Delhi District Court
Fir No.617/96 State vs . Rajesh Kumar Etc. Ps: Janak Puri on 30 August, 2014
FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri
IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT)03,WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc.
FIR No : 617/96
P.S. : Janak Puri
U/s 498A/406 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0068981997
2. Date of complaint : 18.07.1996
3. Name of complainant : Smt. Anita
4. Name, parentage & addresses
of the accused persons : Accused no.1 Rajesh
Kumar S/o Sh. Prem
Singh R/o Gali No.1,
Badli Road, Ram Kala
Colony, Bahadurgarh,
Haryana.
Accused no.2 Premo
Devi W/o Sh. Prem
Singh, R/o Gali No.1,
Badli Road, Ram Kala
Colony, Bahadurgarh,
Haryana.
Accused no.3 Bijender
Kumar S/o Sh. Mangey
Ram R/o H. No. 1305,
Deviwali Gali, Panna
Paposhia, Narela,
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 1
FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri
Delhi110040.
5. Offence complaint of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Accused no.1 Rajesh
Kumar & accused no.2
Premo Devi are convicted
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
and
Accused no.3 Bijender
Kumar is acquitted.
8. Date of order : 29.08.2014
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
1. Accused have been forwarded by the SHO of PS Janak Puri to face trial U/s 498A/406 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that complaint was made by the complainant PW Anita that during the period May 1990 to 28.03.1996 all the three accused persons namely accused Rajesh Kumar, his mother accused Premo Devi and his cousin brother Bijender Kumar in furtherance of their common intention subjected complainant to cruelty in order to compel her to meet their unlawful demand for dowry and accused Rajesh Kumar and accused Premo Devi dishonestly misappropriated the istridhan articles of the complainant which was entrusted to them jointly and failed to return State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 2 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri the same when demanded by the complainant. On this complaint, FIR was registered, accused were arrested and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons free of cost U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Finding a prima facie case against all the three accused persons U/s 498A/34 IPC, all the three accused persons are charged for offence U/s 498A/34 IPC and finding a prima facie case against accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar & accused no.2 Premo Devi U/s 406/34 IPC, both the accused persons namely accused no.1 Rajesh Kumar & accused no.2 Premo Devi are charged for offence U/s 406/34 IPC, to which they all have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution to prove its case examined following seven witnesses namely: PW1Complainant Anita, PW2 WSI Suman, PW3 Smt. Rajwanti, PW4 Ct. Dharambir, PW5 ASI Sishupal, PW6 Inspector T.R. Punia and PW7 SI Ram Kumar.
6. Statements of all the three accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately wherein all the three accused persons State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 3 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri namely accused Rajesh Kumar, accused Premo Devi and accused Bijender Kumar denied the allegations levelled against them and accused Rajesh Kumar & accused Premo Devi stated that the present case has been filed by the complainant to put pressure on them to get the ownership of the house transferred in her name in which she was living with accused Rajesh Kumar & accused Premo Devi and the elder sister of the complainant namely Sunita is married in the same house to the elder brother of accused Rajesh and they are living happily till date and no question of demand for dowry arose as complainant belongs to a poor family and accused Bijender stated that his house is at the distance of 40 Kilometers from the house of accused Rajesh and he has been falsely named in this case and he is not even related to the parties even remotely and all the three accused persons chose to lead defence evidence.
7. Accused in their defence examined DW1 Smt. Krishna and DW2 Naresh Kumar and thereafter, all the three accused persons closed their defence evidence vide their separate statements recorded.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence Counsel and gone through the State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 4 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri case file carefully and thoroughly.
9. Prosecution to prove its case also examined formal witness PW5 ASI Sishupal and he stated that on 18.07.1996, at about 09:20 p.m., on receiving the complaint through Dak for registration of FIR, he recorded the present FIR and the copy of same is Ex.PW5/A.
10. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined the most crucial witness i.e. PW1 Anitacomplainant cum eye witness cum victim and she stated that she was married on 08.05.88 with accused Rajesh as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi and at the time of her marriage, her parents gave her articles (household) whatever is given to the girls in the marriages, in the shape of double bed, almirah, dressing table, cooler, sewing machine, utensils, clothes and other big articles and a list of which is Ex.PW1/A. She further stated that after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at the village Lakhupur, Bawana and from there her in laws shifted to Ram Kalan Colony, Jhajjar Road, Bahadur Garh, District Rohtak, Haryana, where her parents in law, four brothers in law were residing besides her husband. She further stated that initially for two years the behaviour of accused persons was normal towards her and State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 5 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri thereafter, they started demanding money from her amounting to Rs.10,000/ and she was sent to her parents house and her parents arranged Rs.10,000/ on the demand of accused persons particularly of her mother in law and her husband. She further stated that she was kept well for few days thereafter, she was again sent to her parents house to bring Rs.15,000/ and this demand of accused persons was also fulfilled by her parents and she gave birth to a female child and after her birth, her husband demanded a scooter and he left her at her parents home till the demand of scooter is not fulfilled and her mother in law was also involved in all these activities and she stayed with her parents for some time and the demand of accused persons regarding the scooter was also met by her parents. She further stated that in such an atmosphere, two children were born to her and the demand of Rs.50,000/ was raised by her mother in law, her husband, maternal aunt of her husband and her son Raju and when she refused to fulfill their demands, they all gave her beatings and all the four accused persons dragged her to the house of maternal aunt of her husband, namely Nirmala which is adjacent to the house of her in laws and there she was given beatings by all of them. She further stated that Raju pulled her saree and tried to outrage her modesty and he snatched her earrings, her finger ring and chain which she was wearing at that time and with great State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 6 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri difficulty, she could manage to escape herself and lodge a report at the police station and she was got medically examined by the police and her statement was recorded by the police at Bahadurgarh. She further stated that police told her that in such cases, provision of six months imprisonment is there but all the four accused persons absconded from there but thereafter, police did not take any action against the accused persons and thereafter, she was brought by her parents from her matrimonial home as she was turned out alongwith her children by the accused husband and his family members and thereafter, she lodged a complaint at Rajouri Garden CAW Cell which is Ex.PW1/B and she did not bring anything belonging to her while she was turned out from the matrimonial home and rather, the accused persons did not let her to take anything belonging to her. She further stated that police recovered some of her dowry articles from the house of accused which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C and her documents pertaining to the case of the incident occurred at Bahadurgarh i.e. Copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/D and her statement is Ex.PW1/E and her complaint to DCP Bahadurgarh is Mark X. She further stated that during investigation, police had recorded her statement and the same is Ex.PW1/F and the complaint made by her to SDM is Ex.PW1/G. She further stated that after compromise, her husband started repeating State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 7 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri same thing with her and to that effect, she made her statement before the police which is Ex.PW1/H. She further stated that her mother in law was arrested in her presence vide her personal search memo Ex.PW1/I and her complaint is correct.
11. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW3Rajwanti mother of complainant and she stated that on 08.05.1988 her daughter got married with accused Rajesh as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and on the marriage her husband spent around Rupees Two Lakhs. She further stated that after two years of the marriage, accused persons started demanding dowry and used to beat the complainant and firstly they demanded Rs.10,000/ and the relatives of accused also beat the complainant and demanded dowry. She further stated that her elder daughter also got married in the said house and she is staying properly with her husband and at that time her elder son in law i.e. damad has went outside on his job and at that time her younger daughter Anita was in her inlaw's house. She further stated that accused Rajesh, Rajesh's mother and Mama's son Raju, who is not present in the Court today and all these accused used to beat the complainant for brining more dowry and thereafter, they demanded scooter from her daughter Anita and on this demand she purchased an old scooter and gave it to the accused. She further State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 8 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri stated that thereafter, they demanded Rs.15,000/ from her daughter and she gave Rs.15,000/ to the accused persons and accused Rajesh used to give all his earnings to his mother and his maternal aunt (Mami) Nirmala who used to reside in neighbourhood and she tried to convince the accused Rajesh but he did not agreed and thereafter, accused used to beat the complainant and demanded Rs.10,000/ from her and she to save the happiness of her daughter gave Rs. 10,000/ to accused Rajesh. She further stated that they have made a complaint to Police Station Bahadurgarh regarding the beatings given to the complainant but the police did not take any action. She further stated that thereafter, accused Rajesh, accused Nirmala, accused Raju, accused Bijender demanded Rs.50,000/ from them but they told that they are not having that much amount and they did not give any money to the accused persons as her husband is a government servant but thereafter, the accused again beat the complainant and she did not remember the date when the complainant was again beaten by the accused persons, she did not made any complaint to the police. She further stated that at the police station accused Rajesh has entered into a compromise and after the compromise reached before CAW Cell, she has sent her daughter to her matrimonial house but the accused persons neither gave any expenses nor brought any articles for the complainant and State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 9 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri thereafter CAW Cell officials gave a date to them and when there also the matter could not be settled then IO Omwati told her that she should take her daughter to her own house as accused could not maintain the complainant after earning and then she brought her daughter and her children to her own house and at that time her daughter has came empty handed and thereafter accused again after making the compromise before the Panchayat took her daughter alongwith them and after 34 months, she again brought back her daughter to her house and at that time also, her daughter had not brought any articles alongwith her and she is living since then with her.
12. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW2 W/SI Suman and she stated that on 20.07.1996 she was posted at CAW Cell, West District when the present file was received by her for investigation and she examined the witness during the investigation. She further stated that on 18.09.1996, they went to the matrimonial home of the complainant at Bahaduargarh along with the complainant and arrested Premo Devi, accused present in the Court today vide memo Ex.PW1/I and no recovery was affected on that day and house search memo is Ex.PW2/A. She further stated that accused Rajesh has surrendered on 24.09.96 and his disclosure State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 10 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW2/B and he was arrested and his personal search memo was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/C and on the next day, she took the accused to Bahadurgarh, the matrimonial home, the complainant also accompanied them and at her instance the dowry articles were recovered vide memo Ex.PW1/C and thereafter, she was transferred and the file was deposited in the MHC(R).
13. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW4 Ct. Dharambir and he stated that on 18.09.1996 at the instance of the IO, accused Premo Devi w/o Sh. Prem Singh who is present in the Court was arrested and personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/I and the house search was also conducted at Ramkala Colony in the house of the accused but no dowry articles were recovered and IO recorded his statement. He further stated that on 24.09.96, he was present in the Court along with IO and on that day, accused Rajesh Kumar present in the Court has surrendered before the Hon'ble Court and he was arrested and his personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/C and the accused was medically examined in DDU Hospital and was sent to lock up. He further stated that on 25.09.96, the accused was in PC and they along with the complainant went to her matrimonial home at Ramkala Colony, State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 11 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri Jhajjar Road, Bahadurgarh and the dowry articles were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and the case property was deposited in Malkhana of Police Station Janak Puri and accused sent to judicial custody.
14. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW7 SI Ram Kumar and he stated that on 27.06.1996, investigation of the present case was handed over to him by the inquiry officer of CAW Cell and he had investigated the matter as 1st IO and during investigation, he formally arrested accused Bijender Kumar S/o Sh. Mange Ram R/o Narela, Delhi on the same day when investigation was handed over to him and after his arrest, as accused was on bail as per order of Court, so he released him after getting executed a bail bond. He further stated that he recorded statement of all relevant witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and investigation was handed over to SI T.R. Punia who is the 2nd IO in the present case and carried on investigation in the present case.
15. Prosecution to prove its case also examined PW6 IO Inspector T.R. Punia and he stated that he is the 2nd IO in the present case and investigation of this case was handed over to him by Incharge of CAW Cell, West, Tilak Nagar on 23.02.1997 and as at State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 12 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri that time when file was handed over to him, accused Bijender was already on anticipatory bail and as his formal arrest was yet to take place and as no address of the accused was mentioned except his name and relation as devar with the complainant, so he conducted inquiry to know about his address and other details however, no details could be traced by him. He further stated that on 24.04.1997, as he was transferred , so he handed over the file to reader. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be accordingly convicted.
16. Ld. APP for the State contended that DW1 Smt. Krishna examined by the accused is of no use to the accused because she is an interested witness as she being the neighbour of the accused Rajesh. Ld. APP for the State further contended that DW2 Naresh Kumar examined by the accused is also of no use to the accused because he is also an interested witness being the neighbour of accused Bijender. Ld. APP for the State further contended that during the trial, the accused persons had themselves made an offer to the complainant to transfer the documents of the property in the name of the complainant and when the complainant agreed to the same then the accused persons have no right to take the benefit of State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 13 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri their own wrong. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused persons should be accordingly convicted.
