Delhi District Court
Fir No. 377/2011; Ps H.N. Din; State vs . Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 1 Of 50 on 10 October, 2019
In the Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan
Magistrate (Mahila Court (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No: 377/2011
PS: H.N. Din
U/s : 498A/406/34/174A IPC
State v. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors.
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 01.10.2013
Cr.C No. : 89208/2016
Name of the complainant : Ritu Bansal
D/o Late Gopal Krishan
R/o H.No. 784/984, Church
Road, Bhogal, New Delhi.
Name & address of the accused :1.Jitender Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Bansal
2. Ram Avtar Bansal
S/o Late Munshi Lal
3. Raj Rani
W/o Sh. Ram Avtar Bansal
4. Narender Kumar Bansal
Sh. Ram Avtar Bansal
All Resident of 269/E, Gali No.
10, C Block, Bhajanpura,
New Delhi.
Offence Complained of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 1 of 50
Final Order : All accused acquitted u/s
498A/406/34 IPC
Accused Jitender Kumar Gupta
Convicted u/s 174A IPC.
Date of arguments : 27.09.2019
Date of announcing of order : 10.10.2019
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that since the marriage of the complainant Ritu Gupta with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta, he alongwith other co accused persons subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassed her for bringing less dowry and committed cruelties upon her.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant to CAW cell dated 30.06.2011, she was married to the accused on 04.07.2010 who was resident of E269, Bhajanpura, Delhi. The marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and rituals in the presence of relatives and friends. In her marriage, an amount of Rs.7 lakhs was spent by her family and from the aforesaid amount, Rs.5 lakhs was given in cash to accused Jitender Kumar Gupta, however, soon after marriage, accused persons started ill treating the complainant and demanded dowry. Soon after marriage, accused Raj Rani (mother in law of the complainant) took away all her gold jewellery and kept the same in her possession and never returned to her. Within 15 days of her marriage, all the accused persons started demanding one flat, one car from the complainant FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2 of 50 and when she showed her incapacity to fulfill the demands, she was physically tortured and treated with cruelty. Accused Narender Kumar Bansal gave her beatings and also demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the mother of the complainant and threatened with dire consequences if his demands were not fulfilled. Complainant informed regarding the behaviour of accused persons and thereafter, the mother and brother of the complainant came to visit the matrimonial house and showed their incapacity to fulfill their demands. Upon hearing the same, accused persons told the mother of the complainant that they should take away the complainant and abused them. On 15.09.2010, complainant alongwith her mother and brother returned back to the matrimonial home and requested the accused persons to mend their behaviour and only then the complainant was allowed to live in the matrimonial house. However, the behaviour of the accused persons did not change towards the complainant and they all quarreled with the complainant on one pretext or the other. In December, 2010 accused persons gave severe beatings to the complainant and thew the complainant out of the matrimonial home. Complainant with great difficulty, reached her parental home at Bhogal and informed the same to her parents. The sister in law of the complainant namely Bala also interfered in the matrimonial life of the complainant and even threatened to kill the complainant. On the objections of the complainant, she was given severe beatings. Thereafter, when the complainant was at her matrimonial house, her sister in law namely Yogita started residing in the matrimonial house. The husband of the complainant after consuming liquor used to misbehave with the complainant. The mother in law of the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 3 of 50 complainant used to instigate remaining accused persons to misbehave with the complainant. Due to the aforesaid reason, complainant was forced to live on the upper floor of her matrimonial house as the behaviour of her sister in laws were indifferent towards the complainant. On 05.04.2011 at around 8.008.30 AM in the morning, accused Narender Kumar Bansal alongwith husband of the complainant and his wife started quarreling with the complainant on the issue of cleanliness upon which, complainant made a call at 100 number. Police officials reached the spot and got the medical examination of the complainant conducted wherein complainant had suffered internal injuries but later police officials did not take any action against the accused persons. Due to the intervention of police, complainant was allowed to live in the matrimonial house. On 07.04.2011, again the accused persons picked up a quarrel with the complainant because of which she again sustained injuries and police officials again got the medical examination of the complainant conducted but did not initiate any action against the accused persons. Complainant continued to live in the matrimonial house but always fear for her life. On 06.06.2011 after taking permission from accused No.1, in the morning, went to visit her mother and brother and returned back to her matrimonial house at around 10.15 PM in the night, she found that her sister in law namely Yogita, her husband, accused Narender Kumar Bansal alongwith three more women having danda /iron rod in their hands were standing on the gate of the matrimonial house. At that time, accused Narender Kumar Bansal hit the complainant with the danda and since complainant tried to save herself, she was injured in her leg and she fell down. At that time, all FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 4 of 50 the aforesaid persons gave severe beatings to the complainant and her sister in law namely, Yogita @ Titilo took away her gold chain, mangal sutra and nose pin of the complainant. She made a call at 100 number and police officials reached the spot and got the medical examination of the complainant conducted. Complainant sustained injuries on her head, hands, face and her chest. Thereafter, complainant was forced to live in the parental home since 06.06.2011.
3. Pursuant to this complaint dated 08.04.2011 and 30.06.2011 against the accused, FIR was registered on 30.12.2011 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 01.10.2013. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Charge was framed against accused persons u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC and remaining accused persons were discharged. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead and during proceedings accused Jitender Kumar Gupta stopped appearing before the Court and was declared proclaimed offender on 08.09.2017. However, subsequently the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta was arrested and produced before the court on 22.04.2019 and additional charge u/s 174A IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the proceedings vide order dated 21.06.2019 accused Jitender Kumar Gupta adopted the testimony of witnesses PW2 to PW12 conducted FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 5 of 50 while he was absconding and therefore, the matter was proceeded with, upon his submissions.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses:
PW1 Ritu Bansal (complainant) deposed that on 04.07.2010 she got married with accused Jitender Gupta as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her parents had given her sufficient stridhan and gifts in the marriage. Before the marriage, her jeth namely Narender Bansal and her husband demanded from her Rs.5 lacs and subsequently her mother and her brother gave Rs.5 lacs to them. After the marriage, at her matrimonial home, her motherinlaw namely Smt. Rajrani got removed her jewellery/ornaments which she wore at that time and kept the above said articles. After 15 days of her marriage, her husband, her jeth namely Narender Bansal, Jethani Saroj Bansal and her father in law started giving beatings to her and they also demanded one car and a flat from her. Her husband tortured her by giving beatings to her. Accused Jitender and his brother had also demanded Rs.2 lacs from her. After 20 days of her marriage, her mother and brother came to her matrimonial house to inquire about the above said cruelties and her parents told the accused person that they would fulfill their demands and requested them not to torture her. Her mother also requested accused persons to give sometime to arrange the money upon which her husband, jeth and father in law and mother in law told her mother "agar demand poori nahi kar rahe ho to le jao ise". In her matrimonial house she was residing at first floor in one room FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 6 of 50 and her jethani Saroj Bansal was residing in two rooms at first floor and other in laws were residing at the ground floor. However, they had a common kitchen. After 34 days of visit of her mother and brother, at about 8.00/8.30 am her jethani gave beatings to her on the issue of cleaning and dusting.
