Delhi District Court
State vs . Yashpal &Ors. on 6 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Yashpal &ors.
FIR NO: 37/01
P. S. J.P. Kalan
ID No. 02405R0744642009
Date of institution of case :06.09.2001
Date on which case reserved for judgment :19.12.2013
Date of judgment :06.01.2014
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Vimal Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 15.02.1997 onwards
b) Offence complained of : U/S 498-A/406/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Mukesh d/o Sh.
Chander Singh r/o Village
Samaspur, New Delhi.
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : (i) Yashpal
local & permanent residence s/o Rajbir Singh
(ii)Rajbir Singh
s/o Kehri
Both resident of village
Kawali, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana.
e) Plea of accused : Accused are falsely
implicated.
f) Final order : Acquitted.
FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 1/22
St vs. Yashpal & ors.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Yashpal(husband of complainant) and Rajbir(Father-in-law of complainant) have been charged for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC on the ground that from the date of marriage of accused Yashpal on 15.02.1997 with complainant Smt. Mukesh ,they subjected the complainant Smt. Mukesh to cruelty in-connection-with demand of dowry and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of stridhan articles of complainant.
2. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses on its behalf. Pw1 is Duty Officer/HC Savita who exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. Pw1/A(original seen and returned).
3. Pw2 is Const. Mukesh Kumar who had joined investigation with IO/SI Rakesh Kumar Sangwan on 10.06.2001 and accused Yashpal and Rajbir were arrested in his presence vide memos Ex. Pw2/A and B and personal search of both the accused persons was conducted in his presence vide memos Ex. Pw2/C and D. Pw2 correctly identified his signatures on the memos and confession statement of accused persons which were exhibited as Ex. Pw2/E and F. He correctly identified accused persons in court.
4. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw2 stated that statement of 4-5 public persons was recorded by IO at FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 2/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
the time of arrest. He stated that complainant was not present alongwith them at the time of arrest and accused persons were arrested from their village in Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
5. Pw3 is complainant Smt. Mukesh who stated that she got married with accused Yashpal on 15.02.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs and was taken to her matrimonial house at village Kawali, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana and sufficient dowry articles were given in her marriage by her parents and relatives. In further examination-in- chief dated 23.08.2008, she stated that after 2-3 months of marriage, the attitude of her husband and father-in-law became worse towards her and they started torturing her and beating her for bringing insufficient dowry and they also threatened to kill her by burning her. She stated that she gave birth to a female child in October 1997 but she was expired on the same day.
6. Pw3 further stated that on 09.06.1997, she was in her matrimonial house and her husband and father-in-law physically assaulted her and asked her to leave the house but she did not leave. In her further examination-in-chief on same day i.e. on 23.08.20008, she stated that on 15.06.1997, she was again given beatings by accused persons. She further alleged that on 22.06.1997, her brother came to meet her and she told all the facts to her brother and her brother talked to her husband and FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 3/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
father-in-law but as soon as he went away, accused persons again beat her badly with kicks, fists and dandas due to which she had to remain on cot for 4-5 days.
7. Pw3 further stated that on 10.07.1997, accused persons left her at parental house and while she was residing there, a Panchayat was held on 06.01.1998 at her parental house and her husband and father-in-law were present there and they apologized before Panchayat and admitted their guilt and gave assurance that they will keep Pw3 properly, so she was sent to her matrimonial house by her parents again and she was kept well for about one month. Pw3 further alleged that after one month, accused persons started taunting her and started beating her. She stated that on 30.08.1998 when she was cutting the crops in the field, her husband and father-in-law physically assaulted her with dandas. Pw3 alleged that on 25.05.1998, her brother Sunil came to meet her and accused persons quarreled with her brother and told him to go away from the house. She further stated that in July 1998, when her brother came to meet her, her husband and father-in-law again quarreled with him and beat him up.
8. In her further examination-in-chief dated 26.07.2010, Pw3 exhibited the original letters written by her to her parents as Ex. Pw3/A to Ex. Pw3/C. She stated that on 03.08.1998, her husband and father-in-law Rajbir Singh gave beatings to her and her FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 4/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
brother and told them to go out of the house or else they would kill them, so her brother brought her back to parental house. Pw3 stated that thereafter her husband filed a case for divorce in Sonipat court but due to intervention of the respectable persons of the society, he withdrew the case and took her back to matrimonial house but again after one month, they started harassing her and on 20.03.2000, they gave her beatings and electric shock and again after one month, both the accused persons gave beatings to her due to which she remained on bed for about 6 days. She stated that she told her parents about this cruelty and harassment by way of letters. She further alleged that on 15.08.2000, her brother came to her matrimonial house and her husband and father-in-law again gave him beatings and also broke his scooter.
