Delhi District Court
Fir No. 1020/17 ; State vs . Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 on 28 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM03, MAHILA COURT, SOUTH WEST,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Meenu Kaushik
FIR No. : 1020/07
PS : Najafgarh
U/s 498A/406 IPC
CC no. 428932/16
State v. Manoj Chaudhary
J U D G M E N T :
a) Date of commission of offence : 12.12.2007 and prior
b)Name of the complainant : Identity with held.
c)Name parentage and address : Manoj Chaudhary S/o late Sh.
of accused Shreepal Chaudhary R/o
230/2C Railway Colony, Gali
no. 7, Mandawli Delhi
d) Offence complaint of : 498A/406 IPC
e)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f)Date on which judgment was :13.03.2018
reserved
g)Final Order : Acquitted
h)Date of decision : 28.03.2018
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1.The present FIR has been registered on a complaint made by the complainant before the CAW Cell dated 09.07.2007 wherein it is stated that during the subsistence of marriage of accused Manoj Chaudhary with the complainant (identity FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC withheld), accused being a husband treated the complainant with cruelty and harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demands of dowry. He also misappropriated the dowry articles / stridhan entrusted by the complainant to him at the time of marriage. On these allegations, FIR was got registered for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC and investigation was carried out. After investigation, the present charge sheet has been filed. On appearance of the accused persons, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC was made out against the accused Manoj Chaudhary to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Veeramati was discharged vide order dated 28.03.2011.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses.
3. PW1 HC Veena stated that she was posted as duty officer and she registered the FIR in the present case on the basis of original tehrir and forwarding letter of CAW Cell.
4. PW2, Complainant stated that her marriage was solemnized with accused Manoj on 22.04.1998. They were blessed with a male child on 29.02.2000. After marriage, her FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC husband and her mother in law used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Accused used to drink and beat her and not used to give her money for household expenses. On demand of accused, her parents gave him second hand scooter. The jewellery articles and other things given in her marriage were kept by accused and when the same were demanded back, he refused to return them. The accused and his mother used to torture the complainant and she was thrown out of her matrimonial house along with her child. She relied upon the complaint given by her to police Ex.PW2/A, the list of dowry articles Ex.PW2/B, the list of stridhan Mark A and the photographs of marriage Ex.PW2/C collectively.
5. During cross examination, she stated that she does not remember the date and year when she left the matrimonial house. She stated that she had given previous complaints to the IO but the same not found to be placed on record by her. She accepted that she has not mentioned any place where the accused used to drink and beat her. She also accepted that she has not placed on record any complaint she made against her mother in law. She also could not tell the registration number of the scooter which was given by her father to accused. She stated that bills of any jewelry or stridhan article also not placed on record as the FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC same are in possession of her in laws. As per her, accused was having handsome income during subsistence of their marriage and accused was not having any medical problem.
6. PW3 HC Khudi Ram stated that he went alongwith the IO to arrest the accused. IO prepared the arrest memo and personal search, memo. He stated that he took the accused to RTRM Hospital for medical examination.
7. PW4 Smt. Rajbala, mother of complainant deposed on the same lines of the complainant. She stated that after marriage, their daughter was taunted by accused and his mother for not bringing motor cycle in marriage. Complainant was subjected to cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry. She further stated that despite giving gift articles of more than their capacity, at the time of birth of son of complainant, accused and his family kept on demanding more articles. As per her, accused is having relations with other women as well. She stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/ was given to the accused at the time of marriage but he did not purchase motor cycle from that money. They gave a scooter also to accused in the year 2005 but he sold that scooter. As per her, complainant never got her medically examined about the beatings and torture given by accused. She FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC stated that the in laws of the complainant also used to physically and mentally torture her. In her cross examination she accepted that no complaint regarding demand of dowry or beating by accused or his parents was given to the police prior to this complaint. She voluntarily stated that they had given a complaint to police authority prior to this FIR. She stated that it is correct that they have not placed on record any statement of bank passbook or any other transaction slip for giving sum of Rs. 50,000/ to the accused.
8. PW5 Geeta, the cousin of complainant deposed on the lines of the complainant but she stated that initially every thing between complainant and the accused was alright and there were small quarrels but later she was told that accused and his mother used to beat her and harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry.
