Delhi District Court
Fir No. 371/06 State vs . Kalu Ram Etc 1/7 on 20 December, 2012
FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 1/7
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI,
MM (MAHILA COURT NO. 1), NORTH EAST, KKD, DELHI
FIR NO. 371/06
UNIQUE I.D. NO.02402R0090722007
PS M.S. PARK
U/SEC. 498A/34 IPC
STATE VS. KALU RAM & ORS.
1. Name of the complainant: Smt. Rajesh Devi
d/o Sh. Mange Ram
r/o D/502/2, Ashok Nagar,
Wazirabad, Delhi-93.
2. Name of the accused, his: 1. Kalu Ram
parentage and address. s/o late Sh. Uday Singh
2. Angoori Devi
w/o Sh. Kalu Ram
3. Arvind
s/o Sh. Kalu Ram
4. Raj Kumar
d/o Sh. Kalu Ram
5. Naveen Kumar
s/o Sh.Kalu Ram
6. Babbal @ Jitender
s/o Sh.Kalu Ram
All r/o D-504, Gali No.2,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
3. Offence complained : u/s 498A/34 IPC
4. The date of filing of challan : 27-01-2007
5. The final order : 20-12-2012
6. Acquitted or convicted : Acquitted
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The challan was filed in the present case on 27-01-2007 FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 2/7 on the basis of FIR No. 371/06, u/s 498A/34 IPC registered on 29-08-2006 on the basis of complaint made by the complainant Smt. Rajesh Devi.
2. The case of prosecution is that the complainant got married with late Praveen Kumar s/o Kalu Ram. Accused side used to torture complainant for dowry. Father of complainant gave a sum of about Rs.4 lac cash along with jewellery and other articles in the marriage. Despite that she was harassed. During the initial three years of marriage, a total sum of Rs.30,000/- was given in piece meal four times along with a scooter, to accused side but they were not satisfied with the same. Her late husband Praveen Kumar was also harassed on account of which he expired due to electrocution.
3. In her complaint complainant stated that she was residing in her matrimonial home along with her three sons. About 20 days back, one Raju along with his friends came to her house. Raju went outside on the pretext of bringing cold-drink. Accused persons bolted the door from inside and insulted the complainant and levelled allegations upon her saying "Tu yaahan se aise nahin jayegi, hum tujhe yahan se bhaga kar hi chhodenge".
4. Accused persons snatched the amount of insurance policy of late Praveen Kumar from the complainant after getting her signatures. They also beat her and took her signatures on some blank papers on account of which she was threatened.
5. Complainant was running the livelihood of her children by doing some job. Kalu Ram, Raju and Angoori did not allow her to go to her job. They were not maintaining her children. Her children are the legal heirs of late Praveen Kumar and are share holder in the property FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 3/7 owned by Kalu Ram and Angoori Devi. However, complainant and her children were thrown out of the house after insulting them. She complained to police in this regard but no action was taken by the police. She being a widow lady was forced to leave the house.
6. On 13.05.2006 at about 5.00 pm, Kalu Ram, Angoori, Raju and Babbal beat her and threatened to kill her. In this regard, she made a complaint along with her medical with PS Mansarovar Park. Accused persons used to demand money from her for the maintenance of her children.
7. On the statement of complainant, FIR u/s 498A/34 IPC was registered, investigation was concluded subsequent to which charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance of the offence was taken. Accused persons namely Kalu Ram and Smt. Angoori Devi were charged of having committed offence punishable u/s 406/34 IPC and accused Kalu Ram was additionally charged for having committed offence punishable u/s 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 29-04-2009. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Other accused persons were discharged of the offences in question. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. PW1 HC Siyanand was the duty officer and he recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka. The carbon copy of the FIR is Ex.PW1/A.
9. PW2 is HC Sanjeev Kumar who joined the investigation with the IO as he took the tehrir and went to PS M.S. Park and got registered the present case and came back to CAW Cell and handed over the same to the IO.
10. PW3 Shobha Kashyap deposed that complainant is her FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 4/7 sister (Mama ki Ladki). She had come to her home in the month of June, 2006 while crying. Her Jija had earlier died due to electrocution. PW3 deposed that the in-laws of complainant used to demand money as her husband had died and her in-laws also stated that who would bear the expenses of the maintenance. After about 15 days, her sister again came. PW3 also deposed that complainant stated that she would file a case against her in-laws. Thereafter, she filed a case against her in-laws. She had nothing more to say.