9. Pw3 further alleged that on 05.09.2000, her husband and father-in-law kept the gas open and tried to kill her when she was working in kitchen but she was saved because two women from neighbourhood came to her house. She alleged that accused persons again demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her but she had already brought Rs. 1.5 lac from her father till August 2000 and despite this fact they were demanding Rs. One lac more from her. She stated that she could not tolerate the behaviour of accused persons any more so she left her matrimonial house in three wearing clothes on 06.09.2000 and she also reported about this FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 5/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
fact to P.S. J.P. Kalan. She exhibited the said report as Ex. Pw3/E. Pw3 has stated that all her stridhan articles are lying in custody of her in-laws which have not been returned despite her demand, so she filed complaint before CAW Cell, Nanakpura which is Ex. Pw3/F. She exhibited the list of dowry articles as Ex. Pw3/G. Both the accused persons were correctly identified by Pw3 in the court. Her cross-examination was deferred on 26.07.2010 but the counsel for accused persons failed to appear for cross- examination of Pw3 due to which the opportunity of cross- examination was treated as nil on 10.01.2011.
10. Pw4 is Sh. Sunil Singh i.e. brother of complainant Mukesh.
He stated in his examination-in-chief dated 09.08.2011 that his sister was married to Yashpal on 15.02.1997 but after 2-3 months of marriage, accused persons started harassing his sister and used to demand scooter and money from her and used to beat her for the same. He stated that he used to visit the matrimonial house of his sister and his sister used to tell him about the behaviour of accused persons and the accused persons also used to quarrel with him . He stated that on 06.09.2000 his sister was thrown out of matrimonial house and she did not bring anything with her and the entire jewelery and dowry articles are still lying with the accused persons. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court. His cross-examination was deferred at the request of FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 6/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
Ld. Defence counsel but the counsel failed to appear for cross- examination of Pw4 due to which the opportunity of cross- examination of Pw4 was treated as nil on 24.04.2012.
11. Pw5 is IO/SI Rakesh Sangwan who stated that on 23.03.2011 he was posted at P.S. J.P. Kalan as Sub Inspector and investigation of the case was assigned to him and one Sajjanpal i.e. relative of the accused persons brought stridhan articles to the police station which were taken in police possession vide memo Ex. Pw5/A and the articles were deposited in malkhana vide serial no. 533/2001, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. Pw5/B. The MHC(M) brought the case property in court in a tempo and Ld. Defence counsel did not dispute the identity of the articles. IO further stated that he collected inquiry report of CAW Cell vide document already Ex. Pw3/A and arrested the accused persons and conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements vide memos already Ex. Pw2/A to F. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
12. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw5 stated that he had not received any medical prescriptions or medical record of injuries suffered by complainant. He stated that he does not remember whether any allegations of beating happened at Delhi. He admitted that he had not recorded statement of neighbours of accused at his native village in Sonipat. He further FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 7/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
stated that he had not taken any bill or receipt of the articles from complainant and complainant had not given him any bills or receipts and he also admitted that he had not taken any photographs from complainant to show that any articles were delivered to accused persons at the time of marriage. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the case properly.
13. Pw6 is Sh. Ram Niwas, grandfather of complainant Mukesh who stated that his granddaughter was married to Yashpal on 15.02.1997 and he came to know that Mukesh was ill treated at her matrimonial house due to which Panchayat was organized in January 1998 in which he was also present and Yashpal admitted his mistakes, apologized and gave assurance not to harass Mukesh in future. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that no incident of cruelty or harassment or ill- treatment of his granddaughter had occurred in his presence.
14. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused had filed an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C for recalling Pw3 and Pw4 which was allowed on 27.05.2013 subject to cost. Cost was paid to the witnesses by accused persons and Pw3 Smt. Mukesh and Pw4 Sh. Sunil were recalled and duly cross-examined and discharged.
