Delhi District Court
Fir No. 120/2007, Ps Mirzapur, ... vs . Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 1 Of 39 on 26 October, 2018
In The Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan
Magistrate02, (Mahila Court), South East, New Delhi
State v. Shailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors.
FIR No: 120/2007
Crl. Case No. 9756/2007
PS: Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
CC No.616833/2016
PS: H.N. Din
U/s: 498A/406/420/34 IPC & Section 3,7
Dowry Prohibition Act.
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 11.02.2010
CRC no. : 616833/2016
Name of the complainant : Saroj Sailesh Jani
W/o Sailesh Harshadrai Jani
R/o H.No. 13, Church Lane,
Bhogal, H.N. Din, New Delhi.
Name & address of the accused : 1. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani S/o Harshadrai Jani
2. Harshadrai Jani, S/o Sh. Natha Lal Jani
3. Bimal H. Jani, S/o Sh. Harshadrai Jani
4. Rekha H. Jani, D/o Sh. Harshadrai Jani
5. Urmila Ben H. Jani, W/o Sh. Harshadrai Jani FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 1 of 39 All R/o Maruti Nagar, Verawar Highway road, Opposite Roshan Bhai shop, Paluka Kodinal, District Junagarh, Gujarat.
Offence Complained of : U/s 498A/406/420 IPC & Section 3, 7 Dowry Prohibition Act. Offence Charged of : U/s 498A/406/420 IPC & Section 3, 7 Dowry Prohibition Act. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Acquitted Date of arguments : 22.10.2018 Date of announcing of order : 26.10.2018 BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the present matter was received by way of transfer by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.11.2008. Upon being directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the original case file of the present matter alongwith chargesheet and other documents including the English translation was filed before the present Court and the same was received on 11.02.2010. Perusal of the record shows that the present criminal complaint was filed initially FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 2 of 39 vide case FIR No. 9756/2007 at PS Mirzapur, Ahmadabad, Gujarat. The present case file was received having Page No. 1 to 314 and upon perusal of the index at para 49 i.e. Page No.289 and 290 of the record revealed that accused Shailesh Harshad Rai Jani, Bimal H. Jani, Harshad M. Jani, Urmila Ben H. Jani and Rekha H. Jani were charged u/s 498A/406/420 IPC & Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act upon which accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and therefore the matter was listed for prosecution evidence. The charge was framed against the accused persons on 26.03.2008 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. All accused persons were summoned by the present court and they admitted to bail vide order dated 18.05.2017.
2. Briefly the facts of the complaint filed by the complainant in her complaint Ex.PW1/A dated 04.02.2007 and the English translation of the same Ex.PW1/A1 wherein she has stated that she got married to accused No.1 on 02.05.2006 at her house No.B504, Sukriti Garden, opposite Amrakadam Bungalow near Super Society, Ramdev Nagar, Cross road, PS Satellite, Ahmedabad as per Hindu rites and rituals and the Satpadi was performed in the presence of elder persons and parents. After marriage, she lived with the accused at the aforesaid address. Accused No.1 had also taken her to his house and for sometime, she was kept there as the family of accused persons FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 3 of 39 had given a party in their guest house. Complainant alongwith accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani stayed at the guest house for about 34 days and thereafter, she alongwith accused returned back to Ahmedabad. She had good relations with the accused but after sometime his behaviour changed towards the complainant and he stopped treating the complainant properly. Thereafter, accused left the premises of the complainant without informing her. When the complainant objected to his behaviour, he abused her in filthy language and demanded money from the complainant for carrying out his business. Further, the husband of complainant started demanding money and also threatened the complainant that if she would not arrange money, she would not be treated well by the family of accused. Complainant was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and she was extended threats by the accused persons to transfer her aforesaid property of Ahmedabad in the name of accused No.1 or accused No.1 shall divorce the complainant. She was also threatened by the accused persons to be implicated in false cases and to be raped by goons after being kidnapped. Further, her husband had taken away her passport, gold chain, gold ring, documents and marriage evidence from the house of the complainant and when she asked her husband to return her aforesaid articles, she was threatened.
FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 4 of 39
3. In her complaint before the court addressed to the District & Sessions Judge, Gramin, Ahmedabad dated 18.05.2007 Ex.PW1/B, it was stated by her that she was residing at House No.B504, Sukriti Garden, opposite Amrakadam Bungalow near Super Society, Ramdev Nagar, Cross road, PS Satellite, Ahmedabad. She got married with accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani who belonged to Kodinar, District Junagarh as per Hindu rites and rituals and Saptpadi on 02.05.2006. After few months, she alongwith accused Harshadrai Jani lived together happily. In her marriage, her parents had given Rs.2 lakhs and jewellery. After few months, parents of accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani started demanding more dowry. She was working and all her salary were taken by her husband and she was told to sell her house and the money received be given to her husband. Further, her husband was residing at Shivam Guest House near Somnath temple, Kodinar, District Junagarh, Gujarat. Thereafter, her husband and in laws again started demanding dowry. She was pressurised by her husband to sell off her house since he needed money for the marriage of his sister. For the same, the complainant had paid Rs.1lakh and Rs.50,000/ and gold jewellery. All the gifts given by her friends had been taken away by the accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani and her in laws. That her husband Shailesh Harshadrai Jani had brutally beaten her. When she went to her inlaws house at Kodinar, all the accused persons again gave her brutal beatings and she was pulled by hair and FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 5 of 39 abused by the accused persons. Further, the torture, atrocities and harassment of her husband and her inlaws continued. They also extended threats to the complainant and her parents that she should pay Rs.2 lakhs as dowry or they shall kill her. Further, her husband Shailesh Harshadrai Jani was having illicit relation with another girl. Further, an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs, jewellery of gold worth Rs.1 lakh, utensils and clothes worth Rs.3,000/ were in the custody of her husband at Kodinar. Further, the accused persons had intention to use the aforesaid articles of the complainant in the marriage of accused Rekha. Further, the complainant was deserted by her husband by torturing her and playing fraud upon her.