11. Thereafter, PW3 was cross-examined by ld. APP on some material points wherein also she supported the case of the prosecution. Later on, she was cross-examined by the ld. counsel for accused persons.
12. In the cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused persons, PW3 admitted that in the year 2006, when complainant Rajesh had come to their house at that time her parents were alive. She could not tell the exact date as when the complainant Rajesh had come first time to her house. She volunteered to say it may be in May, 2006. She could not tell the exact date as to when the complainant visited her home second time. She could not tell the exact date or month as to when she visited to pacify the matter, however, it was in the year 2006. PW3 denied that Rajesh never visited their house at any point of time nor she (witness) approached the accused persons to pacify the matter. She did not remember the exact date when she made statement to the police, however, it may be August, 2006.
13. PW4 Virender Kumar testified that complainant was his sister. She was married to Praveen Kumar. After the death of Praveen Kumar, he stated to complainant to leave the children at her FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 5/7 matrimonial home and stay with them but she refused. Complainant started living at her matrimonial home. Earlier, she was not kept well by her husband and other members of her matrimonial home. She had three children and they were also not kept well. He further stated that he is not aware of the whereabouts of his sister (complainant) and for the past 2-3 years there has been no link with his sister so he could not tell where she is residing.
14. Thereafter, PW4 was cross-examined by ld. APP on some material points wherein also he supported the case of the prosecution. Later on, he was cross-examined by the ld. counsel for accused persons.
15. In the cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused persons, PW4 deposed that at the time of marriage of his sister (complainant), he was about 19-20 yeas old. He could not tell the date, time and year as to when the in-laws of his sister used to harass her or gave beating to her. He stated that they had not made any complaint regarding the missing of his sister (complainant). He denied the suggestion that the husband or in-laws of his sister never harassed her at any point of time or she left the home with her own wish.
16. PW5 SI Surest Chanda is the IO of the case. He stated that he was assigned summons of the complainant Smt. Rajesh Devi for service. He went to the given address and made inquiries from the saas, sasur of the complainant but they stated that the complainant had gone to some undisclosed place. He made inquiries from Geeta and Devar Naveen Kumar but they also expressed their inability to give the whereabouts of the complainant. Despite his best efforts, summons could not be served. He testified that he again made efforts to trace FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 6/7 the witness and went to the fufa and fufi of the complainant at 10/376, Gali No. 10, Mandoli Extn., Delhi and they stated that they will try to find out the complainant. Later on, they stated that the complainant was not traceable despite their efforts, so summons could not be served. IO also went to the parental house of the complainant and made inquiries from both brothers namely Vijender and Jitender but they were also not in a position to tell the whereabouts of the complainant. His report in this regard is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point-A. Despite his best efforts, summons could not be served upon Smt. Rajesh Devi (complainant).
17. Statement of CW1 Jitender Kumar was also recorded who stated that Smt. Rajesh Devi is his sister. She was married to Praveen Kumar. After the death of Praveen Kumar, she was asked to live with them but she refused and she was living at her matrimonial home. For the past 3-4 years, there has been no link with his sister. He was not aware of her present whereabouts or where she is residing.
18. Since, the star witness of the case i.e. complainant Smt. Rajesh Devi could not appear, she was dropped from the list of witnesses and no useful purpose would have been served by examining any other witness. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.
19. Statement of accused persons was recorded. They stated that present was a false case. They did not prefer to lead D.E.
20. As no material has come up against accused persons, which is incriminating in nature and particularly when complainant who was star witness of the case has not been examined as she was untraceable, accused persons namely Kalu Ram and Angoori Devi are acquitted of the offences in question.
FIR No. 371/06 State Vs. Kalu Ram etc 7/7
21. Bail bond of accused persons furnished at the time of court bail, shall remain in force for a period of six months. Sureties of the accused persons shall not be discharged for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SAVITRI)
ON 20-12-2012 MM/MAHILA COURTS NO. 1
NORTH EAST, KKD, DELHI