17. On the other hand, accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi have raised the only defence that complainant is from a poor family and no dowry was brought by her nor demanded by them nor they gave any beating to the complainant but the complainant wanted that they should transfer the documents of the house in which she was living with the accused Rajesh in the name of the complainant although the said house is owned by Sanjay brother of accused Rajesh and the the present case has been filed to put pressure on the accused persons and the elder sister of the complainant namely Sunita was married to elder brother Rishi Pal of accused Rajesh and question of demand for dowry does not arose as complainant belongs to poor family and she has no means to spent this much money as alleged in the dowry. Also, accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi to prove their defence have examined DW1 Smt. Krishna and she stated that she knew the complainant and her husband being neighbours and she has never seen the accused persons beating or treating the complainant with cruelty and accused Rajesh was always prepared to keep his wife Anita at the State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 14 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri matrimonial house but she always stated that the house in which they were residing in Bahadurgarh should be transferred in her name and elder sister of Anita is also married to the brother of accused Rajesh and they are living happily till date and the house in which the accused persons were living is owned by Sanjay brother of Rajesh who allowed them to live in the house in question and accused Birender never resided in Bahadurgah and he is residing at Narela.
18. Accused Bijender has raised the only defence that it is a false case and his house is situated at a distance of 40 Kilometers from the house of Rajesh and he is not even related to the parties even remotely and he was never present in the house of the parties nor any cruelty or beatings were given to the complainant and in fact he advised the complainant to live peacefully but she took it otherwise and has falsely named him and he has no concern for any dowry to be brought by the complainant and he even do not know as to why his name is mentioned in the complaint. Accused Bijender to prove his defence examined DW2 Naresh Kumar and he stated that accused Bijender resides in his neighbourhood and his village is situated at the distance of about 3536 kilometers from Bahadurgah and he went to Bahadurgarh with Bijender to settle the dispute State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 15 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri between accused Rajesh and his wife. He further stated that accused Rajesh and his wife were living happily and complainant Anita was asking accused Rajesh to transfer the ownership of house in her name and this house was owned by the brother of the accused Rajesh because of which he showed his inability to transfer and this was the only dispute that Anita left the matrimonial house to put pressure on the accused.
19. Ld. Defence counsel contended that there are no specific allegations against accused Bijender in the complaint as well as there are no allegations against accused Bijender in the testimony of PW1 Anita Complainant and this fact shows that charges against accused Bijender are not proved by the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel contended that PW1 Anita in her cross examination admitted that her elder sister was also married on the same day in the same family with the elder brother of her husband. Also PW3 Rajwanti stated that her elder daughter also got married in the same house and she is living properly with her husband. PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination also stated that the marriage of her both daughters namely Anita and Sunita was done on the same day. Ld. defence counsel contended that this shows that no cruelty was inflicted upon the complainant when the sister of the complainant State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 16 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri was living happily with her husband and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. defence counsel contended that PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination stated that she is willing to send her daughter back to her matrimonial house if the accused Rajesh transfers his entire house at Bahadurgarh in the name of her daughter Anita and she will not sent Anita to the matrimonial house in case accused Rajesh transfers only half of the share in the house. She further admitted that accused can transfer only half of the house as he is entitled to only half share. Ld. defence counsel contended that this proves the defence taken by the accused and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. Defence counsel further contended that PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination stated that the scooter was taken by them from their relative however the same was not transferred in the name of the accused. Ld. defence counsel contended that this proves the defence taken by the accused that complainant is a poor person and no dowry could be demanded from them and even the scooter was not given to the accused Rajesh in dowry and therefore, all these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and therefore, the accused persons should be accordingly acquitted.
