Delhi District Court
State vs . Iftekhar on 20 February, 2015
FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Iftekhar
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA :
M.M.(MAHILA COURT)SED, SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs. Iftekhar
FIR NO. : 481/05
P.S. : Ambedkar Nagar
U.S. : 498A and 406 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Date of institution : 24.03.2008
b. Name of the complainant : Smt. Ishrat Ara D/o Sh. Md.
Nizamuddin Malik R/o Zamili
Khatoon Building, Fulwari Sharif,
Millat Colony, Phase3, Patna,
Bihar.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 19.04.1998 onwards.
d. Name of the accused : (1) Iftekhar Kamil S/o Sh. Mujeeb
Alam R/o B/80, Jawahar Park,
Khanpur, New Delhi.
(2) Ms. Shaukat Aara W/o Late
Mujeeb Alam R/o H.No. 24, Bari
Khan, Phulwari Sharif, Patna,
Bihar.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 498A and 406 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 18.02.2015
h. Final order : Acquitted
i Date of such order : 20.02.2015
Page No. 1 of 18
FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
State Vs. Iftekhar
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. It is the case of the prosecution that after 19.04.1998 during the subsistence of the marriage of complainant, accused Iftikhar Kamil, husband of the complainant committed cruelty against the complainant in connection with unlawful demands of property. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused Shaukat Arra was entrusted with the stridhan articles of the complainant which she refused to return on demand and committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the stridhan articles.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court against three accused. However, vide order dated 12.07.2011 accused Faiz Kamil was discharged.
3. Thereafter, Ld. Predecessor of this court had proceeded to frame charge for offence U/s 498A IPC on accused Iftikhar Alam and u/s 406 IPC against accused Shaukat Ara to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. This charge was framed on 09.09.2011.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that against the order of charge of the Page No. 2 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar Ld. Predecessor of this court, the accused persons went in revision and the same was partly allowed by the said court. In the order on the revision petition, accused Shaukat Ara was discharged and the order of the trial court framing charge on the accused Shaukat Ara u/s 406 IPC was set aside.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The gist of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is discussed in the paragraphs that follow:
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. PW1 Sh. Ram Pal Singh was the landlord of the accused and victim in the year 2004. He has deposed that the accused and complainant were living in his house on rent in the year 2004 and he never saw any quarrel between them.
7. PW2 Ms. Ishrat Ara is the complainant. She has deposed that on 19.04.1998 she got married to accused at Patna and thereafter she went to her matrimonial house at Fulwari Sharif, Patna with her husband. According to her, the accused came to Delhi leaving her in Page No. 3 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar the matrimonial house at Patna. She stated that after about 23 months of the marriage, her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and her husband started demanding Rs.1,000,00/ and a motor cycle. She stated that her motherinlaw used to harass her and also used to beat her. Further, according to her on 01.07.2000 while she was cooking fish at around 11.00 am, her motherinlaw came and assaulted her and said that she was late in preparing the meal due to which her hand got burnt. She stated that her motherinlaw used to tell her to go to her parents house and used to threaten her that if she would not go, she would be killed. Due to the threats by her motherinlaw complainant went to her parents house in the same year where she lived for around 1 ½ months and then came back to the matrimonial house. She further stated that her motherinlaw did not open the door and threatened her to again go back otherwise she would drown her in the well in the house. She stated that she informed her husband through fax regarding the torture but he did not support her. Therefore, she went back to her parents house and lived there till December. She goes on to depose that on 25.12.2001 her father sent Page No. 4 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar her to Delhi with her brother and she went to the place where her husband was working. However, her husband avoided meeting her so she went to her brother's house at Delhi and later went to the house where her husband was living on rent at B80 Jawahar Park, Khanpur, New Delhi. She further stated that her husband agreed to keep her and she started living with her husband. She deposed that the accused husband started beating her and she saw that there were other lady's clothes in the house. According to her, her husband used to ask her to go back to her parents house otherwise he would kill her. She stated that due to harassment and threatening by the accused, she went to Patna with her brotherinlaw Sarfaraz @ Sonu on the directions of her husband. There the brother in law left her at the road outside the railway station at Patna. She then called her father on which her father and brother took her to the house from the place near the station. Thereafter on 19.11.2002 she again came back to Delhi with her father and brother and went to house of her husband where she again started living with her husband. Again her husband kept beating her and harassing her continuously and also used to stay Page No. 5 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar away from the house even for few days. Further, according to her on 15.01.2004 since morning the accused started abusing her and harassing her and also kicked her. She stated that on the same day her husband left the house with suitcase telling her that he will be coming in 45 days. However, he did not came even after 45 days therefore she informed her inlaws and her parents. After few days her father came to Delhi on 31.01.2004 and made a complaint regarding the missing of her husband in PS on 01.02.2004 at PS Ambedkar Nagar. She deposed that on 03.02.2004 she made a complaint to CAW Cell Ex.PW2/A. She goes on to depose that on 04.02.2004 she went to her parental house and sent a telegram to her inlaws regarding her father taking her with him to his house. During inquiry she handed over the list of her stridhan to the police which she exhibited as Ex.PW2/B (colly). She stated that some articles out of this list were returned to her vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C and the handing over memo Ex.PW2/D. She also received jewellery items vide memo Ex.PW2/E. In lieu of the amount which was given by her father to her husband i.e. Rs.1,40,000/ as per their demand before Page No. 6 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar marriage, during inquiry a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/ were handed over to her by way of 2 DDs copies of which are as Ex.PW2/F.