Thereafter, all the above mentioned accused persons gave beatings to her. She made a call at 100 number upon which police officials came there and took her to GTB hospital. Her mother also visited the GTB hospital and accused person requested the police persons that they would take care of her and there would be no complaint from their side in future. After the above said incident, she was treated well by the accused persons for about one week. Her Nanad namely Bala Rani was residing in her matrimonial house along with her daughter Yogita. One day, Bala Rani was telling the accused persons, "iska kaam khatam kar do, gala daba ke, jab tak demand poori na kare." She heard this conversation of the accused persons. On 07.04.2011 at about 8.009.00 am her jeth, jethani and husband demanded Rs.2 lacs, flat and car from her. Her jeth, father in law and her husband told her "jao ghar se nikal jao, apne ghar jao, apni maa se flat le kar usme raho". She refused their demand upon which her mother in law picked up one danda and gave it to her jeth. Her mother in law, father in law, jethani and husband caught hold of her and her jeth gave a danda blow on her left hand as a result of which it struck against her first finger of left hand and it got fractured/cracked. Thereafter, she made a call at 100 number and police came there who took her to GTB hospital. Her mother also reached there. In the hospital Xray of her finger was got done and she was told by the doctor that her finger was FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 7 of 50 fractured at 2 points after examining the reports. From the hospital she came back to her matrimonial home and she was alone residing at the first floor. All the accused persons had gone outside the matrimonial house for seven days and she lived alone in that house. After seven days she went with her mother for medical check up. When she came back she saw that the door was locked. Then she called the police and got the door opened. Her electricity and water supply was cut. Again after 15 days she went to meet her mother. When she came back the same day, she saw that lot of people had gathered in front of her house. She tried to go to her house but the Jamai of her nanad, the daughter of her nanad gave beatings to her. She called the police but nobody came. Then she called her mother and sister. Then later police came and they all went to Bhajanpura PS. Thereafter her MLC was prepared. After that a kalandara was prepared against her. Thereafter she never went back to the matrimonial house. Her complaint to CAW Cell was Ex.PW1/A. Her complaint to CAW Cell Sriniwaspuri was Ex.PW1/B. Copy of complaint given to DCP was Ex.PW1/C. Copy of complaint given to CAW Cell Ex.PW1/D. Her statement was also recorded in CAW Cell Ex. W1/E. List of stridhan given to accused person was Ex.PW1/F. Four photographs of marriage were Ex. P1 to P5.
Thereafter, witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP as she was partly resiling from her previous statement and deposed that the accused person did not return her stridhan articles. She also admitted that on 14.03.2012 she and her mother joined the investigation and during investigation they visited matrimonial house No. 269/E, Gali No. 10, FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 8 of 50 Bhajanpura where accused Jitender was not found there. She admitted that her matrimonial house got searched through her and no stridhan was recovered from there except some old broken utensils, which she refused to receive the same. She admitted that on 26.05.2011 she informed the police officer that her husband Jitender was sitting India gate children park and he was arrested at her instance vide memo Ex. PW1/G. She admitted that on 07.06.2012 she appeared before the court, where bail application of accused Jitender was rejected. She admitted that she gave photocopy of MLC no. 3860/N dated 15.12.2011 to IO and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/H. She admitted that on 07.06.2012 she informed the police officer that her father in law gave beatings to her with stick / bat in Karkardooma court complex. She admitted that on 02.08.2012 she along with her mother visited the police chowki and informed to the police that her stridhan was in the possession of her mother in law as her in laws and her family members got removed the same and kept it with. She admitted that the daughter (Yogita) of her nanad used to quarrel with her. She admitted that ever after the marriage of Yogita she was residing with them in her matrimonial house. She admitted that Bala Rani her nanad used to visit frequently in her matrimonial house and she was residing with her husband in Bhajanpura. She admitted that on 08.08.2012 she along with her mother joined the investigation and her mother in law namely Raj Rani was arrested by the police officer vide memo Ex. PW1/I. She admitted that they have searched the matrimonial house for stridhan however it could not recover. She admitted that on 07.09.2012 accused Saroj was arrested vide memo PW1/J. She admitted that she joined FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 9 of 50 the investigation on 28.10.2011 and search for the stridhan however it could not recover. She admitted that she had mentioned the dates of the incident in her complaints. She admitted that till date accused person did not return her any stridhan. She had given all the MLCs to the police officer during investigation.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW1 deposed that during the entire investigation, she did not hand over any bank statement/ITR of her family member regarding the alleged expense in her marriage. There was another house located at the left hand side of her matrimonial house. She again stated that 'on the left side, there was plot in which some persons were residing by making a jhuggi'. There was a shop located at the opposite side of her matrimonial house. It was correct that there were other people residing around her matrimonial house. No neighbour came at the spot that was her matrimonial house to rescue her after listening hue and cry. She voluntarily stated that since her inlaws had no good relations with their neighbour, therefore, no one came to rescue her. It was correct that she did not mention this fact in her complaint Ex.PW1/D in her statement recorded before police and in her examination in chief (she was confronted with Ex.PW1/D). Nobody ever came to rescue her from the neighbourhood. She voluntarily stated that Ashok Mittal used to come to take side of her in laws. It was correct that she had not mentioned the name of Ashok Mittal anywhere in her complaint, statement to the police or to any other authority. During investigation she had not handed over to the IO any document pertaining to the ITR return/ bank account statement of her parents or family FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 10 of 50 members. She admitted that the bills of purchase were annexed with the judicial file were only photocopies. She had handed over the bills of purchase of stridhan articles to the IO during investigation. She admitted that her marriage with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta was her second marriage. She admitted that her matrimonial home was situated in a well settled colony and there were several houses adjacent to her matrimonial home. No person from the neighbourhood ever intervened when there were quarrels with her by the family of accused. She denied the suggestion that no person from the neighbourhood interfered since no such incident ever occurred. She informed her family first time after 15 days of her marriage that the accused persons had demanded dowry from her. Her mother at that time had not filed any complaint with any police authority upon hearing the same from her. She admitted that her jethani Saroj, who was also living in the matrimonial home, was never demanded with any dowry by the accused persons in her presence. At the time of her marriage, her mother was a housewife. She admitted that her father had expired before her marriage. She admitted that she was unemployed at the time of her marriage. She denied the suggestion that the expenses stated to have been incurred in her marriage were exorbitant. When she got married, accused Narender Bansal was having travel business. It was correct that the family of accused was financially sound. It was correct that she had filed a civil suit against her parents in law regarding property at Karkardooma Court. It was correct that she had filed a case u/s 12 DV Act and u/s 498A/406 IPC against her previous husband and his family members. It was correct that she got divorced from her previous husband in February, FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 11 of 50 2010 by mutual consent. It was further correct that she got engaged to accused Jitender Kumar Gupta in the month of February, 2009. She did not know where her complaint Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D were typed. She had given her list of dowry articles to the IO at PS Jungpura and had written the same there on 09.11.2011 and the same was Ex.PW1/F. She did not know if any list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage. In her marriage about 6070 guests had attended the marriage from her side. She had not told the name of relatives in whose presence the dowry articles were given in her marriage to accused persons since IO never asked her for the same. It was correct that a case u/s 325 IPC was also filed by her against the accused persons and the FIR of the same was still pending at Karkardooma Court. The incident of aforesaid FIR had occurred on 07.04.2011. She could not tell the exact date when for the first time she had filed a complaint against the accused persons. During her stay at her matrimonial home she started using mobile phone in the year 2010 which was given to her by her sister. She had given a call at 100 number and complaint regarding the fact that accused persons used to give her beatings. She could not tell the exact date or month of making the aforesaid call to police. On 07.06.2012 when her father in law had hit her with a stick at Karkardooma Court, she had got herself medically examined and the documents pertaining to the same were placed on record. However, she did not file any FIR against the accused. While she visited the treating doctor after the aforesaid assault on her by her father in law, she had told the doctor regarding the incident. She did not know if any MLC was prepared by doctor. It was correct that accused FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 12 of 50 persons had their own car before her marriage and they were two in number. It was correct that on one complaint of the accused persons she had been arrested and sent to lockup. It was correct that matter which was pending at Karkardooma court filed by her against her father in law, he had been acquitted.