9. PW6 Premwati, Bua of complainant also deposed on the lines of PW2 and PW5, she also stated that dowry was given by the father of complainant by selling his house.
10. PW7 Smt. Prem did not depose anything to support the case of prosecution and she just stated that she does not know the complainant and the accused. She denied that complainant FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC and the accused ever resided in her house as tenant.
11. PW8 WSI Suman stated that the present complaint was marked to her by SHO. She seized the photographs of marriage of parties vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A.
12. PW9 Retired ACP SS Rathi stated that when he was posted as inspector in CAW cell all the efforts were made in this case for reconciliation but nothing fruitful could come out and then final report was prepared for registration of FIR.
13. After crossexamination of the witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed.
14. All the incriminating material was put to the accused Manoj Chaudhary and his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
15. In reply to the incriminating evidence accused Manoj Chaudhary denied the allegations against him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he has never subjected the complainant to cruelty. His marriage was solemnized with the complainant with out any pomp and show. No dowry was taken at the time of marriage and never any demand of dowry was made by him or his mother during subsistence of their marriage. He stated that he did not used to beat the complainant after drinking. He admitted the FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC photographs of their marriage. He stated that he used to give household expenses to the complainant as per his capacity and income. He denied that stridhan articles are in his possession. He stated that he never tortured the complainant. He further stated that due to his ill health and his low income, complainant herself left the matrimonial home at the instigation of her parents. He also stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/ was never been given to him by the parents of complainant. He denied that he was having relations with other women. He also denied that he used to abuse or threaten the complainant or her mother on phone. He denied that any scooter was ever given by complainant or her mother. He said that no articles were given in chuchak. He satted that PW5 and PW6 have deposed against him as they are interested witnesses. He further stated that no recovery of stridha articles was effected vide search memo Ex.PW8/B as no dowry or stridhan was ever taken. As per him whatever small gold articles as stridhan were there, PW2 had already taken with her at the time of leaving the matrimonial house. He also stated that he wanted to take complainant back with him to give another chance to their marriage but complainant denied for the same. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Due to his ailments and as he was unable to earn money, the complainant FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC left him on the instigation of her parents. As per him he was earning very less than the expectations of her parents. He also stated that parents of complainant have seen another match for her and that is why they filed this case against him to get divorce from him and to remarry. Accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence. Hence the matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Sh. Kuldeep, Ld. APP for the state submits that form the evidence it is sufficiently proved that accused treated the complainant with cruelty. It is argued that it is accepted on behalf of accused that he used to drink and beat the complainant as the same question was asked in cross examination of the complainant. It is further submitted that it is the complainant who filed for divorce as she was victim and she was remarried only after taking divorce. It is also argued that during cross examination, complainant stated that accused was having handsome income while she was living with him hence it is baseless defence of accused that she left him because he was not earning well.
17. On the other hand, Sh. Rajeev Pandey, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused stated that during evidence, complainant stated that she left the matrimonial home, which FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC means that she was not thrown out from it. It is also submitted that as per the complainant, she gave many complaints against the accused in police but no such complaint is placed on record by her. It is also stated that there is no complaint made against the mother in law by the complainant which means that this case is filed against the accused just to take divorce from him. Another point raised on behalf of the accused is that complainant could not tell the registration no. of the scooter given to the accused or any documentary proof of the sum of Rs. 50,000/ given to accused by her parents. It is also submitted that there is no previous complaint against accused and complainant has remarried and hence it is clear that this case is filed by the complainant just to get divorce from him.
18. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and perused the Court record.
19. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for commission of offence U/s 498A/406 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients : a. The complainant was subjected to cruelty or harassment; b. The cruelty or harassment was caused by her husband or his relatives;
c. The cruelty was (a) with a view to drive her to commit FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mental or physical;
d. The harassment of the complainant was (a) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (b) On account of failure of the complainant or her relation to meet such unlawful demand.
e. There must be entrustment of the property and there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use.
20. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favor of the accused.