15. In her cross-examination dated 22.06.2013, Pw3 Smt. Mukesh stated that she is 9th pass and they are four sisters and her father and brother are farmers and her father had 10 acres of FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 8/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
land in village Samaspur Khalsa, New Delhi. She admitted that she had not given any bills/receipts to the police. She stated that she has bills of fridge and gas but she has not brought it on record. She denied the suggestion that no dowry articles were given in marriage. She stated that she does not have any receipt to show that any dowry articles were ever handed to the accused persons.
16. Pw3 stated that she stayed in her matrimonial house for about one and half to two years and during this period, she visited her parental home for about 10-15 times. She stated that no incident of beatings happened in Delhi but demand of dowry was made in Delhi also by accused persons. She admitted that she had not made any complaint at Delhi prior to present complaint. Regarding all the dates of beatings mentioned by complainant in her examination-in-chief, she admitted that she had not made any complaint to the police in respect of any incident of beating.
17. Pw3 stated that on 30.08.1998, she was cutting crops of wheat when she was beaten up by accused persons. She denied the suggestion that the letters mark A to D and Ex. Pw3/A to C written and posted by her to her parents from matrimonial house were forged and fabricated. She stated that divorce case was withdrawn by Yashpal in the year 1999. She stated that she had not made any complaint to the police regarding beatings and electric shock on 20.03.2000 or thereafter. She also stated that on FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 9/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
15.08.2000, she had not made any complaint to the police regarding breaking of scooter of her brother by the accused persons. She further stated that she cannot tell the names of women who saved her on 05.09.2000.
18. Pw3 stated that she cannot tell the date, month and year when the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by accused persons from her. She voluntarily stated that till 06.09.2000, she had given Rs. 1.5 lac to the accused persons and they were further demanding Rs. One lac. She stated that the amount of Rs. 1.5 lac was not given in presence of any person. She stated that the amount was taken from her father but she does not know from where her father had arranged the money. She denied the suggestion that no such payment had been made.
19. Pw3 admitted that she had not made any complaint to P.S. Kharkhoda while leaving her matrimonial house. She stated that her husband is a farmer and earning about Rs. 4.5 lac per month and her father-in-law is a government employee in electricity department. She admitted that she had filed complaint case of bigamy at Sonipat against her husband and it was dismissed on merits. She admitted that she had not got herself medically examined whenever she was beaten. She denied the suggestion that she was never beaten up by accused persons due to which she did not get herself medically examined. She denied the FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 10/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
suggestion that no harassment or dowry demand or beating was ever caused by accused persons to her.
20. Pw4 Sh. Sunil Singh in his cross-examination dated 22.06.2013 stated that he had not made any complaint to the police regarding quarrel by accused persons with him. He admitted that he had not given any bills or receipts to the police regarding stridhan articles. He stated that he had not given any money to his sister but his father had given money to his sister for accused persons but he cannot tell the date, month and year when the money was given. He stated that he had not made any complaint to Panchayat of the village of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that no dowry demand was raised by accused persons from his sister.
21. Pw7 is Sh. Deep Chand, Pradhan of village Samaspur Khalsa who stated that he was present in Panchayat of 06.01.1998 which was held at village Samaspur Khalsa and compromise talks took place between complainant and accused persons and complainant was sent to her matrimonial house. He stated that accused persons might have threatened complainant or said something to her but he does not know the details. He stated that nothing was recorded in writing in the Panchayat but accused persons ensured that they will not quarrel with the complainant in future. He stated that he does not know what happened thereafter.
FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 11/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that no such Panchayat was held in village Samaspur Khalsa.
23. Pw8 is Sh. Chander Singh who is father of the complainant.
He stated that his daughter was married to Yashpal 15-16 years back and sufficient dowry articles were given in marriage but his daughter used to tell him that she was being harassed for dowry. He stated that he had given around Rs. 1.5 lacs on different occasions to her daughter since the money was being demanded by accused Yashpal and his father . He stated that his daughter used to narrate the incidents of beatings by her husband and in- laws to him. He stated that when the situation became unbearable, his daughter took shelter of law and during investigation, he was called to police station to identify the articles which were in damaged condition, hence they did not take the articles. He identified his thumb impression upon seizure memo of the articles Ex. Pw5/A at point X. He correctly identified accused persons in the court.
24. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw8 stated that he cannot tell whether police had got his thumb impression on blank paper or something was written on it. He stated that he had not told the police that he gave Rs. 1.5 lac to his daughter for accused persons. He stated that he cannot tell the date, month FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 12/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
and year when he had given money to his daughter for the accused persons. He admitted that he had not got his daughter medically examined at Kharkhoda or at Delhi. He admitted that he had not given any bills or receipts of the articles to the police during investigation.
25. Pw9 is Sh. Sajjanpal Singh who had brought the articles from the matrimonial house of the complainant to police station which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. Pw5/A. He identified his signature at point Y on Ex. Pw5/A and stated that he knows accused Yashpal and Rajbir and their family since they are co- villagers and he alongwith another person Balwan had deposited the articles of complainant Mukesh in police station J.P. Kalan.
26. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that about 30 persons had attended the marriage of accused Yashpal from bridegroom side and he had also attended the marriage and no articles were given to the accused persons at the time of marriage by complainant side in his presence. He further stated that he had not seen or heard accused persons ever beating the complainant on account of dowry. He further stated that he had never seen Mukesh working in agricultural land of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he had not delivered the articles at P.S. J.P. Kalan vide Ex. Pw5/A.
27. After closure of P.E, statement of accused persons was FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 13/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
recorded in which they stated that they are innocent but preferred not to lead Defence Evidence. Hence, final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
28. Perusal of entire evidence brought by the prosecution on record reveals that Pw3 Mukesh is the main eye witness as well as alleged victim of the incidents that happened with her. Though Pw3 has categorically stated that whenever her brother Sunil used to come to her house, he was also beaten up by accused persons but perusal of the examination-in-chief of Pw4 Sunil reveals that he has nowhere mentioned that he was beaten by accused persons. He has just stated that accused persons used to quarrel with him but he has not asserted that accused persons used to beat him . Pw3 has also alleged in her examination-in-chief that accused persons broke the scooter of her brother Sunil on 15.08.2000 but this fact has also not been alleged by Pw4 Sunil in his examination-in-chief. He has not mentioned the fact of breaking of his scooter in his examination-in-chief or in his cross-examination. Thus, the incidents alleged by Pw3 have not been duly corroborated by Pw4. Had such incidents actually occurred, Pw4 must have mentioned those incidents in his statement.
29. It is very strange to note that though the complainant remembered all the dates when accused persons used to beat her FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 14/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
but she did not remember any date, month or year when demand of any specific amount of cash was raised by accused persons and when any such amount was brought by her from her father and paid to the accused persons. In her entire examination-in-chief running into many dates and many pages, she has just stated at one point that she had already brought Rs. 1.5 lac from her father till August 2000. But specific question was asked to her in her cross-examination and she failed to recall any date, month and year when the said amount was given by her father to her to be paid to the accused persons.
30. Moreover, it is also strange that at page no.2 of her examination-in-chief dated 26.07.2010, in one line Pw3 stated that accused persons started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her but in the second line, she stated that they were demanding Rs. One lac more from her. This reflects that she is not clear whether accused persons were demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her or Rs. One lac. Moreover, in her entire examination-in-chief, though she has mentioned various dates when accused persons used to harass her or beat her but she has not mentioned even one specific date when they raised a particular demand of cash amount or dowry and beat her up for non-fulfillment of such demand. Rather she has made only a sweeping statement towards the end of her examination-in-chief that accused persons again raised demand of FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 15/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
Rs. 50,000/- though she had already brought Rs. 1.5 lac from her father till August 2000 but she has not specified whether the entire amount of Rs. 1.5 lac was paid by her at one time or in small amounts on various dates. She has failed to mention any date when any particular amount was paid to the accused persons by her.
31. Perusal of examination-in-chief of Pw8 i.e. father of complainant reveals that he has categorically stated that he had given Rs. 1.5 lac on different occasions to his daughter as the said money was being demanded by accused persons from his daughter but Pw8 has also not mentioned any specific date when he gave any particular amount to his daughter to be paid to the accused persons. It is a very vague and sweeping statement that he had given Rs. 1.5 lac on different occasions to his daughter.
32. Pw3 has admitted that she had neither made any complaint prior to the present complaint nor she had got any MLC done regarding beatings caused to her by accused persons on various dates as mentioned in her examination-in-chief. She has admitted in her cross-examination that the divorce case was withdrawn by accused Yashpal in year 1999. Perusal of complaint Ex. Pw3/A reveals that complaint was lodged for the first time by the complainant on 19.09.2000 i.e. after the withdrawal of divorce case by accused and after the compromise between the parties in FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 16/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
Panchayat. All the letters exhibited on record by the complainant, written by her to her parents are of year 2000 i.e. after the withdrawal of the divorce case and after the compromise in the Panchayat. It seems that after the settlement when complainant had joined her matrimonial house again, she wrote letters to her parents just to create evidence against the accused persons.
