of her in-laws. Complainant kept weeping on the way and after reaching home, she told that she was beaten up and strangulated by her in-laws. He discussed the matter with his sons in law and visited the matrimonial house of complainant with them. Accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him for purchasing furniture. On Teej festival accused came to take complainant back. He gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused and requested him not to harass the complainant in future. He had already given Rs. One Lac at the time of marriage as per the wishes of accused. In March, 2008 complainant gave birth to a child and he gave Rs. 10,000/- to accused for paying medical bills on his demand. After she was discharged, accused took her to her parental house and left her there. Accused told him that he will not take complainant back, if Rs. 2 Lakh is not given to him. He requested accused and his parents but to no avail and finally a complaint was filed before CAW Cell. He stated that during investigation bills of articles, marriage card Ex. P-X were given to police.
FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20
State Vs Sunil Gupta
The witness was discharged after giving opportunity of cross examination. Later, the witness was recalled u/s 311 Cr.PC but unfortunately, the witness passed away before his cross examination. 4.3. PW-3/SI Sharda entered the witness box on 20.08.2014 and deposed that she was given one bill of fridge by the complainant which she got verified and the same is Mark PW-3/A. 4.4. PW-4/ACP Nirmala Devi entered the witness box on 12.09.2014 and stated that enquiry of complainant Ex PW1/A was marked to her. After no settlement could be arrived at, she made endorsement Ex PW4/A on the complainant for registration of FIR Ex PW4/B. Later she was marked the investigation of the present case and collected documents from complainant vide memo Ex PW4/C and Ex PW4/D, and got the bills, etc verified. The discharge slip is Mark A, marriage card is Mark PX, lab reports are Mark X and Mark X1 and photograph is Mark B, salary slip of complainant's father are Mark Y and Mark Y1. She later arrested accused vide memo Ex PW4/E. 4.5. PW-5/HC Ashok entered the witness box on 04.02.2016 and stated that he verified bill Mark PW3/A from the shop.
FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20
State Vs Sunil Gupta
5. Statement of accused u/s 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC. was recorded on 27.10.2016 wherein the accused denied allegations against himself. He stated that he had already returned the admitted list of articles in CAW Cell. Accused chose to lead DE.
5.1. DW-1/Accused Sunil Gupta entered the witness box on 24.11.2016 and deposed that he got married to complainant on 14.05.2007. He stated that it was a simple marriage attended by 45 people from both sides. The couple went on honeymoon at Shimla after about 7-10 days of marriage where no quarrel took place. He stated that complainant had started quarreling with him and his family members just after the second day of marriage. She used to insist on separating from the family at the instigation of her brothers in law (jija). He stated that complainant was given all love and affection by the entire family but she adopted a quarrelsome attitude. During a pregnancy also complainant was taken care of and was given all the prescribed medicines and food supplements. She gained around 20-25 kgs weight during her pregnancy. She was due to deliver on 09.03.2008 but she did not go in labour that day and delivered a girl child on 11.03.2008. On 13.03.2008 she was forcibly taken to her parental house by her sister FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta Renu and brother in law Atul. After 1-2 days he and his parents went to meet the complainant and the child but they were insulted and complainant refused to return. He stated that on 15.03.2008 he went to the parental house of complainant and took the new born to a doctor for some prescribed tests with the mother of the complainant. After he returned, the two brothers in law of complainant threatened him not to return, unless he throws his parents out of the house. He stated that all allegations against him were false and that the complainant had filed false DV case Ex. PW-1/D1 against him.
In his cross-examination, he denied that the wedding was attended by 60-70 persons. He denied the suggestion that complainant had put on weight due to swelling during her pregnancy.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State, ld counsel for complainant and ld. Counsel for accused.
7. In order to prove offence u/s 498A IPC prosecution had to prove that accused is the husband of complainant and that he subjected her to cruelty, as defined in Explanation to the Section. That is to say, cruelty was either in connection with any unlawful demand for property made from her or her relatives, or it was of such a nature as is likely to drive complainant to FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life/limb/health.
8. It is not disputed that complainant and accused Sunil Gupta got married on 14.05.2007.
9. Complainant deposed that her parents had given Rs. 1 Lakh in cash in marriage on the demand of her parents in-law. In this regard PW2/father of complainant deposed that he had already given Rs. One Lac at the time of marriage as per the wishes of accused, that is to say, not the parents in law of complainant. Moreover both the witnesses did not mention when this demand was raised. If this demand was indeed met at the time of marriage, then in all probabilities that demand was made before marriage and as such does not attract Section 498A IPC.
10. Complainant also deposed that after the marriage, accused and his parents started demanding fridge and furniture. She alleged that they also used to demand more jewellery. Consequently complainant's parents gave Rs. 50,000/- on 05.01.2008 for buying furniture and gave a fridge on 27.06.2008 (perhaps meaning 27.06.2007 since the couple started living separately after delivery in March 2008) on the demand of her in-laws. However she did not specify which of the husband or the in-laws made what FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta demand and when. It is not possible that all the in-laws and accused made the demand in a chorus.
It is also pertinent to note the version of the father of complainant since he is the one who allegedly met these demands. PW2/father of complainant deposed that in July, 2007 when he was talking to complainant over the phone, she broke down. He went to her matrimonial house and took her home. He then came to know of the demands made by the accused side. He discussed the matter with his sons in law and visited the matrimonial house of complainant with them. At that time accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him for purchasing furniture. Consequently on Teej festival he gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused when accused came to take complainant back.
