Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev on 20 February, 2014
FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Sanjeev
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA :
M.M.(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sanjeev
FIR NO. : 80/05
P.S. : Ambedkar Nagar
U.S. : 498A IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Date of its institution : 24.02.2012
b. Name of the complainant : Smt. Ranjana D/o Late Sh. Prem
Chand R/o A134, Wazirpur, J.J.
Colony, New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 11.12.2001 onwards.
d. Name of the accused : Sanjeev S/o Sh. Pm Prakash R/o H.No.
12/311, DDA Flats, Madangir, New
Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 498A IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 19.02.2014
h. Final order : Acquitted
i Date of such order : 20.02.2014
Page No. 1 of 15
FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Sanjeev
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. It is the case of the prosecution that since 11.12.2001 till 31.05.2004 accused subjected the complainant Ms. Ranjana to cruelty and harassment on account of failure by her and persons related to her to meet his unlawful demand of property and towards this end the accused willfully conducted himself in such a manner as is likely to cause injury or danger to life, limb or heath of the complainant.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court and thereafter, this court had proceeded to frame charge for offence U/s 498A IPC against the accused husband to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. This charge was framed on 06.05.2013.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution examined three witnesses. The gist of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is discussed in the paragraphs that follow:
Page No. 2 of 15
FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Sanjeev
4. PW1 Smt. Ranjana is the victim. She stated that she was married to accused Sanjeev on 11.12.2001 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Delhi. According to her, her parents had given sufficient dowry articles including gold and silver jewellery in her marriage. She alleged that on the second day of marriage, her in laws and her husband said that all the dowry articles brought by her were of inferior quality. Further according to her all her jewellery articles were taken from her by her mother in law saying that they are precious articles and may be lost and after that she did not ask for the jewellery nor did her mother in law gave it back to her. Further according to her, later she came to know that her husband drinks alcohol and smokes and he is only 12th pass whereas before marriage she was told that her husband was B.Com pass. She further alleged that her husband used to come home drunk and used to beat her and used to ask her to go back to her parent's house and when she refused, he used to leave the house for a number of days never used to contact her even on the phone. She goes on to depose that after one month of her marriage her motherinlaw once told her that she is Page No. 3 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev going to her native village and therefore, this witness should go back to her parent's house and she was forced to go to her parent's house. She stated that she and her parents tried to telephonically contact the accused and his parents but they never responded. According to her, she lived in her parents house for about 45 months and came back. She alleged that thereafter, again her husband commented that her parents had not given good articles and dowry as per his status. She also alleged that her mother in law used to tell her that this witness should get a house from her parents and a car. Her husband also used to say that this witness should get a house. Then later again her husband asked her to go to her parents house saying that he is going to Calcutta or Mumbai for a month on which she went to her parents house and her husband never came to take her back. Allegedly, this time she stayed with her parents for around a year. She also deposed that after this one year she then went to her matrimonial house on Karva Chauth festival. On reaching her matrimonial house, her husband came next morning in a drunk condition and started quarreling her. He told this witness that he does not want to keep her Page No. 4 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev and to take a divorce from him. Her husband then asked her to divorce him and had even tore her clothes while also throwing her clothes from the almirah. According to her after some days again her husband came home drunk and broke the bangles that she was wearing at around 2.00 am in the night and asked her to leave the house, immediately. She deposed that he started beating her and in order to save herself, she locked herself in the bathroom till next morning. The tenants at the matrimonial house then called her mother telephonically on which her mother came and took her to her parent's house. For a year this witness again stayed in her parents house. Then again after one year, she went to her matrimonial house along with her mother and brother, when accused husband pushed her mother and started abusing her. She stated that at that time her sisters in law were also present there. Thereafter her husband's family called the police and she also called the police. Police came there and took her to PP Madangir. She stated that her mother became ill because she was pushed by the accused and she was taken to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital that day by the brother of this witness. Page No. 5 of 15
FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Sanjeev
Police then tried to reconcile the matter and she came back to her parental house but her husband never reconciled the matter. She then made a complaint to CAW Cell which she exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter Ld. APP for the State crossexamined this witness as she was resiling from her previous statement. On being crossexamined by Ld. APP for State, she admitted that when she along with her mother and bhai bhabhi went to her matrimonial house, her father in law, mother in law and both sister in laws Vanita and Sangeeta along with other persons beat her mother and when they were beating her, this witness called the police. She also admitted that her mother in law and sister in laws Sangeeta and Vanita used to threaten her that they will beat her and always told her that they will marry Sanjeev again. She exhibited the seizure memo of photograph of marriage as Ex.PW1/C and the handing over memo of stridhann as Ex.PW1/D. She also exhibited the handing over memo of dowry articles as Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F.