Thereafter, PW1 was again examined u/s 311 CrPC and deposed that she had brought original bill/estimate of jewellery articles i.e. bill of Kishore jewellers dated 03.08.2010, copy of the same Ex.PW11/B which was compared with original bill brought by the witness (OSR). Receipt on plain paper stamped by Kangan Jewellers dated 25.08.2010, copy of the same was attached with judicial file and was compared with the original bill, the same was Ex.PW1/X1 (OSR). Original bill/estimate of Pawan Arts jewellers (undated) was compared with the original bill, the same was Ex.PW1/X2 (OSR). Bill of Resham Silpi Tantubay Samabay Samiti Ltd. (undated) was Ex.PW1/X3 (OSR), earlier mark A8 and bill of Sahiba Silk Saree Co operative Society (undated) was Ex.PW1/X4 (OSR), earlier mark A7.
During crossexamination u/s 311 CrPC, PW1 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that the document Ex.PW1/X2, Ex.PW11/B were estimates and no purchase were made by her against the said document. She did not remember what articles were purchased vide document Ex.PW1/X2 and Ex.PW11/B. The bills Ex.PW1/X1 to Ex.PW1/X4 were pertaining to the marriage function. She again stated that the aforesaid bills also pertain to the articles purchased subsequent to the marriage upon the demand of the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 13 of 50 accused persons. It was correct that the aforesaid bills did not mention her name or the name of any of her family members on it.
PW2 Sneh Lata (mother of the complainant) deposed that her daughter got married on 04.07.2010 to accused Jitender Kumar as per Hindu rites and ritual. After marriage, her daughter went to her matrimonial home at Bhajanpura. In the marriage she had given enough dowry to her daughter as per the traditions. She had given her daughter fridge, TV, bed, furniture, utensils, clothes, gold and silver jewellery articles in marriage. She had given Rs.5Lacs to Rs.5.5Lacs in cash to the elder brother and father in law of accused namely Narender Bansal and Ram Avtar Bansal. Soon after marriage her daughter was treated with cruelty by accused persons and they started ill treating her. Her daughter got married in July and almost in the month of August her daughter informed her on phone when she had given her a call to know about her. Her daughter informed her that the accused persons were harassing her and were demanding a car and flat from her. After hearing the same, she visited the matrimonial home of her daughter alongwith her son Pawan Gupta to settle the matter. When she visited the house of the accused persons, they demanded the same that was a car and a flat from her and showed their dissatisfaction towards dowry articles and started demanding from them. However, she showed her incapacity to fulfill their demand. However, on her refusal they started torturing her daughter in which the sister in law of her daughter also participated. They started giving beatings to her daughter and also started ill treating her by not offering her food. Due to the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 14 of 50 aforesaid torture her daughter started suffering medically as she was maltreated and abused by the accused persons, she told her daughter to come back to her however, she refused and said that she would remain at her matrimonial home. Even when they had visited the house of the accused persons they misbehaved with them and quarreled with them and also abused them in filthy language and she with folded hands requested them to stop misbehaving. At that time they were abused by sister of accused namely Bala Rani, Jethani Saroj, niece Yogita, mother in law Rajrani and her husband. Thereafter, she again visited the matrimonial home of her daughter alongwith her elder daughter and found the condition of her daughter bad due to which she wanted her to come to the parental home but the accused persons refused the same. Thereafter, due to the misbehaviour of accused person her daughter became sick and therefore she went in November, 2010 and brought her daughter to the parental home and thereafter complainant remained with her for about 23 months. Thereafter, she sent her daughter back to her matrimonial home after the festival of Holi 2011. On 05.04.2011 accused persons again given beatings to her daughter and she was brutally beaten and even a 100 number call was made. Upon hearing the same she also reached at PS Bhajanpura where her daughter and the accused persons were present. However, the matter was compromised and her daughter again started living at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she took her daughter to GTB hospital and got her MLC prepared since she was given beatings which was mark X1 and the treatment card was Mark X2. However, even thereafter the behavior of the accused persons did not change towards her daughter and they repeated FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 15 of 50 the same behavior with her daughter and ill treated her. On 07.04.2011 her daughter was brutally beaten in which she suffered injury in her finger and MLC was prepared and FIR was registered against the accused persons. The photocopy of the MLC dated 07.04.2011 was Mark X3. Thereafter, her daughter again came back to her matrimonial home. She was given treatment at Sant Parmanand Hospital. On 06.06.2011, her daughter again brutally beaten by all the accused persons and thereafter her daughter was sent to lockup u/s 107/151 Cr.PC by the accused persons in which niece of the accused namely Yogita was also sent to lockup. At that time accused Jitender Bansal was also sent to lockup. On 07.06.2011 they were granted bail by the SDM Court the photocopy of the Kalandra was Mark X 4. Thereafter, she got her daughter back to her home from the SDM Court. Thereafter she never sent her daughter back to her matrimonial home and has been residing with her. Since the year 2011, her daughter has been residing with her. All the jewellery articles and dowry articles of her daughter were still in the possession of the accused persons as she had not got off any of her articles alongwith her. IO had inquired from her and recorded her statement in the present matter. Thereafter, her daughter had filed the present complaint in CAW cell against the accused persons.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW2 deposed that at the time of the marriage of her daughter, she was housewife. She was not income tax payee and had not filed ITR returns ever in her life, being a housewife. The amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs spent on the marriage of her daughter was the amount received by her as alimony from her previous husband. The FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 16 of 50 aforesaid amount was received by her daughter partly in cash and partly by demand draft. The purchases of the dowry articles were made by her and some of the articles were already bought by her prior to the marriage for her daughter. Sometimes, for the aforesaid purchases, she accompanied by her children. She had informed the IO regarding the name of the shops from which she had made purchases of dowry articles for her daughter. Witness was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein no such names of shopkeepers or shops was mentioned. She did not remember if she had stated to the IO regarding the fact of handing over of Rs.5.5 lakhs to the accused persons by way of cash at the time of marriage. Witness was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it was not so recorded. She had inquired about the behaviour of the accused persons towards her daughter from the neighbourers of the matrimonial home of her daughter but they all refused to intervene and did not depose anything about the behaviour of accused persons towards her daughter. She did not know the name of any of the neighbourers from whom she had made inquiry. After the marriage when her daughter informed her in the month of August regarding the behaviour of the accused persons, she did not make any complaint to the police. She alongwith Pawan Gupta who was her elder son had visited the matrimonial home of her daughter in the month of August, 2011. Witness was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein she had not disclosed that she alongwith Pawan Gupta had visited the matrimonial home of her daughter in August, 2011 and in the presence of Pawan Gupta the accused persons had demanded a flat and a car. She had visited the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 17 of 50 matrimonial home of her daughter about 45 times after her marriage. Last time on 06.06.2011, she visited the matrimonial house of her daughter. Whenever she visited the matrimonial house of her daughter and there was a quarrel, the neighbours had gathered on the spot, however, she did not remember the name of any such neighbourer. She had narrated the fact of neighbourers gathering on the spot at the time of aforesaid quarrel to the IO. The name of her elder daughter was Neetu Bansal who had accompanied her to the house of accused persons as narrated by her in her examination in chief. She did not know if she had narrated to the IO regarding name of her elder daughter Neetu Bansal. She had narrated the incident of November, 2010 to the IO but she could not say with certainty. She had narrated the incident of 05.04.2011 to the IO. They had filed a case u/s 498A IPC even against the previous husband and inlaws of her daughter/complainant.
PW3 Retd.ASI Rati Ram (Duty Officer) deposed that on 17.06.2011, he was posted at PS Bhajanpura as Duty Officer. His duty hours were from 4.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. At about 04.05 p.m. he received rukka from SI Deepak Kumar and on the basis of said rukka, FIR bearing No.269/2011, PS Bhajanpura got registered Ex.PW3/A. Opportunity was granted to the accused persons to cross examine the witness but they did not ask anything from him.
