Delhi District Court
State vs . Hari Singh on 22 March, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA
COURT): SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Hari Singh
FIR NO. 1202/06
PS Sangam Vihar
Date of Institution of case : 09.07.2008
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 22.03.2013
Date of judgment : 22.03.2013
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. PC.
a)Date of offence : On or after 28.11.2004
b)Offence complained of : 498A/34 IPC and 406/34
IPC
c)Name of accused, his parentage : 1. Sh. Titu S/o late Sh.
Mohan Lal, R/o C97 Old
Seema Puri, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Premwati W/o
Late Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o
C97 Old Seema Puri, New
Delhi.
d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e)Final Order : Acquitted of the offence
punishable u/s 498A/34
IPC and 406/34 IPC.
FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 1 of 9
2
JUDGEMENT:
1. Accused Premwati and Titu have been sent to face trial on the allegations that they had harassed the complainant Smt. Mamta during the subsistence of her marriage with Mohan Lal on 28.11.2004, being her mother in law and her brother in law re spectively on account of dowry demands and had refused to return her istridhan arti cles despite demand with dishonest intention to misappropriate the same and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC and 406/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution are as follows:
Complainant Smt. Mamta got married to one Mohan Lal on 28.11.2004 in which suf ficient dowry articles were given. Smt. Mamta joined the matrimonial home after her marriage. Mohan Lal unfortunately expired due to kidney failure on 01.01.2006. Complainant Smt. Mamta has alleged that she was taunted by the two accused per sons and was blamed for the ill health and death of her husband and was eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home after 34 months of the death of her husband. Her istridhan articles were also not returned back to her. She made a complaint in this respect in the police station upon which FIR was registered for the commission of offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC and 406/34 IPC. Statement of complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Site plan was prepared. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court. Cognizance was there upon taken by the court.
3. Accused Premwati and Titu were charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC and 406/34 IPC vide order dated 04.06.2009 which was explained to them in vernacular to which they respectively pleaded not guilty and claimed trial in FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 2 of 9 3 stead.
4. The matter was then listed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution has produced 6 wit nesses in support of its case. Any witness in defence has not been produced.
5. PW1 is Smt. Mamta who deposed that she got married with Mohan Lal as per Hindu rituals and customs on 28.11.2004 wherein sufficient dowry articles were given and she started living with her husband at her matrimonial home. She further deposed that her husband passed away due to kidney failure on 01.01.2006 after which the accused persons being mother in law and brother in law started taunting and harass ing her, blaming her for the death of her husband and she was also not allowed to talk to her parents. She further deposed that accused used to instigate others to throw her out of the matrimonial home. She further deposed that her parents had tried to settle the matter after 34 months of death of her husband but to no avail be cause of which she left the matrimonial home and joined her parental home.
6. PW1 Smt. Mamta filed a complaint against accused persons at CAW Cell which she proved as Ex. PW1/A bearing her signature at point A with a list of dowry articles an nexed with complaint proved as Ex.PW1/B, also bearing her signatures at point A. She deposed to have witnessed the arrest of accused Premwati and Titu vide memo Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D and personal search memo Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/F, all bearing her signatures at point A. She also deposed to have accompanied the Investi gation Officer for search of her istridhan articles at her matrimonial house vide Memo Ex. PW1/G, bearing her signature at point A, where no dowry / istridhan articles could be recovered. She further deposed that any of her articles were never returned back to her and all of them were still in the possession of her mother in law.
FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 3 of 9 47. In cross examination by counsel for accused persons, Smt. Mamta admitted that her petition u/s 12 of PWDVA, 2005 was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the Ld. Concerned court, further admitting that a list of dowry articles was pre pared at the time of solemnization of marriage but was never filed with this com plaint, further admitting that any receipt qua the dowry articles has not been filed by her in this case. She also admitted that she was never given any beatings by her in laws, further stating that she was harassed by her in laws after the death of her hus band in a routine manner so she was unable to specify any date, time or month. She further deposed that she came to her parental home from her matrimonial home along with her father Harpal Singh, Pramod Kumar, Rajan Chaurasia and Kailash on 30.04.2006, further stating that 810 persons were present from the side of her in laws during the settlement talks. She admitted that any istridhan articles could not be recovered from the matrimonial house. She declined the suggestion that she had brought all her istridhan articles from her matrimonial home after death of her hus band.
8. PW2 is Sh. Harpal Singh who deposed that he got to know from his daughter Smt. Mamta telephonically about the beatings and the taunts given by the accused persons to her. She also stated that the husband of his daughter expired six months of mar riage and that the accused persons used to abuse his daughter and eventually had thrown her out from the matrimonial home. She further deposed that he demanded the istridhan articles of his daughter from the accused persons but the same were not returned back despite the demand. He admitted in cross examination by Ld. APP that accused persons used to beat her for bringing more dowry and that the two accused persons were arrested in his presence. He declined having accompanied his daughter for the search operation at her matrimonial house along with his daughter, however, FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 4 of 9 5 admitting his signatures on Memo Ex. PW1/G at point B.
9. In cross examination by counsel for accused persons, PW2 Sh. Harpal stated that po lice officials had never recorded his statement. He also stated that complainant Smt. Mamta started residing with him after 23 months of death of her husband. He was unable to tell the date when he received information qua beating of his daughter or the telephone number vide which he had received the said information.
10.PW3 is HC Sukh Lal who proved FIR as Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. He admitted in cross examination by counsel for accused persons that there was no endorsement on the said FIR.