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 17 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri
20. Keeping in view the defence raised by the accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi that when the sister of complainant namely Sunita who has got married with the brother of the accused Rajesh on the same day and when the sister of the complainant is living happily with her husband then no question of any demand for dowry could arose upon the accused persons because when the accused persons have not demanded dowry from the sister of the complainant then how could they demand the dowry from the complainant. The said defence taken by the accused is of no use to the accused because PW1 Anita in her cross examination has voluntarily stated that her sister is not happy in her matrimonial house due to the torture of accused persons. Further, PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination admitted that at present although Sunita is staying peacefully but the istridhan of Sunita was also wrongfully retained and Sunita was thrown out of her matrimonial house but her husband did not left her and Sunita and her husband remained in her house for about six months. So, this shows the defence taken by the accused is not proved as the accused have also inflicted cruelty upon Sunita the sister of the complainant in her matrimonial house. Further, U/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act as complainant was staying in her matrimonial house and the condition in which she was treated could only be stated by her because the said fact was within the State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 18 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri special knowledge of the complainant.
21. Keeping in view the defence taken by the accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi that the present case has been filed by the complainant only to put pressure upon the accused so that the accused Rajesh transfers his entire house at Bahadurgarh in the name of complainant. This defence is of no use to the accused because it was the accused Rajesh himself who in the year 2011 during the trial of the case when the evidence of PW1 Anita and examination in chief of PW3 Rajwanti was already recorded that the accused Rajesh tried to make efforts to settle the matter with the complainant and made an offer to transfer his share in the said house to the complainant and her children. Also, PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination admitted that on previous date, a compromise took place between accused Rajesh and Anita that she would join the matrimonial home in case he transfers the house in the name of Anita. She further voluntarily stated that the accused Rajesh did not do so. So, this shows that accused Rajesh by making an offer of compromise and thereafter backing out from his compromise, was trying to take benefit of his own wrong. Further, offence U/s 498A IPC is a noncompoundable offence and any offer given by accused Rajesh to compromise the offence U/s 498A IPC is of no use to the State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 19 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri accused. Further relying upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (6) SCC 466 wherein it has been laid down that "compounding of offences is available only in the offences falling U/s 320 CrPC and even in case of quashing of the non compoundable offences, the Hon'ble High Courts has to see the stage when the quashing is sought by the accused and the quashing should be allowed only at the stage of investigation or the initial stage and not after the stage when the prosecution evidence has already been recorded". So, the defence taken by the accused is of no use to the accused because the said compromise efforts were made only on 07.02.2011 while the present case pertains to year 1996 and accused could not be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrong. Further, DW2 Naresh Kumar in his cross examination stated that he personally did not hear the said demand of the complainant through his ears. Also, both the defence witnesses namely DW1 Krishna and DW2 Naresh Kumar are interested witnesses as they are neighbourers of the accused persons. So defence taken by the accused is not proved by the accused.
22. Keeping in view the contention of Ld. defence counsel that PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination stated that she is willing to send her daughter Anita back to her matrimonial house if State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 20 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri the accused Rajesh transfers his entire house at Bahadurgarh in the name of her daughter Anita and she will not send Anita to the matrimonial house in case accused Rajesh transfers only half of the share in the house and it is correct that accused Rajesh can transfer only half of the house as he is entitled to only half share. So, this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of Ld. defence counsel does not holds good due to the reason that a mere stray sentence appearing in the cross examination of crucial witness does not effect the credibility of said witness. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Case titled as Karamjit Singh V/s State (Delhi Administration) 2003 SCC (Cri) 1001 wherein it has been laid down that " the testimony of a prosecution witness could not be discarded merely on account of a stray sentence appearing in his cross examination".
23. Keeping in view the contention of Ld. defence counsel that complainant belongs to a poor family and no dowry was given to the accused nor demanded by the accused as PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination stated that the scooter was taken by them from their relative, however, the same was not transferred in the name of the accused and this fact shows that no scooter was demanded in dowry from the accused. This contention of Ld. defence counsel State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 21 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri does not holds good due to the reason that PW3 Rajwanti has further voluntarily stated that they had purchased a scooter from the relative after paying for the same. Also, PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination admitted that her husband was an Assistant Clerk. She further stated that her husband used to save from his income Rs. 2,000/ and she used to work as tailor and earn and they were also having buffalows. She further stated that the money which was spent on marriage was arranged from neighbours and they were having some savings also. She further stated that they took Rupees One Lakh in loan from the neighbours namely Sh. Ajay Parkash about a week before the marriage of her daughter Anita and the said Ajay Prakash is a wealthy person and is having many properties and factories under his ownership and the said loan amount has been returned by them to Sh. Ajay Prakash. This shows that the defence taken by the accused that complainant belongs to a poor family and no dowry could be demanded from them has not been proved by the accused. So, the defence taken by the accused is of no use to the accused.