PW4 ASI Mukesh deposed that on 26.05.2012, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Post Jungpura, PS H.N. Din. On that day, he had joined the investigation of present case alongwith ASI Nanak Chand as IO FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 18 of 50 had received a call from complainant that accused Jitender was present at Children park near India Gate and if raided, he would be apprehended. Thereafter, he alongwith IO came to Children Park, India Gate at around 5.30 PM where complainant was also found present there and at the instance of complainant, accused Jitender Kumar Gupta was arrested vide memo Ex.PW 1/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/A. Opportunity was granted to the accused persons to cross examine the witness but they did not ask anything from him.
PW5 SI Deepak (IO of FIR NO. 269/2011 PS Bhajanpura) deposed that on 07.04.2011, he was posted as SI at PS Bhajanpura. On that day, on receipt of DD NO.11A dated 07.04.2011 regarding quarrel at C269/E, Gali No.10, Bhajanpura. Thereafter, he alongwith Const. Sita Ram reached the spot where injured Ritu Bansal met them. He got referred her to GTB Hospital with W/Const. Indresh. On that day, she had not given her statement as she had mutually settled the matter. He deposited the MLC of injured in GTB hospital for opinion of doctor regarding injury. On 17.06.2011, injured Ritu Bansal came to the PS and gave her statement and on the basis of her complaint and final result of MLC, he prepared rukka and submitted to Duty Officer for registration of FIR and the same got registered which was Ex.PW 3/A. He arrested the accused persons during investigation.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW5 deposed that the case FIR No.269/2011 Ex.PW3/A was pending for trial before Ld. MM, Karkardooma court.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 19 of 50 PW5A ASI Om Singh (IO of CAW Cell) deposed that on 23.08.2011, he was posted as HC in CAW cell/SED, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. On that day, concerned ACP had marked a complaint Ex.PW1/B to him which was earlier marked to ASI Nirmala. He conducted proceeding in CAW cell for a period from 23.08.2011 to 24.11.2011 and during that aforesaid proceeding, he recorded the details of proceedings conducted by him between both parties to the marriage. Detail of the proceeding conducted by him for a period from 23.08.2011 to 24.11.2011 was Ex.PW5/A. He prepared final report with recommendation for registration of present FIR which was Ex.PW5/B and forwarded to Senior Officer for their approval, thereon.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW5A deposed that during inquiry, he specifically asked from the complainant to provide bank statements/ITR and purchase receipts of the alleged dowry articles regarding justification of expenses claimed by her in her marriage. But complainant did not submit the abovesaid documents to him. He had not asked for any medical document regarding injury from the complainant.
PW6 SI Brahm Pal deposed that on 30.12.2011, he had received a complaint Ex.PW1/B with approval of Additional DCP, SouthEast, CAW cell for registration of FIR alongwith final report of CAW cell and their detailed inquiry report and accordingly, he prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A and got it registered as FIR. After registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, he inquired from complainant and his mother and recorded their statement u/s 161 CrPC. He FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 20 of 50 had given notice to complainant for submitting her marriage proof, photograph of her marriage, detail of list of dowry article and stridhan articles and purchase receipt of the list of dowry articles and stridhan articles on 21.01.2012 which was Ex.PW6/B. On the next day, he was transferred from PS H.N.Din to PS Sarita Vihar due to which present case file was handed over to MHCR at the instruction of SHO concerned.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW6 deposed that he conducted the investigation of the present case for a very short time around 23 days. During the aforesaid period, he did not visit the matrimonial house of complainant. He had not issued any notice to the neighbours of the matrimonial house of the complainant regarding joining of the investigation. During the course of investigation, he did not ask to complainant to provide bank account statement, ITRs of the complainant or her family members regarding justification of expenses claimed by her in her marriage. He could not say whether complainant had submitted the relevant documents as required by her through a notice Ex.PW6/B given to her as the investigation of present case was marked to another IO. It was correct that he recorded the statement of the complainant and her mother u/s 161 CrPC word by word.
PW7 SI Nanak Chand deposed that on 14.03.2012, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. During the course of investigation, complainant handed over list of stridhan articles Ex.PW1/F, marriage photographs Ex. P1 (colly) and photocopy of the bills of jewelery articles of Kishore Jewelers dated 03.08.2010, 03.08.2010 and 09.03.2011 which were Mark A1, Mark A2 and Mark A3 and of Pawan Arts Jewelers FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 21 of 50 dated 09.10.2001 which was Mark A4 and one bill without any date of Pawan Arts Jewelers which was Mark A5 and bill of Verma Jewelers dated 07.03.2011 which was Mark A6 and bill of Sahiba Silk Saree having Bill No. 531 marked as Mark A7 and one photocopy of bill of Resham Shilpi Tantubay Samabay Samiti Ltd. having Bill No. 681 which was Mark A8 to him which were attached to the file but no seizure memo was prepared for the same. He recorded statement of complainant to this effect. Complainant also gave photocopy of her medical records of 15.12.2011 to him. Copy of the same was Mark A9. On 26.05.2012, accused Jitender and accused Raj Rani were arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/I. On 14.08.2012, further investigation was marked to another IO / SI Sanjay Singh.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW7 deposed that it was correct that the house of the accused persons were surrounded by the other houses and people used to reside there. During investigation, he requested from the neighbours of the accused to join the investigation but they refused to do so without disclosing their names. He did not remember the address of the above said neighbours. He did not issue any notice to them to join investigation. During the investigation conducted by him, he did not ask for income tax return/bank statement of the complainant or her family members in order to justify alleged expenses of the marriage. During investigation, he did not include any independent witness from the side of complainant like their family friends or relatives who attended the marriage. He did not remember whether he recorded the statements of the jewelers/shopkeepers pertaining to bills which were MarkA1 to MarkA8.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 22 of 50 During the submission of the photocopy of above said bills by the complainant to him, he specifically asked for the original copies of the above said bills and medical record MarkA9 and complainant told him that she would submit the same in the Court during trial of the case. During investigation, he did not ask the complainant regarding the negative or original source of marriage photographs Ex.P1.