8. PW3 Md. Nizamuddin Malik is the father of the complainant. He has deposed that on 15.04.1998 his daughter got married to the accused. According to him when his daughter went to her matrimonial house she was ill treated by her inlaws and husband. He deposed that upon inquiry she told that she was being illtreated as she did not fulfill the promises made at the time of marriage, more specifically she said that the inlaws and husband used to say that since her father did not give Rs.1,000,00/ in cash and a motor cycle the same must be given now. He further deposed that his daughter was treated like a servant in the house and the accused husband went away after leaving her with her inlaws as this witness did not give Rs. 1,000,00/ and motor cycle therefore she was mentally and physically harassed by all the inlaws. He goes on to depose that his daughter came to attend a wedding in her parental house in May, 2002 and she was sent to her matrimonial house after 2 months with her brother. However, she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house and was Page No. 7 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar pushed away by her motherinlaw. He stated that his son informed him of this and he went to her matrimonial house and found her on the road. He tried to settle the matter but the motherinlaw of his daughter did not even open the door. Thereafter he took his daughter to the STD shop of her father in law but he also refused to take back her daughter. He then took his daughter to his house and she started living with them. Then in order to settle the dispute he sent his daughter to Delhi where her husband was residing. He stated that reluctantly her husband agreed to keep his daughter with him and she was sent again by her husband along with his brother to live with her inlaws in Patna. Then his daughter was taken to Patna and was left at the middle of the road and was warned not to go to her inlaws place. His daughter then called him from a PCO. When he reached the PCO he saw that lot of crowd had gathered and his daughter told him the whole incident. Then he took her along with him to his house. He further stated that after a few months he sent his daughter to Delhi to her husband's house and on 15.01.2004 her husband left the house where they were living and when he did not return after 56 Page No. 8 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar days his daughter called him and he then went to Delhi and lodged a complaint regarding the missing of his soninlaw to the Police on 01.02.2004. He also tried to contact his daughter's fatherinlaw but he did not give any convincing reply. According to him on 03.02.2004 his daughter lodged a case in the CAW Cell. He stated that the accused did not want to keep his daughter as he could not give a dowry of Rs.1,000,00/ and a motor cycle to them. He stated that when his daughter was residing with her husband in Delhi once he visited her and the accused raised a demand of Rs.1,000,00/ and a motor cycle. After case was lodged in the CAW Cell they came to know that the accused had left for Kenya.
9. PW4 SI Roshan Lal is the first Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on 26.07.2005 he was posted as ASI at PP Madangir, PS Ambedkar Nagar. According to him on that day he was handed over present case FIR along with 15 documents and was marked as IO. The said 15 documents he filed on record. During investigation he searched for the accused but it was found that he had left the rented house. During investigation some dowry articles were handed over to Page No. 9 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar him by Nizam Ahmed vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. In the meantime the case was transferred from him to other IO due to his ill health. He recorded the statement of witnesses.
10. PW5 SI Nirbhay Kumar is the second Investigating Officer. He has deposed that in September, 2006 he was marked as IO of the present case. He arrested the accused Iftikhar Kamil, Shaukat Ara and Fayyaz Kamil formally vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. According to him during investigation he seized the wedding card mark WC. He then recorded the statement of witnesses and after finalization of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet against the accused and filed the same in court for judicial verdict.
11. Thereafter, no other witness was examined and PE was closed. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
12. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution for it is on the evidence of the prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
Page No. 10 of 18
FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
13. Coming to the offence u/s 498A IPC. What needs to be ascertained is what was the cruelty committed upon the complainant which can be said to be likely to cause grave injury or danger to her life or health. The prosecution was required to prove that the complainant was treated with cruelty in her matrimonial house in such a manner and to such an extent that grave injury to her life, limb or mental and physical health was caused. It was also to be established that this cruelty was committed in order to compel her to fulfill unlawful demand of property from her parental house.