The festival of Teej is celebrated in the Hindu month of Sawan corresponding to July/August of Georgian calender each year. Therefore it is impossible that the payment of Rs 50,000/-was made on the day of Teej which is 05.01.2008 or for that matter even other day in January.
PW2 did not speak about any demand of fridge made to him by accused directly or through the complainant. In fact he deposed that it was in July 2007 that he came to know of the misery of complainant. The fridge FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta was purchased in June 2007 as per bill Mark PW3/A. Ld counsel for complainant has stressed that even as per the admitted list of accused Ex PW1/B-II, accused admits being in possession of a refrigerator and therefore the demand of the fridge from complainant stands proved beyond doubt. I am unable to agree with ld counsel. The admitted list of articles only implies that the articles mentioned therein are in the actual possession of the accused. In our society, the parental family of a woman give a number of gifts/articles to her both at the time of wedding and after the wedding voluntarily. Not every gift can be understood as meeting a demand of dowry. Particularly in this case when the person giving the article has not alleged so.
11. Complainant further deposed that on the day of Diwali in the year 2007 complainant's brother in law taunted complainant because her sister had brought gifts but not brought diamond and gold sets for him, his wife and children. On this issue accused gave her beatings. Contrary to this in her complaint Ex PW1/A, complainant alleged that on the day of Diwali accused and the other in-laws gave her beatings because none of her sisters came and they did were annoyed that there were no gifts for them. Thus there is a FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta material discrepancy as to what had happened on the day of Diwali.
12. Complainant also deposed that on 16.07.2007 accused tried to strangulate her since his demand was not fulfilled but she does not mention which demand was not fulfilled. There is general mention of only furniture, jewellery and fridge being demanded from complainant by the accused and his family members. The fridge had already been given to complainant in June 2007. There is not a single averment that after the gift of fridge, there was any further demand or re-iteration of any previous demand by the accused. In fact she admitted in her cross-examination that on 16.07.2007 no demand was made from her.
13. Complainant alleges that on 01.11.2007 complainant's sister in law took complainant's expensive sarees and her diamond set and when complainant requested her not to take the same, she did not pay any heed and the accused abused her. It is not the case of prosecution that there was any demand for diamond set or sarees from the complainant. Therefore, this incident neither pertains to any demand by the accused nor harassment by accused on failure of complainant to meet any demand. This is also not described as an incident when there was grave injury or danger to FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta complainant's life/limb/health and hence is outside the ambit of Section 498A IPC.
14. Complainant also deposed that she was ill-treated, not given proper meals and was beaten up when the accused and her in-laws came to know that she is carrying a female fetus. They also forced her to abort the pregnancy.
Ld APP has argued that this conduct of the accused amounts to mental and physical cruelty on the complainant and therefore accused is guilty of offence under Section 498A IPC on this count also. I am unable to agree with ld APP. Firstly it is to be noted that the two ultra-sound tests, report of which are Mark X (Level-II ultrasound) and Mark X1, allegedly done to determine the sex of feotus were conducted in 23 weeks and 30 weeks. These tests are conducted in advanced pregnancy to determine if the foetus is growing well. If indeed the accused wanted to determine the sex of the foetus, that could have been attempted in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Secondly, complainant gave birth to a 3 kg child on 11.03.2008 via normal delivery and she also admitted that her health was normal during pregnancy. Thus it is difficult to understand how the conduct of accused was mentally or FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta physically cruel to her to the extent that it posed grave danger to her life or health.
15. It is also the case of complainant that she was subjected to severe physical cruelty when was in labour. She has deposed that on 09.03.2008 when she went in labour, accused and the in-laws refused to take her to the hospital. She has explained that it was only after some body advised them that a police case might be lodged that they took her to hospital. Contrary to this, she stated in her complaint Ex PW1/A that her doctor had telephonically called her after which the accused took complainant to hospital. Moreover her medical documents Mark A show that complainant gave birth on 11.03.2008. This implies that according to the complainant, she was in labour for two days before she was taken to hospital and gave birth. It is impossible that complainant was in active labour since 09.03.2008 and she did not give birth till 11.03.2008 only because she was not taken to hospital. Further her discharge slip Mark A shows that complainant was admitted in hospital with mild labour pain, her stay in hospital was uneventful and she had a normal delivery. Initially in her complaint, she stated that accused did not come to see her in the hospital after the child FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20 State Vs Sunil Gupta birth but she herself states in her examination in chief that all the medical expenses were also borne by accused. Although she later improvised saying that her father had given the money for paying the bills, there are major inconsistencies in her case. All these factors indicate that the alleged incident of 09.03.2008 is totally concocted.
16. Complainant also deposed that she was sent to her to parental house only because she had delivered a girl child. However she contradicts herself by saying that accused demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs and told her that she can live with him only if she brings the said amount. PW2 also supported the later allegation of the complainant. However accused as DW1 deposed that in fact after the birth of child he had come to take the child to a doctor. This averment was not challenged by the State or ld counsel for complainant during cross-examination. It is impossible that accused was on one hand demanding Rs 2 lakh as a pre-condition for taking complainant home and on the other hand he was coming to the parental house of complainant to take the child to doctor for medical tests. This allegation of complainant does not inspire confidence.
17. No allegation of cruelty has been proved against the accused.
FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20
State Vs Sunil Gupta
Therefore, accused Sunil Gupta is acquitted for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
18. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI )
TODAY ON 19th December, 2016 MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
Dwarka/Delhi
FIR No. 85/2008 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 20/20
State Vs Sunil Gupta