4. Pursuant to this complaint dated 04.02.2007 against accused, FIR was registered on same day and the matter was investigated. Chargesheet was filed. Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Vide order dated 26.03.2008 charge was framed against accused for the offences U/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC & Section 3,7 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly matter was listed for prosecution evidence. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led. IO had cited six witnesses in the present matter that is complainant namely Sarojben, PW Geetaben being the mother of the complainant, Shudhaben being the sister of the complainant, PW Kalpesh being the son of the FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 6 of 39 complainant from her previous marriage, one Smt. Shukhavinder and IO, PSI D.A. Sanghavi.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses. However, during trial PW Kalpesh being the son of the complainant from her previous marriage, one Smt. Shukhavinder were dropped from the list of witnesses as they were not traceable and remained unserved through DCP concerned. PW Geetaben being the mother of the complainant was dropped from the list of witnesses upon the request of the complainant being aged and bed ridden.
6. PW1/complainant Sarojben deposed that on 02.05.2006, she got married to the accused as per Hindu rites and customs at Ahmedabad. At the time of marriage, she was residing at House No.B 504, Sukriti Garden, Opposite Amrakadam Bungalow, Satellite, Ahmedabad15. The marriage was performed in her aforesaid house in the presence of about 2530 people which including her parents and relatives and also the parents and family members of the accused persons. After her marriage, she and the family of the accused persons organised a party at Kodinar, District Junagarh, Gujarat which was the Guest house of the accused persons after 78 days of her marriage. At the aforesaid Guest house, she alongwith accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani, Bimal H. Jani, Harshad M. Jani, Urmila Ben H. Jani, Rekha H. Jani (accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani was correctly identified by the FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 7 of 39 witness and other accused persons were exempted) and several other relatives of the accused persons remained there for about five days. After that, she alongwith accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani came back to her house at Satellite, Ahmedabad. The aforesaid house of Satellite was in the name of her previous husband and myself jointly. Thereafter, accused Shailesh lived with her in the house properly only for two months. Thereafter, her husband left her and went to his house at Kodinar. After 56 days, accused Shailesh again returned to their house and told her that he was suffering losses in his business and therefore, told her that either she should transfer the house of Satellite in his name or should sell off the property and give the proceeds of the same to him so that he can invest in his business at Kodinar to run his Guest House to come out of the losses. Upon hearing the same, she told the accused that she was not the sole owner of the property of Satellite and the same was jointly owned by her and her previous husband to whom she got divorced in the year 2004. At that time, accused also told her that his sister Rekha was also due for marriage and his father was not in a position to spend or arrange for the expenses of her marriage and therefore, she should help him with giving some funds or money. Upon hearing the same, she arranged an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from her father and also gave Rs.50,000/ from her own funds and handed over the same to accused Shailesh. However, she did not remember the date on which she had handed FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 8 of 39 over the aforesaid amount to accused Shailesh but the same was in the month of August, 2006. Thereafter, accused went to Kodinar and gave the aforesaid amount to his mother. During the festival of Diwali in the year 2006, accused left her and went to Kodinar eight days before Diwali on the pretext of meeting his parents and also promised that he shall return back two days prior Diwali and thereafter, shall arrange for some holiday with her. On the festival of Diwali, accused Shailesh did not return back to Ahmedabad and she kept calling him and the phone was always picked by her mother in law or her brother in law who never allowed her to talk to accused Shailesh. At that time, accused Bimal Harshadrai Jani, Urmila Harshadrai Jani and Rekha Harshadrai Jani used to abuse her on phone and also told her that she should forget that she had got married to accused Shailesh and there was no marriage between her and accused Shailesh. At that time, father of accused Shailesh also told her not to give them a call and forget that she had got married to accused Shailesh. After Diwali, on one occasion, she contacted accused Shailesh who told her that he shall return after 34 days and also consoled her by saying that she should not feel bad about the behaviour of his family members. After 34 days, accused Shailesh returned back to Ahmedabad at her house and also told her that he would return back to Kodinar as his father was unwell. At that time, she was working in a college and used to return back only at 7.00 PM in the evening. Thereafter, on one day, FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 9 of 39 when she was away for her work at her college, accused Shailesh left the house alongwith all her jewellery articles, cash, her degrees, her passport and other documents. Thereafter, she made a call to accused Shailesh to know about him but he abused her in filthy language on the phone. The fact that accused had taken her aforesaid articles came to her knowledge only after 56 days. Thereafter, she made a call to accused Urmila Ben (mother in law) but she and accused Bimal started abusing her on the phone and also threatened her with dire consequences and also threatened her to get her killed. Thereafter, accused Rekha also abused her in filthy language. After about 23 months, she kept on calling accused to sort out the matter and settle with him but he only had intention to come back if she transferred her house in his name. At that time, accused also used to threat her by saying that he shall divorce her, for which she was not ready. Despite her several efforts, accused did not return back home to live with her and she approached the police station to lodge her complaint against the accused. Due to all this, her brother namely Jugal Kishore Yadav also suffered heart attack and expired in December, 2006. Thereafter, she visited PS Satellite, Ahmedabad and gave complaint to the police on 04.02.2007 Ex.PW1/A. The translation of the same in English was Ex.PW1/A1. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons. During investigation, accused persons tried to influence the police officials also. At that time, she had also given a FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 10 of 39 complaint to the concerned CJM vide Ex.PW1/B in English. During the investigation, IO had inquired from her about the present matter and also recorded the statement of witnesses and her family members.