5. PW2 Shashi Kumar is the brother of the victim. He deposed that his sister got married to the accused Sanjeev in December, 2001. Page No. 6 of 15
FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Sanjeev
He deposed that after 15 days of the marriage accused Sanjeev and his father raised a demand of Rs. 2 lac cash and a wagon R car from him and his father after calling them to their residence which they refused to give. According to him, one day after 23 months of the marriage, he received a call from a neighbour that his sister is being beaten. Then he had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister, the same day where he saw that his sister had been beaten with belts as there were marks of such beating on her body. Then he and his mother went to PS Ambedkar Nagar. He deposed that later they compromised the matter with the accused family and his sister obtained a divorce from her husband.
6. PW3 Sh. Sunil Kumar is another brother of the victim. He deposed that his sister got married to the accused Sanjeev in May, 2001. He stated that his sister obtained divorce from her husband and he does not remember now, what problems his sister faced during her matrimony with the accused Sanjeev.
7. Accused admitted some formal documents in his statement u/s 294 CrPC i.e. arrest memo, personal search memo, registration of FIR Page No. 7 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev by the Duty Office and seizure memo of the wedding card and wedding photographs therefore, no other witness was examined and PE was closed. Statement of all the accused were recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel were heard.
8. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution for it is on the evidence of the prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
9. What needs to be ascertained is what was the cruelty committed upon the complainant which can be said to be likely to cause grave injury or danger to her life or health. Now in the witness box the complainant has only narrated a few instances of the alleged cruelty meted out to her by her husband the sole accused.
10. First she has stated that after 23 days of her marriage her husband threw the articles gifted by her parents saying that they were all inferior quality. Now, this act in itself cannot be said to be said a grave cruelty so as to cause danger to the mental health of the Page No. 8 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev complainant. Merely to say that one does not like the articles gifted by one's inlaws cannot be termed as a mental cruelty.
11. Secondly, the allegation by her is that since after 15 days of her marriage her husband used to come back home drunk and used to beat her at the same time asking her to go back to her parental house. Now, when exactly were these beatings given has not been mentioned by the victim anywhere. As to when during the three long years that she stayed with her husband were these beatings given is not clear. In whose presence were these beatings given has also not been mentioned. What were the injuries caused by such beatings has also not been mentioned. There is no MLC or any other medical document even from a private doctor to show that any of the injuries given were such as would require medical attention. Thus, the allegations that beatings were given to the victim remains a bald and vague averment and therefore does not prove the prosecution version regarding physical cruelty upon the complainant.