11. PW4 is HC Sampat Ram who deposed to have witnessed the arrest of accused Yashoda, Hari Singh, Rohtash and Rattan Singh vide memo Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/D, all bearing his signatures at point A. He declined the suggestion in cross ex amination by counsel for accused persons that the arrest of accused persons was not made in his presence.
12.PW5 is SI Satbir Singh who deposed to have conducted the search for the recovery of istridhan articles with the assistance of complainant but no recovery could be af fected. He also deposed to have arrested the accused person vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/D and also identified correctly the two accused persons in the court. In cross examination by counsel for accused persons, he admitted that com plainant had not submitted any list of istridhan articles prepared by her at the time of marriage, further admitting that both accused persons were arrested in the pres ence of complainant and her father.
FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 5 of 9 613.PW6 is Retd. SI Anima Lakhara who proved her Enquiry Report on complaint of Smt. Mamta Devi as Ex. PW6/A, bearing her signature at point A. She submitted in her cross examination by counsel for accused that she did not receive any list of the dowry articles signed by both the parties.
14.Prosecution evidence was concluded. The incriminating evidence whatsoever ap pearing against the accused Premwati and Titu on record was put to them in their statement u/s 313 Cr. PC r/w Section 281 Cr. PC vide order dated 27.02.2013 wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent denying all the allegations against them. They chose not to lead any Defence Evidence.
15. Final arguments advanced. Ld. APP argued that prosecution case stands proved be yond reasonable doubt on conjoint reading of testimony of PW1 Smt. Mamta and PW2 Sh. Harpal Singh, with the documentation well proved by the other witnesses in their official capacity. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, argued that the tes timony of two significant witnesses are full of contradictions with no explanations and thus cannot be relied upon, further stating that the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC and 406 IPC are not made out against any of accused persons, thus praying for their acquittal in the matter.
16. I have perused the case record carefully.
17. PW1 Smt. Mamta and PW2 Harpal Singh are the star prosecution witnesses in the matter. Accused Premwati is related to complainant as motherinlaw and accused Titu as her brotherinlaw.
FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 6 of 9 718.PW1 Smt. Mamta in her deposition has stated that she was harassed by both ac cused, was blamed for her husband's death, was not allowed to talk to her parents and for the instigation to throw her out of matrimonial home. She has not made any other allegation against accused person. She proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A where in also she said that she was taunted and bickered on petty issues and was later thrown out of matrimonial home.
19.PW1 Smt. Mamta in her complaint Ex. PW1/A stated that she was kicked and thrown out of her matrimonial home by accused persons whereas in her cross exami nation by counsel for accused person, she stated that she came from parental home to her matrimonial home along her father Harpal Singh, Pramod Kumar, Rajan Chaurasia and Kailash. Thus, there is utter and gross contradiction in one of main al legation, she made against accused person.
20.PW1 Smt. Mamta has not specified the reason why she was harassed and what was the manner of such harassment. She has not quoted or narrated even a single in stance of any such harassment faced by her. She has not specified the role of two ac cused persons either with respect to the allegation made. It is settled that mere taunting does not fall within expression of cruelty. Her allegation that accused had instigated to throw her out of matrimonial home, also is without any substance as she herself stated that she left for her parental home from matrimonial home as any set tlement could not take place.
21.PW2 Harpal Singh deposed that she was thrown out of matrimonial home after death of his son in law which took place just after six months of her marriage. He FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 7 of 9 8 also deposed that accused persons used to give her beatings on account of insufficient dowry and for nonfulfillment of dowry demands.
22.PW1 Smt. Mamta never stated that any dowry demand was made from her ever by accused, neither in her complaint Ex. PW1/A nor in her testimony. She also categori cally replied in cross examination by counsel for accused person that she was never beaten by any of accused persons.
23.The major planks which two star prosecution witnesses asserted are falsified and contradicted significantly in their respective testimonies. Neither any dowry demand nor commission of any sort of cruelty is proved against any of accused person.
24.PW1 Smt. Mamta never asserted to have entrusted any of her dowry/istridhan arti cles to accused at the first place in her testimony. She also stated in her cross exami nation that she has neither placed the list of istridhan articles which was prepared at time of marriage on record nor any receipt of any such purchase of istridhan articles or any documentation with respect to plot in question. She also stated that any re covery despite there being a surprise raid could not be made. As such, the allegation that she has forcibly thrown out in wearing clothes has been falsified by her in her own testimony and thus, when she left with her father and her relatives in a planned manner from matrimonial home, with no affirmation of having entrusted any istrid han articles to accused and with her husband already died, wherein she knew that probably she would not be coming back, there is a distinct possibility and probability of having taken her istridhan articles along, with no question of any misappropriation by two accused persons. The factum of entrustment of istridhan articles and conse quent misappropriation is not proved against two accused persons.
FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 8 of 9 925. Prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove its allegations against accused per sons beyond reasonable doubt. The dowry demand whatsoever or subjecting com plaint to any cruelty or any entrustment of istridhan articles or misappropriation is not proved against any of accused persons. Both the accused persons namely Premwati and Titu are accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC and 406/34 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court today (SHELLY ARORA)
on 22.03.2013 M.M. /Mahila Court/SED
Saket/ N.D./22.03.2013
FIR No. 1202/06 (PS Sangam Vihar) State Vs. Hari Singh Page 9 of 9