During crossexamination PW1 deposed that it was correct that her marriage with accused Sahilesh Harsadharai Jani was her second marriage. Even her first marriage was duly solemnized and it was an arranged marriage. Mr Swami Nath Yadav was the name of her previous husband. Her previous husband was alive. She was in talking terms with her previous husband. She had two children(sons) namely Kalpesh and Jatin from her previous husband. The age of elder son Kalpesh is 32 years and Jatin is aged about 2830 years. She had obtained divorce from her earlier husband prior to her marriage with accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani. Her divorce took place on 15.04.2004 on stamp paper before Registrar. She took a decree of divorce from the court. She did not remember the date of decree of divorce. She had not placed the paper of divorce before any court including this court. She tried to submit the same to the police officials as she was divorcee at the time of marriage with present accused but police official refused to receive the same stating that she would produce the same before the court. It was wrong to suggest that she did not get married with accused Sailesh Harsadhrai Jani on 02.05.2006. It was wrong to suggest that she never got divorced from FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 11 of 39 her previous husband. It was wrong to suggest that as on date, her marriage with earlier husband was still valid and surviving. She could not place the photographs of marriage as the accused took away all the photographs. She did not try to contact with photographer who took the marriage photographs as the photographs were taken from mobile and personal camera of one Bimal and no photographer was hired on the occasion of her marriage. Her brother or she herself did not have a mobile so they did not take the photographs of her marriage from the side of bride. Her relatives such as her sister, mother, masi, brother and her neighbour namely Sukhwinder, her bhabi and one Mr Kamlesh were all present in her marriage from her side. None of them were having mobile phone at that time. It was wrong to suggest that she had not married with accused due to which neither she nor her relative possess any photograph of her marriage. It was correct that she did not apply for obtaining marriage certificate before the Registrar of marriages. She did not apply the same as the same was not required by her. It was correct that she had a house in joint name of her and her previous husband, at Ahmedabad i.e. B504, Sukirti Garden, Opposite Aamar Kadam Banglow Satellite, Ahmedabad15 and she had sold out the aforesaid house to one Giri Raj Singh in the year 2009. However, she did not receive any consideration amount for the aforesaid house as Giri Raj was not intended to pay her because of the objection of her previous husband. As per the mutual FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 12 of 39 understanding between her and her previous husband, she was staying in the aforesaid house even after her divorce. It was correct that she had obtained the duplicate copies of all her educational certificates which the accused Shailesh had taken out. She had not attached any receipt of expenditure of her marriage with her complaint as the same had already been taken out by accused. Both children from her previous marriage are educated and were perusing their 10 th and 12th at the time of her marriage with accused. She did not know how qualified were her two sons presently. It was correct that she was president of Lok Jan Shakti Party of Ahmadabad Unit. She had never been arrest during any political protest being member of the aforesaid party. She had never participated in any Dharna Pradarshan of the aforesaid party. She had never been accused in any criminal proceeding during her political carrier. She was working in the aforesaid party for the purpose of bringing women together. The work was to help the women in their obstacles of obtaining ration card, for vaccination of children of women of poor family etc. She had never fought election of aforesaid party. She was not a lecturer in any university. She was never receiving any monthly salary from any college. It was wrong to suggest that she was employed as a lecturer or a teacher in a organization and receiving monthly salary. After her M.Phil. Degree, she did not pursue her Ph.D. She did not receive any money from her previous husband from him on her divorce. It was FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 13 of 39 wrong to suggest that she was seeking financial help from her children or from previous husband for maintenance. She was having a PAN card No. ACAPY5691B. It was wrong to suggest that she was having regular income as salary. Her previous husband had not objected to her second marriage with the accused no.1 since she was already divorced by him. It was wrong to suggest that her previous husband had filed a case against her. It was wrong to suggest that a complaint before Ahmadabad Court was filed by her previous husband which was still pending adjudication. She had not placed on record any bank account statement for herself or for her father to show the payment of Rs.2,00,000/ made by her father and Rs.50,000/ from her own account to accused Shailesh. She had given an amount of Rs.50,000/ to accused Shailesh through her credit card of City Bank. It was wrong to suggest that she never lived with the accused persons in the matrimonial house. It was correct that she had not placed on record the photographs of marriage or any other photograph of herself with the accused persons or his family member. It was wrong to suggest that she never got married to the accused as she had not obtained divorce from her previous husband. It was wrong to suggest that the accused persons never treated her with any cruelty or demand of dowry since she never stayed with the accused persons and was never legally married to accused Shailesh Harsadrai Jani. It was wrong to FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 14 of 39 suggest that she falsely implicated the accused persons in the present matter with the intention to falsely implicate them.