PW8 Insp. Vinay Kumar deposed that on 07.06.2011, upon receipt of DD No. 37A regarding quarrel at House No.275, Gali No.11, Mandir Wali Gali, Bhajanpura, he alongwith Constable Anuj went to the spot where three persons namely Ritu, Yogita and Jitender were found quarreling with each other and they were scuffled with each other and shouting to each other. Public persons were also found gathered. Yogita and Jitender were shouting upon Ritu stating that they would not allow to reside Ritu in the house and she would throw away upon which Ritu replied them that she would see them in the court. He tried to make them understand but none of them stop quarreling with each other. Thereafter, with the help of Constable Anuj, all three aforesaid persons were apprehended and they were put into police lockup. The aforesaid preventive action taken by him against aforesaid all three persons were recorded vide DD No.4A dated 07.06.2011, PS Bhajanpura and he prepared kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC which was mark X4.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW8 deposed that he did not remember whether on the date of incident i.e. 07.06.2011, accused Narender Kumar Gupta was residing at house No.C269, Bhajanpura, Delhi. He had not conducted any investigation in the present matter.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 23 of 50 PW9 SI Sanjay Singh deposed that in the year 2012, on 22.08.2012 the present case file was marked to him for further investigation at the instance of SHO concerned. On that day, he received the case file from MHC(R) and inspected the same and discussed with SHO concerned. On 07.09.2012, he alongwith complainant and her mother, HC Rakesh and W/Const. Mamta went to the inlaws house of complainant at Jungpura and on that day the complainant searched the house of inlaws for purpose of recovery of her Istridhan articles at H.No. B28A, Gali No.4, Bhajanpura, New Delhi which was rented accommodation of parents in law of the complainant. Upon searching the premises, no Istridhan articles were found there, he prepared memo to this effect vide memo Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, they went to H.No. C/269E, Gali No. 10, Bhajanpura for the purpose of searching of Istridhan articles of complainant but main gate of the house was found locked due to which no search was effected. He prepared memo to this effect which was Ex.PW9/B. On 07.09.2012 accused Saroj Bansal (already discharged) was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/A and her personal search was conducted through W/Ct. Mamta vide memo Ex.PW9/C. Accused Narender Kumar Bansal and Ram Avtar Bansal were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. On 06.11.2012, he alongwith the complainant, W/Ct. Manju and Ct. Jai Bhagwan again went to H.No. C/269E, Gali No. 10, C Block Jungpura for the purpose of search of Istridhan articles and the said house searched by complainant but no Istridhan article was recovered. He prepared memo to this effect which was Ex.PW9/D and thereafter, they went to H.No. B/28A Gali No. 4 Bhajanpura, New Delhi FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 24 of 50 for the purpose of search of Istridhan articles and the said house was searched by complainant but no Istridhan articles was recovered. He prepared memo to this effect which was Ex.PW9/E. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation challan was prepared and filed in the Court.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW9 deposed that it was correct that the house of the accused persons was surrounded by the other houses and people used to reside there. During investigation, he interrogated some persons on the street in front of the house of the accused persons. However, all these persons told him that they did not know anything about the dispute between complainant and accused persons as it was their internal matter. He did not ask them whether they listen any loud voice of quarrel between complainant and accused persons as they were not aware about the same. He did not remember the address of the above said neighbours. He did not issue any notice to them to join the investigation. During the investigation conducted by him, he did not ask for income tax return/bank statement of the complainant or her family members in order to justify alleged expenses of the marriage. During investigation, he did not include any independent witness from the side of complainant like their family friends or relatives who attended the marriage. He did not remember whether he recorded the statements of the jewelers/shopkeepers pertaining to bills which were MarkA1 to MarkA8. During investigation, he did not ask the complainant regarding the negative or original source of marriage photographs Ex.P1. He did not know about the owner of the house where he conducted the search vide search memo Ex.PW9/D, however, complainant FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 25 of 50 took them there for searching the premises. The inlaws of complainant were residing in the house No. C/269E, Gali No. 10 mentioned in Ex.PW9/D. He voluntarily stated that during investigation of case, he had arrested accused Ram Avtar and accused Saroj Bansal from their house from where they were found residing inside the house. Upon being asked, witness stated that the complainant alongwith her husband was not residing at H.No. B28A, Gali No. 4, Bhajanpura, New Delhi nor the parents of the accused and his elder brother and Bhabhi were residing at another house located at C269E, Gali No. 10 Bhajanpura, New Delhi. He further stated that during investigation it was found that parents and brother of the husband of the complainant and other wanted persons were evading from investigation and they all were frequently residing in both house to hide themselves intentionally from the police. Upon being asked regarding issuance of warrant against the inlaws of the complainant, witness stated that during investigation, he alongwith complainant and other accompanying staff conducted raid at the possible place of hiding of the inlaws and during investigation, the wanted Saroj Bansal was found intentionally hiding herself in an almirah of the house from where she was called to come out from there and after interrogation she was arrested and the father in law of complainant Ram Avtar was arrested during investigation as he was also hiding himself in a dark room of the house where he alongwith his wife was found residing. The brother of the husband of complainant was provided interim protection from the Hon'ble Delhi Court and in the meantime, he had joined the investigation and after grant of anticipatory bail, he was formally arrested in the case due to which, he did not FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 26 of 50 apply for issuance of warrant against them. It was correct that he did not mention the fact that accused Saroj was hiding herself in the Almirah and accused Ram Avtar was hiding himself in the dark room, in the entire challan. During investigation in order to prepare all the search memo and during the preparation of the arrest memo of the accused, he did not include any neighbour from the neighbourhood.
PW10 Alok Kumar Dvivedi (Record Clerk GTB hospital) had brought original MLC register for a period from 02.04.2011 to 07.04.2011. As per original MLC record on 05.04.2011 MLC of injured Ritu Bansal was prepared by Dr.Sumit Dutt who had left the hospital and his present whereabouts was not known to him and his department. Photocopy of MLC bearing No. A1667/11 dated 05.04.2011 was compared with original register brought by the witness. Original register contained carbon copy of said MLC. Original register seen and returned and was Ex.PW10/A. He could also produce original prescription for aforesaid MLC and original MLC and prescription for MLC dated 07.04.2011 and 06.06.2011 pertaining to injured Ritu Bansal. Thereafter, original MLC register for the period from 02.04.2011 to 07.04.2011 and from 05.06.2011 to 10.06.2011 which was prepared on 07.04.2011 of injured Ritu Bansal by doctor Naim Shamji who had left the hospital and his present whereabout was not known to him. Photocopy of the MLC bearing No.A1707/11 dated 07.04.2011 was compared with carbon copy of the MLC in the original register brought by the witness, the same was Ex.PW10/B. Prescription paper of aforesaid treatment dated 07.04.2011, attached with judicial file was compared with carbon copy of the same FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 27 of 50 brought by the witness which was Ex.PW10/C. Prescription paper of treatment of Ritu dated 05.04.2011, attached with judicial file was compared with carbon copy of the same brought by the witness which was Ex.PW 10/D. Thereafter, photocopy of MLC bearing No.C3230/11 dated 07.06.2011, prepared by Dr. Vikas who had left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known to him was compared with carbon copy of the same mentioned in original register of MLCs, the same was Ex.PW10/E and prescription detail of the same attached with judicial file was compared with carbon copy of the same brought by the witness and the same was Ex.PW 10/F. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW10 could not identify the signature of any doctor who executed the MLC Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/E. He voluntarily stated that he had joined the hospital in September, 2016. He did not know the name of the doctor who prepared the aforesaid prescription Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW 10/F. PW11 Nand Kishore (from Kishor Jewelers) deposed that he had been running the above said jewelers shop for last 1520 years. He could identify bill and slip issued by his shop. Thereafter, bill pertaining to Kishor Jewelers MarkA1, MarkA2 and MarkA3 attached with judicial file was shown to the witness and witness correctly identified it stating that the same bill was issued by him which was Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C respectively. Original bills were handed over to concerned customer.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 28 of 50 During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW11 deposed that he could not bring the carbon copy of the bills Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C since it pertains to very old and he used to destroy the details after expiry of five years. It was correct that all the bills Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C were estimates issued from their shop. It was correct that all the aforesaid bills do not bear any bill number and book number. The aforesaid bills were prepared in his handwriting.