12. Yet another allegation regarding cruelty is that the accused husband used to leave the house for long period on the pretext of Page No. 9 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev going for some business assignment and never contacted the complainant when he was so outside the house. Now, for what duration and when the accused used to so leave the house without contacting the complainant has not been mentioned. It is the own case of the complainant that within one month of her marriage she had gone back to her parent's house where she stayed for 45 months. Thus, when exactly these instances occurred is also not even clear. Somewhere during the course of her examination, the complainant has averred that the accused asked her once to go to her parent's house for a month as he was going out of Delhi, upon which the complainant went to her parent's house where she stayed for one year. To ask one's wife to visit one's parents when the husband is away does not itself amount to any kind of violence or cruelty upon the wife. It is not the averment of the complainant that she was forced to so go by her husband. Merely to say that although she continued residing at her parent's house for a year, the husband did not come to take her back and this is a cruelty in itself does not make any legal sense. It is nowhere mentioned as to what steps the complainant or her family Page No. 10 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev took to take her back to her matrimonial house during this period of one year. Whether any meetings of the respectable persons of the society was called or whether parents from both the sides ever met to discuss the issue has not been mentioned by the victim. Thus, it only implies that both the accused and the complainant continued staying comfortably at their respective parent's houses without either of them bothering to talk to the other and started cohabitation.
13. One other allegation against the husband is that he used to say that the complainant should get a car. When this demand was raised, in whose presence and what were the consequences which followed when this demand was not met none of these has been mentioned in the testimony of the victim. What kind of car was demanded and , in which year it was demanded, none of these has been mentioned by the complainant. Thus, this averment regarding demand of car is also too vague and general.
14. Not only this, in the crossexamination the complainant has admitted that a compromise was arrived at between her and the accused vide a compromise deed whereby parties have agreed to Page No. 11 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev withdraw/put an end to the litigations between them including the present one.
15. Not only this, a perusal of the complaint Ex.PW1/A upon which a detailed inquiry was conducted by the CAW Cell also does not totally support the testimony of the victim in the court. None of the allegations regarding disliking of the gifts by the accused husband or the accused husband staying away from the matrimonial house for long duration of time without informing the complainant are mentioned in this complaint. Not only this interestingly in this complaint Ex.PW1/A it is also mentioned that a house was being demanded as dowry from the complainant, which demand of house is nowhere mentioned by the complainant in her chief examination before the court.
16. Thus, the complaint Ex.PW1/A and the testimony in the court are too different versions of the alleged cruelty committed upon the complainant. A lot of new allegations have been mentioned by the complainant before the court for the first time which are nowhere mentioned in her original complaint to the police or any Page No. 12 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev supplementary statement to the police any time later. She has been duly confronted with at the stage of crossexamination with these averments and she has not explained the difference between the two versions at all.
17. Coming now to the testimony of the other public witness who are the brothers of the complainant. PW2 Shashi Kumar has stated that after 15 days of marriage accused Sanjeev had raised a demand of Rs. 2 lac cash and car from him by calling him to his own residence. Thus, according to him this demand was directly made from him in the matrimonial house of the complainant. However, the complainant has nowhere mentioned that her brother and father were ever called to her house to raise such a demand and she has only stated that this demand was raised only to her to be conveyed to her brother.
18. Further, this witness, PW2 goes on to depose that after 23 months of the marriage upon a phone call being received he went to the matrimonial house of the victim where he saw that his sister had been beaten upon which he went to PS Ambedkar Nagar. Now, nowhere before the court has the victim herself mentioned that even Page No. 13 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev even 23 months of her marriage she was so beaten by her husband or that her brother had come to her matrimonial house and saw her in a miserable condition after which they went to PS Ambedkar Nagar. Thus, whose version is to be relied upon? The complainant's who has chosen not to mention anything about any such incident or the brother PW2 who states that such an incident took place upon which he even reported the matter to the police but does not have any document to support his complaint to the police or the proceedings carried out by the police.
19. PW3 Sunil Kumar has completely turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version at all although he is the real brother of the victim.
20. Thus, after a detailed discussion of all the alleged averments of cruelty it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved any of its allegations beyond reasonable doubt which would have led this court to come to the conclusion that indeed the accused husband is guilty of cruelty upon his wife.
21. Thus, in view of the discussion above, the accused is acquitted of Page No. 14 of 15 FIR No. 80/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Sanjeev the offence u/s 498 A IPC.
22. File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in (MONIKA SAROHA)
the open Court on 20.02.2014 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket
New Delhi.
Page No. 15 of 15