7. PW2 Shudhaben (sister of complainant) deposed that Complainant Saroj Sailesh was her real sister. Complainant got married with accused Shailesh on 02.05.2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage was performed in the house of the complainant which was situated at Sukriti Garden, Vardhaman, Satellite Gujarat. After 08 days of her marriage, complainant visited her matrimonial house alongwith accused at Kodinar. Complainant remained at her matrimonial house of Kodinar for some days around 08 days, however, complainant was ill treated and beaten there by her sisterin law namely Rekha, brotherinlaw namely Vimal and her husband. Thereafter, she returned back to Ahmadabad alongwith her husband. Thereafter, complainant narrated the same to elders of their family like her parents, brother and his wife in the presence of PW2, to settle the matter between the family of the accused and herself. For two months, she stayed with the accused. During the month of Diwali, complainant was wanting to get her house painted and also invited the family of the accused to visit her at Ahmadabad. However, the mother and sister of the accused refused to visit her house at Ahmadabad and told her on the phone that she should name the house of Sukriti Garden and transfer the same in the name of accused Shailesh and FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 15 of 39 only then they shall visit the house at Ahmadabad. However, her sister refused to name the property on her husband's name. Thereafter, accused Shailesh also forced her sister to name the property in his name and on her refusal gave beatings to her. Thereafter, accused Shailesh remained with her sister only for few days and left her and went to live with his parents at Kodinar. When he left the house of the complainant, he took away her jewelery, documents, three mobile phones and money which was belonging to the complainant since at that time complainant was not home and had gone to give lecture in the college. Thereafter, her sister had given her a call and narrated the incident to her. She could not tell the year in which he left the complainant but it may have been in the year 2006 or 2007. The evidence on affidavit u/s 296 CrPC was given by her vide affidavit Ex.CW2/A. During crossexamination PW2 deposed that it was correct that it was the second marriage of the complainant with accused no.1. The name of the previous husband of complainant was Swaminath. Complainant had two children from her previous marriage and their names are Jatin and Kalpesh. She did not know the age of her children. She was not having any contact with the children of the complainant. The elder son of the complainant was already married and she did not know their present whereabouts. She did not know the FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 16 of 39 date of marriage of the elder son of the complainant. She was not aware if the second child of the complainant was also married. She did not know where the children of the complainant were employed. She had attended the first marriage of the complainant and she had witnessed the ceremonies of marriage at that time. She did not remember the date of the first marriage of the complainant. Complainant got divorced from her first husband and the same was by mutual consent (samadhan). Complainant was highly educated but she did not know her educational qualifications. She did not know if the complainant was Ph.D. qualified. Complainant was presently residing at Ranchi in Jharkhand. The house of Sukriti Garden, Ahmadabad is still in the name of complainant. Her father has already expired. Her mother was presently residing with the complainant. When complainant visits Ahmadabad, she stays at her house. She did not know if complainant was affiliated with any political party. She had been residing at Ahmadabad after her marriage. Earlier complainant used to go for lectures in different colleges. At present, complainant was not employed as a lecturer in any college. Presently, complainant was not employed. The house of Ranchi is a rented accommodation but she did not know the rent amount of the same. PW2 was not employed but her son was working in Dubai. Her husband was a school auto driver. She did not have the photograph of the first marriage of the complainant. The photographs of marriage of FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 17 of 39 complainant with accused no.1 was in possession of accused persons. During the marriage of complainant with accused no.1, her father was having work of agriculture. She did not know as to what was the income of her father in the year 2005 that is at the time of the marriage of the complainant. Her mother was not working at the time of the marriage of the complainant with accused no.1. Complainant had got registered a complaint against the accused persons when they gave beatings to the complainant at Kodinar. It was correct that she was not present at Kodinar when the beatings were given to the complainant. She had attended the marriage of the complainant which was performed at the house of the complainant at Sukriti Garden, Ahmadabad. She had never visited Kodinar. It was correct that she was informed about the incidents by the complainant on phone. She used to meet the complainant only sometimes after her marriage with the accused no.1 and not often. The previous husband of the complainant did not object to the fact of complainant residing with accused no.1 at the house of Sukriti Garden, Ahmadabad. Accused had taken away an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to 2.5 lakhs from the house of the complainant when he left her house. Complainant lived with accused no.1 after her marriage at Ahmadabad only for three months. It was correct that when accused no.1 left the complainant after three months of her marriage, he had taken away with him jewelery, cash, documents etc. of the complainant. Accused no.1 never came back to FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 18 of 39 reside with the complainant after he left her. Further, the same was around Diwali time. The document Ex.CW2/A was prepared in the Court to her knowledge. The same was prepared since the complainant had to file her case against the accused persons. It was wrong to suggest that she had deposed falsely against the accused persons. Accused had taken away two gold rings, one gold chain, one gold bangle, one pair of gold ear rings of the complainant. It was wrong to suggest that accused had not taken any of such articles from the house of the complainant. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