PW12 Mohit Verma (From Verma Jewelers) deposed upon showing the bill pertaining to Verma Jewellers dated 07.03.2011 in the name of Neetu Bansal, mark A6 was issued by him which was Ex.PW12/A. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW12 deposed that he did not have the carbon copy of the bill Ex.PW12/A. It was correct that the document Ex.PW12/A does not bear any book number or bill number. It was correct that on the top of the document Ex.PW12/A itself the word 'order estimate' published at point A. PW13 HC Sunil (conducted proceedings u/s 174A IPC against accused Jitender Kumar Gupta) deposed that on 22.04.2019, he alongwith Const. Harish left PS on departure DD No.20B received information regarding PO. Upon receiving the information, they reached at Bhajanpura and at that time, received secret information from a secret informer that accused Jitender Kumar Gupta who had declared Proclaimed Offender by the court in FIR No.377/2011, PS H.N. Din vide order dated 08.09.2017 was living in House No.C26, First Floor, BhajanpuraI, Delhi. Thereafter, they alongwith secret informer reached at the aforesaid address and after getting FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 29 of 50 indication from secret informer apprehended the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. Thereafter, the identity of accused was got verified after inquiry from the accused who admitted that the aforesaid matter was pending against him. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW13/B. Thereafter, Kalandra of the accused vide DD No.32A dated 22.04.2019 was prepared and the same was Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D. Accused was got medically examined and was produced before the court.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW13 deposed that the information received from secret informer was not reduced in writing and secret informer met them outside PS Bhajanpura. He alongwith secret informer and Const. Harish went to the house No.C26, First Floor, BhajanpuraI, Delhi. They had not taken any police official alongwith them from PS Bhajanpura. They did not verify regarding the owner of House No.C26, First floor, Bhajanpura. They reached the aforesaid house around 11.45 AM. When they reached the aforesaid house, accused was found alone in the house. In the adjacent room, it was on rent one lady alongwith small child was residing. He did not record the statement of aforesaid lady. When accused was arrested, aforesaid lady was not present. They had not sent the information of arrest of accused to PS Bhajanpura.
PW14 Const. Harish (conducted proceedings u/s 174A IPC against accused Jitender Kumar Gupta) deposed that on 22.04.2019, he alongwith HC Sunil left the police station on departure DD No.20B received information regarding PO. Upon receiving the information, they reached at FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 30 of 50 Bhajanpura and at that time, received secret information from a secret informer that accused Jitender Kumar Gupta who had declared Proclaimed Offender by the court in FIR No.377/2011, PS H.N. Din vide order dated 08.09.2017 was living in House No.C26, First Floor, BhajanpuraI, Delhi. Thereafter, they alongwith secret informer reached at the aforesaid address and after getting indication from secret informer apprehended the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. Thereafter, the identity of accused was got verified after inquiry from the accused who admitted that the aforesaid matter was pending against him. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW13/B. Thereafter, Kalandra of the accused vide DD No.32A dated 22.04.2019 was prepared by IO. Accused was got medically examined and was produced before the court.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW14 deposed that the information received from secret informer was not reduced in writing and secret informer met them outside PS Bhajanpura. He alongwith secret informer and HC Sunil went to the house No.C26, First Floor, BhajanpuraI, Delhi. They had not taken any police official alongwith them from PS Bhajanpura. They did not verify regarding the owner of House No.C26, First floor, Bhajanpura. They reached the aforesaid house around 11.45 AM. When they reached the aforesaid house, accused was found alone in the house. In the adjacent room, it was on rent one lady alongwith small child was residing. He did not record the statement of aforesaid lady. When accused was arrested, aforesaid lady was not present. They had not sent the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 31 of 50 information of arrest of accused to PS Bhajanpura. However, the information regarding the arrest of accused was given to brother of accused namely Narender.
PW15 ASI Ashok (IO conducted proceedings u/s 174A IPC against accused Jitender Kumar Gupta) deposed that on 22.04.2019, accused Jitender Kumar Gupta who was declared proclaimed offender in the present matter was arrested by the officials of the PS Saket and produced before the court. Thereafter, accused was remanded to JC and thereafter supplementary chargesheet u/s 174A IPC was filed against the accused. After preparing the supplementary chargesheet, he filed the same before the court.
Opportunity to cross examine the witness was granted to the accused persons but they did not ask anything from him.
Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Sec. 294 Cr.P.C. and copy of FIR was Ex. A1, arrest memo of accused Narender Kumar Bansal and Ram Avtar Bansal were Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and personal search of the accused persons were Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 and rukka was Ex.A7.
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 32 of 50
7. Accused persons did not examine any other witness in their defence except accused Narender Bansal u/s 315 CrPC.
DW1 Narender Bansal (accused) deposed that the engagement ceremony of the complainant was solemnised with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Vihar on 15.02.2009. At the time of engagement ceremony, complainant and her family members concealed the fact from them that complainant was not legally divorced and at later stage, they came to know that complainant got her mutual consent divorce in the month of March, 2010. Complainant got married on 04.07.2010 with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. Just before 23 days of the marriage, they came to know that complainant was not divorced at the time of engagement and she got divorce in the month of March, 2010. As his brother and family members had no objection of being the complainant divorced, they agreed to proceed for marriage on 04.07.2010 which was solemnised at Jain Mandir, Bhogal, Delhi. In the said marriage, there were only 810 persons attended the marriage from their side. In the month of August, 2010 complainant started raising demand for the share in the property of his father. Consequent to which, his father filed a civil suit against complainant and her husband Jitender Kumar Gupta before KKD Court for the peaceful possession of the property bearing No.C269/E, Gali No.10, Bhajanpura on 04.05.2011. At the counterblast of the said case, complainant filed a case of domestic violence against him and his family members on 22.07.2011. Vide judgment dated 11.10.2014, Ld. ACJ, KKD Court has passed a judgment in favour of his father, certified copy of the judgment was Ex.DW1/A while decree of the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 33 of 50 said case was Ex.DW1/B. After that, complainant in collusion with her husband Jitender Kumar Gupta prepared forged and fabricated document regarding the said property and complainant also submitted the same in Domestic Violence case, copy of which was mark as Z1. Hon'ble Court already dismissed the domestic violence case filed by the complainant vide judgment dated 14.01.2019, certified copy of the said judgment was Ex.DW 1/C. Sister in law of the complainant already arrayed complainant and her family member as accused in 498A/406 IPC case and domestic violence case which was pending before Ld. MM, Rohini court. Even in her previous marriage, complainant arrayed her previous husband namely Amit Sahni and his family members in similar cases i.e. 498A/406 IPC at PS H.N. Din and domestic violence case and later on, she settled the same after getting financial benefits.