33. Moreover, perusal of examination-in-chief of Pw6 Sh. Ram Niwas i.e. grandfather of complainant and Pw7 i.e. Pradhan Sh. Deep Chand reveals that they had no knowledge whether complainant was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry. Pw6 has nowhere stated that his granddaughter was being ill-treated on account of dowry. Pw7 Pradhan Deep Chand has also not mentioned anywhere that the quarrel between the complainant and accused was due to the demand of dowry. If the issue of demand of dowry and harassment being caused to the complainant for non-fulfillment of the dowry was actually the bone of contention, the Pradhan of village might have been informed by the father of the complainant before organizing the Panchayat on 06.01.1998. The very fact that he had not been informed about any such thing, clearly reveals that the reason of quarrel between the complainant and accused might have been due to other reason and not due to demand of dowry.
34. Section 498-A IPC is being reproduced herein for ready FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 17/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
reference:-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means---
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
35. As per definition of section 498-A IPC, two types of cruelty can be covered under the definition of offence u/s 498-A IPC: (i) cruelty or harassment in-connection-with demand of dowry (ii) cruelty must be of such a nature which is likely to may compel the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury/danger to her life or limb.
36. But in the present case, the cruelty is not of such extreme nature which might have compelled the complainant to commit suicide. Moreover, complainant has not been able to prove categorically and specifically what amounts were demanded by the FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 18/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
accused persons on which date and on which date she brought any specific amount for fulfillment of demands of accused persons.
37. In a case titled as Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs U.O.I & Ors.
2005(2) JCC 1193 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that to bring the case within definition of cruelty in the explanation u/s 498-A IPC, the consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
38. In another case titled as Appasaheb & ors. Vs. State of Maharastra 1 (2007), DMC 143, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties must be established to bring the case within definition of dowry.
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, I(1998) CCR 265(SC) has held that the Courts must adopt that construction which "suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy". In this case, it was held that while bringing the provision of Section 498-A IPC on the Statute book, the Legislature did not define the word "cruelty". It has been used in relation to human conduct and FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 19/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
human behaviour. Reading of Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC makes it clear that it deals with cruelty arising out of willful conduct to harm the woman and that willful conduct has to be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health. On the other hand, Explanation (b) deals with cruelty related to demand of property or valuable security. Demand is a pre-condition to attract the provision of Explanation (b) of Section 498-A IPC.
40. In case titled as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990(2) RCR page 18 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands.
41. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana & anr. 1991(2) RCR 53 wherein it was held that if beatings are given to bride by husband and his relations due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry, offence under section 498-A IPC is not made out.
42. Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case reported as Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. II(2000) CCR 156(SC) has held that proximate or live link must be shown to exist between the FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 20/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand to cover the case u/s 498-A IPC
43. In the present case also, the complainant and public witnesses have failed to show any live link between harassment and demand of dowry. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against all accused persons. Hence, the accused Yashpal and Rajbir are given benefit of doubt and acquitted from offence u/s 498-A r/w section 34 IPC.
44. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, PW3 has not exhibited any bills/receipts of stridhan articles to show that stridhan articles were given to the complainant at the time of marriage. Moreover, she has nowhere mentioned in her examination-in-chief that the stridhan articles were ever entrusted to accused persons and were not returned by them on specific demand raised by complainant. To prove offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s 406 IPC, the entrustment, demand and refusal to return the property on demand, are the conditions sine-qua-non to be proved by the prosecution but in the present case, prosecution has failed to prove any of the said pre-requisites. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case for offence punishable u/s 406 IPC against accused persons. Hence, accused Yashpal and Rajbir are acquitted from the offence u/s 406 IPC also. Personal bond and surety bond of accused persons stand discharged.
FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 21/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.
Original documents if any be released to the authorised persons on proper receipt and endorsement, if any, be cancelled. File be consigned to record room .
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 06th January, 2014. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court Dwarka Courts: New Delhi FIR no. :37/01 PS: J.P. Kalan Page no. 22/22 St vs. Yashpal & ors.