8. PW3 Insp. Dharmender Chaudhary (IO of the case) deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted at Police Station Satellite, Ahmedabad. During the aforesaid year 2007 on 04.02.2007, a written complaint was received by the Police Officer InCharge of the aforesaid police station and the investigation of the same was marked to him. The aforesaid written complaint was already Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant Sarojben, Sukhwinder, Geeta Ben (Mother of the complainant), Sudhaben (Sister of the complainant), Kalpesh (Son of the complainant) u/s. 161 CrPC. Thereafter, accused persons namely, Sailesh Harshad Rai Jani, Harshad Rai Natha Lal Jani, Vimal Harshad Rai Jani, Urmila Ben (W/o Harshad Rai Natha Lal Jani), Rekha Ben FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 19 of 39 (D/o. Harshad Rai Natha Lal Jani) were arrested on 24.04.2007 and 26.04.2007. The arrest memos were Ex.PW3/A, ExPW3/B, ExPW3/C, ExPW3/D, ExPW3/E and the accused persons were sent to judicial custody after being produced before the concerned court. During investigation, he collected a document pertaining to Shivam Guest House, situated at Somnath, Gujarat showing that the complainant has visited the same along with accused no. 1 on 27.04.2006. The photocopy of the same was Mark X1 and the same was reflecting the name as Sweety Yadav which complainant told him was her nick name. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet in the present matter and filed the same before the court on 27.04.2007. The document pertaining to the identity of the accused persons ExPW3/F and his report pertaining to the Judicial Custody Remand of the accused persons was ExPW3/G. The true English translation of the charge sheet (final report) filed by him was ExPW3/H (Colly 1 and
2).
During crossexamination PW3 deposed that he was posted at PS Satellite, Ahmedabad from the year 2004 till the year 2007 but he did not remember the exact dates of his aforesaid posting. He had received only one complaint in the PS which was Ex.PW1/A from the complainant for investigation. During trial at Gujarat, he did not appear before the court as he was not summoned. He did not know if FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 20 of 39 complainant had filed any complaint against some police officials in respect to the present matter. The chargesheet in the present matter bears his signature. The statements of the witnesses recorded by him u/s 161 CrPC was annexed by him with the judicial file and the same were mark X2 to X6. The signatures of the witnesses were not taken on the statement mark X2 to mark X6. It was wrong to suggest that the statement of the witnesses were not recorded correctly and the same have been recorded on his own. He did not know if the complainant was married earlier also. He did not know if witness Kalpesh who had been cited in the list of witnesses was the son of the complainant from her previous marriage since during recording of his statement by him, he had stated in his statement that the complainant was her relative "sambandhi". He did not investigate to find out if the complainant was divorced by her first husband. It was wrong to suggest that he investigated the matter at the behest of the complainant. He did not know if the complainant was having two children from her previous marriage. It was wrong to suggest that he did not conduct fair and proper investigation. He did not record the statement of the priest "pandit" who had solemnised the marriage of complainant and accused No.1. It wass wrong to suggest that it was in his knowledge that the previous marriage of the complainant was subsisting when she got married with accused Shailesh Harshad Rai Jani. It was correct that complainant had not disclosed to him FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 21 of 39 regarding her previous marriage during investigation. He did not know if witness Sukhvinder had filed a case against the complainant regarding theft by her of Rs.50,000/ at Ahmedabad. It was correct that document mark X1 does not reflect the name of complainant as Saroj Ben. It was correct that in document mark X1, name of the accused No.1 was not mentioned and the name of husband of Sweety Yadav was also not mentioned. He did not inquire as to why the complainant resided in guest house at Somnath, however, the owner of Shivam guest house was the family of accused No.1. He could not tell if the complainant had signed on document mark X1 as Saroj Ben since the same are only the initials. As per the entry on document mark X1, complainant resided in the aforesaid guest house from 27.04.2006 to 01.05.2006. It was correct that in document mark X1, the person Sweety Yadav is shown to be "in service". He did not know in which service was complainant employed and what was her salary at that time. Complainant had never handed over to him any list of dowry articles given in her marriage. It was correct that complainant had never handed over to him the photographs of her marriage with accused No.1. He further deposed that upon asking the complainant, she had informed him that all her documents were taken away by accused No.1. It was correct that complainant had not handed over to him any separate list of articles stolen by accused No.1 from her premises, though she had mentioned the same in her complaint.
FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 22 of 39 He did not know if the complainant was the worker of President with Lok Jan Shakti party, Ahmedabad. Complainant did not inform him regarding the same. He did not get the complainant medically examined after receiving the complaint. Accused persons were arrested when they were served notice to join investigation at Ahmedabad. He had never collected any affidavits from any of the witnesses during his investigation. It was wrong to suggest that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It was wrong to suggest that he did not verify regarding the marriage of the complainant and the accused No.1. It was wrong to suggest that he did not verify if the complainant had solemnised the marriage with accused No.1 by performing Saptpadi. It was wrong to suggest that the accused persons have been wrongly arrested in the present matter at the behest of the complainant.
9. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused persons. Accused persons denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
10. Accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.
FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 23 of 39
11. Final arguments were heard on both sides.
12. It has been argued by Ld. LAC Ms. Anurag Rita for complainant that in the present matter accused No.1 got married with the complainant on 02.05.2006 and thereafter lived with her at her house situated at Ahmedabad and thereafter took her to the matrimonial home at Kodinar, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the accused Shailesh Harshadrai Jani came back with the complainant to Ahmedabad and ill treated her. Further, he had stolen all the personal articles of the complainant and used to demand cash amount of Rs.2 lakhs and gold jewellery from her. Accused No.1 deserted the complainant in October, 2006 on the pretext of meeting his parents. However, never returned to the complainant and took away complainant's I Card, educational certificates, passport, three mobile phones, gold jewellery and evidence of marriage without the knowledge of complainant and the same with an intention to humiliate and harass the complainant. It is further argued that the contention raised by the accused that he never got married to the complainant is devoid of merit since it was the accused No.1 himself who had filed a petition u/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act (Restitution of Conjugal rights) against the complainant and had also requested the concerned court wherein the aforesaid application was pending to issue search warrants and the same itself shows that both the parties had got FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 24 of 39 married to each other. It has also been argued that the complainant could not file her documents pertaining to her marriage since it was not in her possession and the accused No.1 had stolen them from the custody of the complainant. It was therefore, argued that the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged as they had treated the complainant with extreme cruelty and harassed her by demanding dowry and for torturing the complainant to name the house owned by her to the name of the accused persons.
13. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of accused persons that the marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant did not take place. Further, the alleged marriage by the complainant has not been proved by her as the onus of proof of the same was on her, since it had been denied by the accused No.1 from the inception of the matter. It has been argued that the application u/s 9 HMA filed before Principal Civil Judge, Verawar, Gujarat was filed by the respondent upon the misguidance of the advocate of the accused No.1. It is also argued that the marriage of the complainant with her previous husband is still subsisting as the complainant failed to file any document to show that she was legally divorced with her previous husband. Since the previous marriage had not been dissolved as per the procedure established by law, therefore, the alleged marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 is null and void. Further, it has FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 25 of 39 been admitted by the complainant that she allegedly continued to reside in the house of her first husband with the accused No.1, despite the fact that her marriage had come to an end with her first husband. It has also been argued that the complainant has not examined any witness who had attended her alleged marriage with the accused No.1 and further the same was never registered. Complainant has not filed any decree of divorce with her first husband. It has been argued that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the complainant has failed to substantiate her allegations with any cogent evidence like photographs of marriage, saptpadi, marriage card etc. It has also been argued that the complainant never lived with the accused persons in the matrimonial house situated at Kodinar and it is admitted fact that she visited Kodinar and stayed there in a guest house allegedly in the name of the family of accused No.1. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.
14. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
Observations qua offence u/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC :
(i) The case of the prosecution rests on the assertion that during almost three months of the marriage between the complainant and FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 26 of 39 accused No.1, complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of failure by her to meet unlawful demands of dowry raised by the accused persons. It is disputed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.05.2006 by the accused No.1 and further by the accused persons that after the alleged marriage, she remained in her matrimonial house and that the accused persons committed any offence or cruelty upon her. Accused persons have denied these allegations and raised manifold defences.
(ii) It is the foremost defence of the accused that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegations of cruelty of any nature upon the complainant by the accused. As per complaint Ex.PW1/A dated 04.02.2007 and its English translation Ex.PW1/A1 parties got married on 02.05.2006 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. However, the complainant did not place on record any document to substantiate her initial averment of her marriage with accused No.1. Complainant failed to place on record any document pertaining to the solemnisation of marriage, marriage card, marriage photographs etc. Further, the complainant did not place on record any list of dowry articles allegedly given by her family or parents at the time of marriage. She did not place on record any document to substantiate her claim of making payment of Rs.2 lakhs to the family of accused No.1 upon raising any such demand. The complainant did not examine a single FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 27 of 39 witness or the priest in whose presence the marriage was solemnised.