During crossexamination on behalf of Ld. APP for the State, DW1 deposed that it was correct that the marriage of the complainant with the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta had been solemnized on 04.07.2010 and the engagement was solemnized on 15.02.2009. He did not know about the first divorce of the complainant being pending at the time of engagement of the complainant with his brother namely accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. He came to know regarding the fact that complainant was not legally divorced from her previous husband during the year 2010. He did not remember the exact month when he came to know regarding the same. Complainant was divorced from her previous husband in March 2010. He was informed regarding the aforesaid fact of the complainant not being divorced from her previous FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 34 of 50 husband by his brother Jitender Kumar Gupta. It was correct that his brother was aware about the aforesaid fact and he had no objection in this respect. He did not know if complainant Ritu Gupta had filed a Civil Suit for seeking permanent injunction at Karkardooma Court against his father. He was not aware that after the aforesaid suit being filed by the complainant, his father had filed a suit against the complainant as a counter blast for seeking permanent injunction/eviction against the complainant. Thereafter, witness was shown document Mark Z1 which bears the signature of his brother Jitender Kumar Gupta at point A on both the pages upon which, he deposed that he did not know the signatures of any other person on the aforesaid document. He did not know if the complainant does not have any knowledge regarding document Mark Z1. The father of the bhabhi of the complainant told him regarding the fact that their daughter had filed a case u/s 498A/406 IPC against the complainant and her family members when he visited his house in the year 2015. Witness denied all the suggestions put to him.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter, all the witnesses have corroborated the story of the prosecution and therefore, all accused are liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
9. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that in the present matter, the allegations of the complainant are specific and the complainant has stated regarding all the allegations in detail in her complaint as well as her testimony before the court and the same shows that the accused FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 35 of 50 persons had committed utmost cruelty upon the complainant and misbehaved with her with the intention to harass her for demand of dowry. It is argued that in the present matter, complainant was married to accused Jitender Kumar Gupta on 04.07.2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals and in the marriage, her family had spent an amount of Rs.7 lakhs and among the same, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs were given in cash to accused Jitender Kumar Gupta, It is argued that within 15 days of her marriage, she was ill treated and accused persons started demanding a flat and a car from the complainant and upon her refusal, she was ill treated and was given severe beatings. Further, due to the aforesaid acts of the accused persons, within one month of the marriage, the condition of the complainant reiterated and she was sent to her parental home to bring the aforesaid amount and fulfill their demands. After two months of the marriage, when the family of the complainant tried to settle the matter only then the complainant was allowed to enter the matrimonial home. In December, 2010 complainant was again beaten and complainant reached her parental home. Complainant lived in the parental home till 25.03.2011 and thereafter, upon the assurance of the accused, she was sent back to the matrimonial home however, complainant was again beaten on 05.04.2011 for which, she made a 100 number call and police reached the spot but did not intiate any action against the accused persons. On 07.04.2011, complainant was again given beatings and she made a call at 100 number as she had sustained several injuries and police still did not take any action and since then complainant had been residing at her parental home and subsequently, filed her complaint Ex.PW1/A at the CAW cell on 08.04.2011.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 36 of 50 Ld. Counsel has argued that the MLC dated 05.04.2011 mark X1 prepared at 12.25 PM at Guru Teg Bahadur hospital and the MLC dated 07.04.2011 also prepared at aforesaid hospital regarding the incident of 07.04.2011 mark X2 amply shows the manner in which the complainant was ill treated and assaulted by the accused persons. Further the complaint of the complainant dated 30.06.2011 Ex.PW1/B and also to the CAW cell and her statement Ex.PW1/E is corroborated to the complaint of the complainant dated 08.04.2011 and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be convicted. It is also argued that in the present matter, the complainant has placed on record the bills of purchase of dowry articles which itself shows that the accused persons demanded dowry from the complainant and ill treated her and also the dowry articles given as per the dowry list Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G were never returned to her and were misappropriated by the accused persons which are substantiated by the complainant by way of purchase/bills Ex.PW 1/X1, Ex.PW1/X2, Ex.PW1/X3, Ex.PW1/X4 Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C Ex.PW12/B. It is further argued that accused Jitender Kumar Gupta had committed several atrocities upon the complainant at the instance of coaccused persons and therefore, the accused are liable to be convicted.
10. It is argued by Ld. LAC Sh. Puneet Dhawan for accused Jitender Kumar Gupta that after the marriage of accused with complainant on 04.07.2010, the complainant lived with the accused only till 07.04.2011 and since then had been residing separately. It is further argued that the marriage of the complainant with aforesaid accused was her second marriage and the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 37 of 50 aforesaid fact was concealed by the complainant at the time of her engagement with the accused and the same is evident from the fact that during crossexamination, the complainant admitted that she got engaged with the accused in February, 2009 and had sought divorce from her previous husband in February, 2010 and then subsequently, got married to accused No.1 on 04.07.2010. It is further argued that PW1 and PW2 being the mother of the complainant had admitted that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was received as alimony from her previous husband and the aforesaid amount was used for solemnising marriage with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. It is further argued that the allegations of the complainant regarding demand of cash, dowry, jewellery, one car and one flat from the complainant are false claims of the complainant and the complainant has failed to establish the same by leading any cogent evidence. It is also argued that the MLC dated 05.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 do not stand proved as document mark X1, X2 and the MLC Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B and Ex.PW10/E have not been proved by the concerned doctor namely Dr.Vinod or by Dr. Naim Shans or by Dr. Sumit Dutt as none of the aforesaid doctors had been examined by the prosecution and further record clerk of the concerned hospital namely PW10 Ashok Kumar Dwivedi had deposed during his crossexamination that he could not identify the signatures of any of the aforesaid doctors as he had joined the investigation only in the year September, 2016 and he did not know the name of the doctor who had prepared the prescription Ex.PW10/D, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/F. It is also argued that the bills of purchase relied upon by the complainant are also forged and fabricated as none of the bills have been FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 38 of 50 proved to show that any article was purchased but are only rough estimates. It is also argued that apart from PW1 and PW2, all remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature and even the aforesaid witnesses could not substantiate the allegations of the complainant against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued that PW1 is not a reliable witness and he did not disclose the correct and true facts during her testimony before the court and was crossexamined by the prosecution itself. It is further argued that the prosecution had to stand on its own legs and since there are several contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses, the guilt of the accused does not stand proved. It is also argued that for the offence u/s 174A IPC, accused could not appear before the court as he was unwell and not for the reason that he wanted to evade the process of law. It is argued that the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta is liable to be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused.
11. It is argued by Sh. Pradeep Nawani, Ld. Counsel for accused Narender Kumar Gupta, Ram Avtar Gupta and Raj Rani that the accused persons have been falsely implicated only for the reason that the complainant had sour relations with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. It is argued that the complainant had alleged false allegations upon all the accused persons including the sisters and relatives of the accused persons but accused Saroj Bala, Bala Rani and Yogita being the sister in law's of the complainant was discharged vide order dated 05.09.2014 only for the reason that the allegations of the complainant were found to be false. It is also argued that the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 39 of 50 complainant lived with the accused persons for a period of only nine months and thereafter, left the matrimonial house on her own wish as she did not get along with the family of the accused persons and thereafter, started filing false cases against the accused persons with the intention to extort money from them. It is argued that the complainant had faced a civil suit filed by accused Ram Avtar Gupta in April, 2011 for seeking permanent injunction against her and upon having knowledge of the same, she filed a false domestic violence complaint against all the accused persons in June, 2011 only as a counter blast to the aforesaid civil suit. Ld. Counsel has argued that in the aforesaid domestic violence complaint u/s 12 DV Act filed by the complainant against the accused persons, vide judgment dated 14.01.2019, all accused persons have been discharged as no evidence of domestic violence was found against them except accused Jitender Kumar Gupta and the copy of the same was Ex.DW1/C relied upon by the accused persons. It is further argued that as per Section 3 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hence shall be referred as PWDV Act), Definition of Domestic Violence - for the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well being, whether mental or physical of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse or FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 40 of 50
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a hue to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security or..........
It is argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, the aforesaid definition of domestic violence is similar to Section 498A IPC and is very vast and covers several aspects of violence towards woman. Further, the offence under PWDV Act, 2005 requires only preponderance of probability that is when the offence u/s 498A IPC requires prove beyond reasonable doubt and since the complainant had failed to discharge her onus of any such violence committed allegedly by the accused persons in her complaint u/s 12 DV Act, it was the burden on the prosecution to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons u/s 498A IPC. Ld. Counsel has also argued that in the present matter, apart from the complainant and her mother, all other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature. It is admitted by PW1 and PW2 that the amount spent in marriage was the one which she had received from her previous marriage and as a compromise with her previous husband upon whom the complainant had filed cases of similar nature and therefore, the demand of dowry before marriage does not arise. It is also argued that the allegations of the complainant that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs in cash was given to the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta is not substantiated or corroborated by PW2 since PW2 has stated that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.5.5 lakhs was given in cash by her to accused Narender Kumar Gupta and Ram Avtar Gupta and not to accused Jitender Kumar FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 41 of 50 Gupta. It is also argued that it was the complainant who did not adjust in the family of accused persons and started picking up quarrels and demanded property because of which, she was given a separate floor to reside with her husband. It is argued that for the alleged incident dated 07.04.2011, a separate FIR was registered which was pending trial at Karkardooma court and more so, the alleged MLC dated 07.04.2011 has not been proved. It is also argued that PW2 is only a hearsay witness and despite the fact that complainant has averred that demands were made by the accused persons to her family members, she has not examined any of her other family member or brother from whom such demands were raised. It is also argued that the accused persons had never made any such demand as they were financially secured and had sufficient means for their survival which is also admitted by the complainant when she admitted during her crossexamination that the accused persons were having two cars and their own house and therefore, the alleged demand of a house and a car are only imaginations of the complainant. It is also argued that the complainant did not support her own version and was crossexamined by the prosecution which itself shows that the allegations of the complainant are false and fabricated. It is also argued that there is no averment regarding the exact date, time or place of entrustment of any dowry article by the complainant to the accused persons or demand and subsequent refusal which could infer that an offence u/s 406 IPC was committed. There are no allegations of breach of trust and therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 42 of 50
12. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
Observations qua offence u/s 498A/406 IPC :
(i) The case of the prosecution rests on the assertion that during almost nine months of the marriage between the parties, complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of failure by her to meet unlawful demands of dowry raised by the accused. It is admitted that the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 04.07.2010 however, during the aforesaid period, when the complainant resided in the matrimonial house, she was treated with utmost care but it was the complainant who did not adjust in the family of accused persons and had filed false cases. Accused persons had denied all these allegations and raised manifold defences.