24. Considering the contention of Ld. defence counsel that there are no specific allegations against accused Bijender in the complaint and there are no allegations in the entire evidence of State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 22 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri PW1 Anita complainant and this fact shows that charges against accused Bijender are not proved. This contention of Ld. defence counsel holds good due to the reason that in the complaint Ex.PW1/B complainant has nowhere stated that accused Bijender has beaten the complainant on what ground and on which date and for what purpose. Further, PW1 Anita complainant cum eye witness cum victim in her entire examination in chief as well as in her cross examination has not uttered even a single word mentioning accused Bijender. Further, accused Bijender in the cross examination of PW3 Rajwanti mother of the complainant has suggested that accused Bijender is not the relative of the accused and he resides separately from the accused. Further, PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination admitted that accused Bijender is working at a petrol pump in Delhi and is residing at Narela. Further, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Bijender is the relative of accused Rajesh husband of the complainant. Further, accused Bijender in his statement U/s 313 CrPC has alleged that he is not even related to the parties even remotely. Also, Ld. APP for the State has not cross examined PW1 Anita when she has not uttered a single word against accused Bijender in her examination in chief. So, all these facts shows that prosecution is not able to prove that accused Bijender was the relative of the husband of the complainant State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 23 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri and prosecution has also failed to show that any harassment was meted out to the complainant by the accused Bijender. So, this fact shows that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Bijender. Hence, accused Bijender is accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
25. However, keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC is that "accused being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman in furtherance of their common intention subjects such woman to cruelty or harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet their unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." To prove it, prosecution examined PW1 Anita complainantcumvictim and she stated that initially for two years, the behaviour of accused persons was normal towards her and thereafter, they started demanding money from her amounting to Rs.10,000/ and she was sent to her parents house and her parents arranged Rs.10,000/ on the demand of accused persons particularly of her mother in law and her husband. She further stated that she was kept well for few days thereafter, she was again sent to her State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 24 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri parents house to bring Rs.15,000/ and this demand of accused persons was also fulfilled by her parents and she gave birth to a female child and after her birth, her husband demanded a scooter and he left her at her parents home till the demand of scooter is not fulfilled and her mother in law was also involved in all these activities and she stayed with her parents for some time and the demand of accused persons regarding the scooter was also met by her parents. She further stated that in such an atmosphere, two children were born to her and the demand of Rs.50,000/ was raised by her mother in law, her husband, maternal aunt of her husband and her son Raju and when she refused to fulfill their demand, they all gave her beatings and all the four accused persons dragged her to the house of maternal aunt of her husband, namely Nirmala which is adjacent to the house of her in laws and there she was given beatings by all of them. Further, the version of PW1 Anita is also corroborated by PW3 Rajwanti mother of the complainant. Also, the identity of accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi is well proved as accused Rajesh is the husband of the complainant and accused Premo Devi is the mother in law of the complainant. Thus, the prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC against accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi.
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 25 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri
26. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 406/34 IPC are that "accused alongwith other accused persons being in any manner entrusted with the property or with any dominion over property, in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly misappropriates or converts to their own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person so to do". To prove it, prosecution examined PW1 Anita and she stated that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave the istridhan articles and the list of which is Ex.PW1/A. PW1 Anita further stated that she did not bring anything belonging to her while she was turned out from the matrimonial home rather the accused persons did not let her to take anything belonging to her. She further stated that the police recovered some of her dowry articles from the house of the accused which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Further, PW1 Anita in her cross examination admitted that the jewellery articles given in her dowry were purchased by Sh. Ram Kumar who is her maternal grand father. Further, PW3 Rajwanti stated that her State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 26 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri daughter came to her house without any istridhan article and since then she is living in her house. Although, PW3 Rajwanti in her cross examination only stated that her daughter Anita has received all the articles recovered by the police. But, she has not admitted that all the istridhan articles have been recovered back from the accused persons. Also, PW1 complainant has proved her complaint Ex.PW1/B and also proved the list of istridhan articles Ex.PW1/A and also proved the list of recovered articles Ex.PW1/C. So, this shows that certain istridhan articles of the complainant is still in the custody of accused persons which has been misappropriated by the accused persons and not returned to the complainant despite demanded by the complainant. Hence, prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 406/34 IPC against accused Rajesh and accused Premo Devi.
27. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning as well as the fact that testimony of PW1 Anita complainant cum victim cum eye witness is clear, convincing and reliable and no material has come on record which falsify her evidence and PW3 Rajwanti mother of the complainant has fully corroborated the version of PW1 Anita. Also all the essential ingredients of offence punishable State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 27 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri U/s 498A/406/34 IPC has been fully established against accused no.1 Rajesh and accused no.2 Premo Devi. I am of the considered view that prosecution is able to prove its case against accused no.1 Rajesh and accused no.2 Premo Devi beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused no.1 Rajesh and accused no.2 Premo Devi are accordingly convicted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
Let, accused no.1 Rajesh and accused no.2 Premo Devi be heard separately on the point of sentence on 30.08.2014.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 29.08.2014 (EKTA GAUBA ) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court03/West/Delhi 29.08.2014 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 28 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT)3,WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. FIR No : 617/96 P.S. : Janak Puri U/s 498A/406 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 30.08.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi in person with ld. counsel Sh. Satish Bajaj.
This case is fixed today for orders on the point of sentence.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. counsel for both the convict has contended that convict Rajesh is 48 years old aged person and convict Premo Devi is 80 years old aged lady and both the convict are not previous convict and convict Rajesh is the sole bread earner of his family and is a labourer. Ld. counsel for both the convict has also requested for grant of probation to both the convict on the ground that both the State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 29 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri convict are not previous convict. Ld. Counsel for both the convict contended that convict Rajesh is giving maintenance amount to the complainant as well as to the children of the complainant and therefore, convict Rajesh may kindly be released on probation. Ld. counsel for both the convict contended that convict Premo Devi is a Senior Citizen and an old aged widowed lady and therefore, convict Premo Devi may kindly be released on probation.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has contended that if the lenient view is taken then the probation could be given to the convict. Ld. APP for the State further contended that compensation must be given to the victim as per capacity of the convict.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for both the convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi.
Keeping in view the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashabai & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 (2) SCC 224 wherein it has been held that " in cases of crime against women (like cases U/s 498A IPC etc.) committed even by other women at the time of sentencing the deterrent punishment should be given and leniency in sentence is State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 30 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri unwarranted."
In light of aforesaid law laid down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the fact that in the present case, Convict Rajesh being the husband of the complainant alongwith his mother Convict Premo Devi in furtherance of their common intention subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment in order to compel the complainant to meet their unlawful demand for dowry and also wrongfully misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant and did not returned the same to the complainant despite the same demanded by the complainant and in view of the fact that convict Premo Devi being herself a woman had victimized another woman i.e. complainant who was daughter in law of the convict Premo Devi and convict Rajesh being the husband of the complainant and responsible to happily keep the complainant had victimized and harassed the complainant for demand of dowry and also in view of the fact that harassment of women for demand of dowry is increasing in today's scenario and also in view of fact that in the present case the harassment of the complainant is continuing till date for the past 18 years as the complainant is staying since 1996 till date with her mother and in view of the facts and circumstances, both the convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 31 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri does not deserves to be released on probation.
I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served if for the offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC, both the convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/ each to the victim and in default of payment of compensation, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
And, for the offence punishable U/s 406/34 IPC, both the convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Both the convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi be given benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment has been supplied to both the Convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi free of cost on the State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 32 FIR No.617/96 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. PS: Janak Puri date of judgment itself i.e. 29.08.2014.
Copy of order on sentence be supplied to both the Convict namely convict Rajesh and convict Premo Devi today itself free of cost.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 30.08.2014. (Ekta Gauba) MM (Mahila Court)03 West,THC,Delhi State Vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. Page No. 33