Therefore, the averment on behalf of accused No.1 that he did not get married to the complainant cannot be ignored. It is admitted by the complainant during her crossexamination that she had two children from her previous marriage aged 32 years and 30 years and that she had obtained divorce from her previous husband on a stamp paper before the Registrar and had taken a decree of divorce but she did not remember the date of decree of divorce. She further admitted that she had not placed on record any paper of her divorce from her previous husband on record. She further admitted that though the marriage was attended by her family members, none of them had in their possession any photograph of the marriage being solemnised. She also admitted that she did not obtain any marriage certificate from the Registrar of marriages after her marriage with accused No.1. She also admitted that she continued to reside in the house of Ahmedabad even after her divorce with her previous husband, alongwith accused No.1. In view of the same, it is difficult to believe that the complainant got married to accused No.1 as the complainant has failed to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence.
(iii) Be that as it may, even if we assume the averment of the complainant to be correct that she got married to accused No.1 on 02.05.2006, the allegations in the aforesaid complaint have not been FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 28 of 39 reiterated in the testimony of complainant as PW1. PW1 during her crossexamination had admitted that she was residing in the house of her previous husband due to mutual understanding even after her marriage with accused No.1. She also admitted that she had not placed on record any document, receipt or bill to show the expenditure of her marriage. She further stated that the same was not placed on record since all her documents were taken away by the accused No.1. Though the complainant admits that she had procured the duplicate copies of all her educational certificates and documents, she did not made an endeavour to provide any document, bank account statement, ITR return to substantiate her claim of giving Rs.2 lakhs to the accused persons. The complainant has admitted that she was well qualified and was also the President of a local party and used to participate in Dharna Pradarshans and was working as a social worker to help women in obtaining documents from Government departments, but she did not deem it appropriate to obtain any document pertaining to her divorce with her previous husband or any document pertaining to her marriage with accused No.1. She also admitted during her crossexamination that she had not placed on record any bank account statement of herself or her father to substantiate her claim of payment of Rs.2 lakhs or Rs.50,000/ to accused No.1 or her credit card statement pertaining to Citi Bank. It is further observed that though the complainant had not placed on record FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 29 of 39 any of her photographs of marriage, she did not place on record any photograph of herself with accused No.1 even subsequent to marriage.
(iv) Apart from the complainant, her sister PW2 Shudaben had been examined by the prosecution. However, if we carefully perused the testimony of PW2, she has not averred that she had attended the marriage of complainant and her testimony is of hearsay nature as she had admitted during her crossexamination that all the incidents were narrated to her by the complainant and she was not present when the alleged incidents of beatings with the complainant took place.
(v) Therefore, PW2 being sister of the complainant have admitted during her crossexamination that she did not herself witnessed any such incident of cruelty upon the complainant in her presence.
(vi) It has been stated by the complainant in Ex. PW1/A though not reiterated by her as PW1, that the accused persons that is the family of accused No.1 had demanded from the complainant that she should name her property in the name of accused No.1, however, the complainant does not mention any date, time or place on which such demand was raised and the day, date or time or the people in the presence of whom complainant was given severe beatings upon her refusal to fulfill the demand. Further the complainant did not place on record any complaint of any of the alleged incidents therefore, the FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 30 of 39 allegations pertaining to the aforesaid incident are false and cannot be relied upon. She has further admitted of not making any complaint before any authority apart from her complaint before CAW cell on 04.02.2007. Credibility of such an allegation is also dubious for the reason that there is not even any averment made by the complainant against the accused persons of having committed cruelty for demand of dowry which could lead the complainant to commit suicide.
(vii) It has been asserted by the complainant in Ex. PW1/A that "after few days of her marriage" accused and his family members started demanding cash. To the contrary as PW1, complainant vaguely stated that accused demanded money and property from her. There is no specification of the amount of cash demanded by the accused or his family members after few days of marriage or even the amount paid by the complainant to the accused in fulfillment of any of their demands. The allegation of demand are unspecified and also obscure. As such, the allegations of demand of dowry by the accused persons lack credence.
(viii) Further as per complaint Ex.PW1/A there is no specification of the manner in which the complainant was mentally or physically harassed by the accused or his family. The complaint as well as testimony of PW1 is silent on the specific date, month, year, event or occasion of any beating given to the complainant by the accused or the FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 31 of 39 manner of such beating i.e. slapping, kicking etc. Admittedly, the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding any such alleged beating or harassment prior to the present complainant and are, therefore ambiguous and vague.
(ix) It has also been alleged by PW1 that the behavior of accused was callous and indifferent to her since he would often leave the complainant to visit his parents. However it has not been elaborately clarified as to how did PW1 infer the behavior of accused to be callous or found him to be indifferent and has only stated that accused used to remain away and did not give any financial assistance or maintenance to her.
(x) Further, there is neither any averment nor any piece of evidence in the form of a medical report or otherwise, to draw a logical inference of such a threat to be of a nature likely to have driven the complainant to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life limp or health. In absence of any assertion to this effect, it cannot be assumed that a threat or alleged callous or indifferent behavior of the accused was with a view to coercing her to meet any demand for property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand. Reliance is placed upon decision in Sanjeev Kumar FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 32 of 39 Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 264553/2005 decided on 12.10.2007 wherein following observation was made : ".....Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Explanation (b) to Section 498A provides that cruelty means 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.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the Section...."