21. As regards the offence u/s 406 IPC in Annu Gill v.
State 2001 V AD (Delhi) 411 it has been held that to constitute offence U/s. 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. In the present matter, complainant could not tell any date or place when and where the articles were entrusted by her to the accused. It is not the case of the complainant that on any particular date she raised the demand for her articles. PW2 and PW4 have not provided any receipts/ bills of articles mentioned in the list of istridhan/ jewelery articles. The accused has stated that all the stridhan articles i.e. small gold articles were taken by complainant herself with her. It is not proved by the complainant beyond reasonable doubt that any jewelery as alleged was ever entrusted to the accused by her. Hence, the ingredients of Section 406 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
22. As regards the offence u/s 498A IPC in Manju RamKalita v. State of Assam, 2009(1) SCC 330 it was held that it is to be established that the woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels can not be termed as cruelty to attract the provision of Section 498A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it become unbearable may be term as cruelty. In the present matter no such incident has been FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC proved by the complainant or to show that the complainant was subjected to continuous cruelty at the hands of the accused. The statement of witnesses nowhere shows any clear specific date or place on which the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the accused. In examination in chief complainant stated that she was thrown out of her matrimonial house, but during cross examination she stated that she left the matrimonial house. In her complaint also complainant no where stated that she was thrown out from the matrimonial house. Further PW4 also did not state that complainant was thrown out from the house by accused or her mother. Not mentioning of incident of throwing out of matrimonial house by the complainant in her complaint and in her cross examination and in the testimony of PW4 raises doubt over the testimony of complainant. As per complainant, she made previous complaints for cruelty against the accused but no such complaint is placed on record by her. As per complainant one second hand scooter was given by her father to the accused which was alleged to be sold by the accused later on. During cross examination, complainant could not tell the registration number of that scooter. Further, complainant has also failed to show any documentary proof regarding giving of scooter to the accused. This fact further weakens the case of prosecution. FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC Complainant in her deposition did not refer giving of Rs.50,000/ to the accused but, PW4 stated that they gave sum of Rs.50,000/ to the accused for motorcycle at the time of marriage. Any bank statement or any other documentary proof is not placed on record by the complainant or PW4 in this regard. This point further raises doubt over the case of prosecution. No evidence in support of the gift articles given at the time of birth of son of complainant is placed on record by the prosecution. The relation of the accused with other women is also not proved and only vague allegations are made in this regard. Regarding gold articles also no documentary proof/ bills etc. are placed on record. In complaint to CAW cell, there is no mention of giving of Rs. 50,000/ to the accused. From this, it appears that complainant has tried to improve her case during trial. In complaint to CAW Cell, it is stated by the complainant that one second hand scooter was given to the accused by her father after taking loan of Rs.5,000/. However, during evidence no documentary evidence or registration no. was given by the complainant. From this giving of scooter to accused seems to be doubtful. PW5 and PW6 both stated that initially there was every thing normal between complainant and accused. From this, it can be inferred that from the starting of marriage, complainant was not subjected FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC to cruelty and it is possible that with time differences crop up between them over some issues. In CAW Cell proceedings, it is mentioned that accused wanted to give another chance to his marriage but complainant was not ready for it and hence, the matter could not be settled there. It is admitted fact that complainant has been remarried. This fact further strengthens the defence of accused that this case was filed by the complainant just to get divorce from the accused.
23. From above discussion, it is ample clear that the allegations made by the complainant against the accused are vague in nature. The version of PW4, PW5 and PW6 are only hearsay. In the present matter the ingredients of the offence u/s 498A IPC are not satisfied. The prosecution has not been able to prove any cruelty of such a nature as to drive the complainant to commit suicide; or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mental or physical. No demand of dowry has been proved. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
24. In totality of the facts and circumstances and the above made discussions, the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC could not be proved against accused Manoj Chaudhary beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Manoj Chaudhary stands acquitted FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC of offence charged of under section 498A and 406 IPC. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/ eachand to place on record recent photograph and fresh address. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by accused. Same are accepted. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 28th day of March 2018 Meenu Kaushik Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court03,South West Dwarka Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR NO. 1020/17 ; State vs. Manoj Chaudhary 14/15 PS: Najfagarh; U/s 498A/406 IPC