(ii) It is the foremost defence of the accused that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegations of cruelty of any nature upon the complainant by the accused. As per complaint Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B dated 08.04.2011 and 30.06.2011, parties got married on 04.07.2010 in Delhi. The allegations in the aforesaid complaints have not been reiterated in the testimony of complainant as PW1 and she has been crossexamined by the prosecution and there are several facts and FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 43 of 50 incidents which have not been narrated by the complainant during her testimony before the court.
(iii) It has been stated by the complainant in her complaint Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B that after her marriage, she had been ill treated by the accused persons on several occasions and given severe beatings. However, the aforesaid complaints Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B are not corroborative in nature and there are several contradictions in it. Further, the aforesaid complaints nowhere states the manner in which the complainant had been ever ill treated for demand of dowry and the complainant fails to narrate any date, time or place of any such cruelty upon her. Further, the complaint Ex.PW1/A does not narrate the incidents dated 15.09.2010, December, 2010 or any other incident in detail as stated by her in her complaint Ex.PW1/B. Further the complainant did not place on record any complaint of the aforesaid incidents and therefore, the allegations pertaining to the aforesaid incident are false and fabricated. She has further admitted of not making any complaint before any authority apart from her complaint before CAW cell and her complaint dated 07.04.2011 for which a separate FIR was registered. Complainant has admitted that for the incident dated 05.04.2011, police officials had taken action and a kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC was initiated in which even the complainant was arrested and taken in custody. Credibility of such an allegation is also dubious for the reason that there is not even any averment made by FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 44 of 50 the complainant against the accused persons of having committed cruelty for demand of dowry which could lead the complainant to commit suicide.
(iv) It has been asserted by the complainant in Ex. PW1/B that "after fifteen days of her marriage" accused and his family members started demanding gifts and articles and Rs.2 lakhs, one car and a flat from the family of complainant and she showed her incapacity to pay. To the contrary as PW1, complainant vaguely stated that accused demanded money from her. There is no specification of the amount of cash demanded by the accused or his family members after few days of marriage or even the amount paid by the complainant to the accused in fulfillment of any of his demand or the alleged list of articles which were given to the family of complainant. The allegation of demand are unspecified and also obscure. As such, the allegations of demand of dowry by the accused lack credence.
(v) Further as per complaint Ex.PW1/B there is no specification of the manner in which the complainant was mentally or physically harassed by the accused or his family. The complaint as well as testimony of PW1 is silent on the specific date, month, year, event or occasion of any beating given to the complainant by the accused or the manner of such beating i.e. slapping, kicking, keeping her without food for days etc. Admittedly, the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 45 of 50 any such alleged beating or harassment prior to the present complaint dated 08.04.2011 from the date of her marriage on 04.07.2010 and are, therefore ambiguous and vague.
(vi) It has also been alleged by PW1 that the behavior of accused was callous and indifferent to her however it has not been elaborately clarified as to how did PW1 infer the behavior of accused to be callous or found him to be indifferent. Further, there is neither any averment nor any piece of evidence in the form of a medical report or otherwise, to draw a logical inference of such a threat to be of a nature likely to have driven the complainant to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life limp or health. In absence of any assertion to this effect, it cannot be assumed that such a threat or alleged callous or indifferent behavior of the accused was with a view to coercing her to meet any demand for property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand. Reliance is placed upon decision in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 2645 53/2005 decided on 12.10.2007 wherein following observation was made : ".....Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
Explanation (b) to Section 498A provides that cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 46 of 50 view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the Section...."
(vii) Similar view was adopted in the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 observed that offence U/s 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. Further, while interpreting the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 47 of 50 in the decision reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section498A IPC.
(viii) It has also come in evidence, during the testimony of PW1, that the family of the complainant had spent huge amount and the same was given by her mother however, the aforesaid fact of demand of dowry or fulfillment of such demand could not be substantiated by complainant by leading any cogent evidence and she did not even examine her family members or brothers as witnesses in support of aforesaid averments. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the story of the complainant and apart from the complainant, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were only police officials and none of the public witnesses have bee examined by the prosecution. In such an eventuality, veracity of allegations of cruelty appear to be in doubt. Further, the photographs of the marriage or the marriage card does not reveal anything of the sort of marriage to have been ostentatiously displayed.
(ix) Even the allegations that the accused used to gave beatings to the complainant have not been corroborated by any reliable piece of evidence. There are discrepant statements regarding the allegations FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 48 of 50 levelled by the complainant against the accused. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant are discrepant and devoid of specific details and as such does not inspire confidence of the court.
(x) Also, there is no evidence such as a medical report, photograph or otherwise to prove any physical injury to the complainant which she would have received had she been assaulted. Further, the complainant did not even place on record the list of dowry articles which she claimed to be in possession of the accused persons. Further, during search proceedings, none of the alleged stridhan articles were recovered from the possession of accused persons.
(xi) Further, during cross examination PW1 has stated that her family members had given several gifts at the time of the marriage and at the same time, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was given in cash to accused No.1 which is not corroborated by the mother of complainant and it is admitted by PW1 and PW2 that the amount spent in marriage was received by her as settlement amount from her previous marriage. Further, again, this averment is not corroborated by any independent witness such as elder brother of complainant or any documentary proof of such handing over of cash to the accused or even the exact date, month, year or occasion of such handing over of money. As such there is no convincing evidence on record to believe the allegations of the prosecution regarding commission of offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 49 of 50 Accused persons Jitender Kumar Gupta, Ram Avtar Bansal, Narender Kumar and Raj Rani are accordingly acquitted of aforesaid offences U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
13. Accused Jitender Kumar Gupta had been additionally charged for the offence u/s 174A IPC. Considering that despite service of summons, notices and processes issued against accused, he did not appear before the court and the nonappearance of the accused has not been justified by leading any defence. Though the accused has raised defence that he was not able to appear before the court being unwell, he has failed to place on record any medical document in support of his aforesaid averments. In view of the testimony of PW13, PW14 and PW15, there is cogent evidence against the accused that he intentionally without any reasonable cause, disobeyed the process of law and did not appear unless he was apprehended on 22.04.2019. In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Jitender Kumar Gupta stands convicted u/s 174A IPC.
Copy of the judgment be provided to accused Jitender Kumar Gupta free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan) on 10.10.2019. Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court02), SouthEast, Digitally signed by SHEETAL Saket, New Delhi.
CHAUDHARYSHEETAL PRADHAN CHAUDHARY Date:
PRADHAN 2019.10.11 13:38:28 +0530 FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 50 of 50