(xi) Similar view was adopted in the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that it is not FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 33 of 39 every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 observed that offence U/s 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. Further, while interpreting the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section498A IPC.
(xii) It has also come in evidence, during cross examination of PW1, that the complainant was in constant touch with her family members. However, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the story of the complainant and out of three witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW2 is a only hearsay and interested witnesses. In such an eventuality, veracity of allegations of cruelty appear to be in doubt. Further, Ex.PW1/A does not reveal anything of the sort of marriage to have been ostentatiously displayed.
FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 34 of 39
(xiii) Even the allegations that the accused used to gave beatings to the complainant have not been corroborated by any reliable piece of evidence. There are discrepant statements regarding the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant are discrepant and devoid of specific details and as such does not inspire confidence of the court. Also, there is no evidence such as a medical report, photograph or otherwise to prove any physical injury to the complainant which she would have received had she been assaulted.
(xiv) Further, during cross examination PW1 has stated that her father had given Rs.2 lakhs to the accused persons in view of their demand however, has not proved the same by any cogent evidence. Further, again, this averment is not corroborated by any independent witness who could corroborate that such payment was made and the complainant has not placed on record any documentary proof of such handing over of cash to the accused or even the exact date, month, year or occasion of such handing over of money. As such there is no convincing evidence on record to believe the allegations of the prosecution regarding commission of offence u/s 498A IPC against accused persons.
FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 35 of 39 Observation qua offence U/s 406/420/34 IPC
15. As regards allegations pertaining to criminal breach of trust committed by accused persons, it has been alleged in Ex.PW1/A that the complainant also received stridhan from her parents. However, there is no specification of the exact articles gifted to her by her parents or any receipt or bill of the gold articles alleged to have been taken away by the accused or his family. Even the complainant failed to place on record the list of dowry articles allegedly in possession of the accused persons. The complainant has not even averred that a list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage.
16. This view is supported by the decision Pehlad Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana II (1992) DMC 259, wherein it was held that a sweeping statement was made by the complainant that her stridhan was entrusted to the family of the husband. Holding that there was no specific allegation of entrustment against some of the family members, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the complaint and the consequential proceedings against the said family members and observed as under: ".....From these we find that while there are specific allegations about the entrustment of certain articles to the husbandPehlad and mother inlaw, the allegations with regard to the entrustment to the other petitioners are general, FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 36 of 39 vague and not specific. Though certain articles are enumerated, a sweeping statement has been made by the complainant that these articles have been entrusted to the other relations of her husband, namely fatherinlaw, her brother - inlaw and wife of one of the brothersinlaw. The complainant has not specifically mentioned as to which item of dowry was entrusted to which of these other petitioners. Therefore, on such vague and general allegations it cannot be stated that the complainant has made out a prima facie case against any of the other petitioners than her husband and motherinlaw under Section 406, IPC....."
Ms. Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr. 92 (2001) DLT 179, also lends support to the same view, wherein court observing that there was no allegation of entrustment in the complaint, quashed the FIR against the married sisterinlaw (nanad) of the complainant under section 498A and 406 IPC and opined: " .....To constitute the offence under Section 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that the 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 accused refused to return back the articles when the same were FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 37 of 39 demanded by the complainant. Perusal of the allegations appearing against the petitioner do not show that the articles of stridhan were even entrusted to her. In the absence of the allegation of entrustment, question of misappropriation or conversion to her use does not arise. Thus the most vital ingredient to constitute the offence U/s 406 IPC is missing. In view of the above, no case U/s 406 ICP is spelt out against the petitioner...."
As such the allegations of criminal breach of trust u/s. 406 IPC are not proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Further, the complainant has alleged that she was cheated by the accused persons however, none of the ingredients of the offence u/s 420 IPC that the accused persons had with fraudulent or dishonest intention induced the complainant to deliver any property or she was induced to do anything which the complainant would not do or omit if she was not so deceived and there was any fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of accused persons. Therefore, in my considered view, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against the accused persons.
18. Accused persons have also been charged for the offences punishable u/s 3 and 7 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides penalty for giving or taking dowry and section FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 38 of 39 7 provides that the offences thus committed shall be cognizable in nature. Section 3 prohibits giving or taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry and if the bride's father had paid the dowry after the commencement of this act or the opposite party or any of the family members of the groom's side has taken the dowry, they fall under the purview of the aforesaid offence. However, in the present matter, the complainant has failed to aver if any such act of giving or taking of dowry or exchange of any dowry articles had taken place between the complainant and the accused persons. Therefore, in my considered view that there is no offence made out against the accused persons under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
19. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that prosecution has failed to prove offence U/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC and section 3 and 7 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Accordingly, all accused persons stand acquitted for all the offences.
Announced in Open Court Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 26.10.2018 Metropolitan Magistrate
Mahila Court/SED/Saket/New Delhi.
Digitally signed
by SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date: 2018.10.27
16:50:14 +0530
FIR No. 120/2007, PS Mirzapur, Ahmedabad; CC No. 616833/2016 State Vs. Sailesh Harshadrai Jani & Ors. 39 of 39