14. The only accused facing trial is the husband of the complainant, therefore, it is only his conduct which is under scrutiny in this trial and the alleged allegations against the remaining accused are of no relevance at this stage now. In the entire deposition. Regarding the accused husband the following allegations have been made by the victim:
1. That after around 23 months of the marriage, he along with his family members raised a demand of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle. Page No. 11 of 18
FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar
2. That he did not support the victim when she informed him through fax about the cruelty meted out to her by his family members,
3. That when the couple started living together in Delhi from 25.12.2001, he used to beat the victim and used to ask her to go back to her parents house, otherwise he would kill her.
4. That he used to stay away from the house for few days, and
5. That on 15.01.2004 he kicked the victim, abused her and left the house saying that he would come back after 45 days but never came back.
15. These allegations emerged from the chief examination of the victim. Coming first to the allegation regarding demand of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle by the husband. Whereas in the court, the victim as well as her father have deposed that the husband also used to raise a demand of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle, in the complaint (Ex.PW2/A) on the basis of which this FIR has been registered, the victim has nowhere mentioned that her husband also raised these demands and has only stated that these demands were raised by his father and mother. It is also to be kept in mind that according to the victim Page No. 12 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar herself soon after the marriage, her husband left for Delhi leaving her behind to live with his parents in the matrimonial house. Therefore, the husband was not living in the matrimonial house. Thus, how could he participate in the demand by his mother and father. Thus, this allegation remains uncorroborated and unsustained.
16. Coming to the next allegation which is that the husband did not support his wife when she informed him about the alleged torture by the other inlaws. According to the complainant she had informed the husband about the alleged cruelty through fax. However, no proof of any such fax being dispatched is on record. What were the ways in which the complainant expected the husband to support her, have not been mentioned by her and it is only vaguely stated that "he did not support me". How many times she informed her husband has not been mentioned by her and neither his responses have been mentioned by her, therefore, this also remains a bald and vague allegation.
17. The other allegation as emerged from the chief examination is that when the couple was residing in Delhi, the husband used to beat the Page No. 13 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar victim. Now, the victim stayed with her husband for a long time between 2002 to 2004. When during this stay she was beaten by her husband has not been mentioned. Now, in the complaint Ex.PW2/A, she stated that her husband used to beat her when she used to protest regarding his bad habits of drinking and coming late at night. However, in the court she stated that her husband used to beat her to compel her to leave him and go back to the matrimonial house. Which of these two versions is correct is doubtful. Be that as it may, it is nowhere stated that these beatings were given to the victim to compel her to bring dowry from her parents. Further, the victim, an educated post graduate in science, never made any complaint to any authority regarding these beatings when she was living in Delhi. What injuries were caused due to these beatings has also not mentioned anywhere. Thus, it cannot be said that these allegations regarding beatings have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. One other grievance of the complainant is that her husband used to stay away from the house for a few days altogether without informing her. Except for the bald averments of the complainant, there is no other Page No. 14 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar material to support these averments. The landlord who was an important prosecution witness has nowhere deposed that the accused used to be missing from his residence for a long time period altogether or that he used to see him coming late usually at night. Being the landlord he would have known if the accused would regularly not live in the house or come late. But he has not deposed on these lines. When the accused went missing from the house has not been mentioned by the victim anywhere. Thus, these allegations is also vague, general and unsupported.
18. Coming now to the allegations regarding the incident of 15.01.2004. According to the victim on this date, her husband gave beatings to her and then left the house saying that he would come back after 45 days but did not come back even after 5 days so she was constrained to call her father and lodge a complaint in the police station regarding her husband going missing. Now, these allegations does not inspire confidence. This is because while the complainant rushed to make a missing complaint to the police, she has never made any effort to inquire about the whereabouts of her husband from his Page No. 15 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar office. She has elsewhere stated in her chief examination that she had visited the office of the husband earlier. This shows that she and her family members were very well aware of his office address. It only seems natural that the wife would try to make some inquiries from the office of her husband before approaching the police stating that the husband has gone missing but the same was not done by her. In such circumstances what was the occasion for lodging a missing person report is not clear. Further, no such missing person report is on record.
19. The defence taken by the accused with respect to him leaving the residence on 15.01.2004 is that he was sent to Srilanka for some office work. In fact prosecution itself has placed on record letter from the office of accused i.e one LNC Apparel Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is mentioned by the employer that indeed the accused left India on 15.01.2004 to Srilanka for office work. Thus, it is clear that the accused had not deserted the victim but has gone out of India for some office work.
20. The victim is the only witness to the alleged cruelty by the husband. The other public witness i.e. the father has nowhere Page No. 16 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar mentioned that the accused gave any beatings to the victim in his presence. He has only vaguely stated that once (the date or month he did not remember), the accused had raised a demand of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle from him. This is too vague an allegation and is not even supported by the testimony of the victim herself. The victim has nowhere stated that a demand of motorcycle was ever raised from her father also in her presence in Delhi. The father is a highly educated man and therefore for him to say that he does remember when dowry was demanded by his soninlaw in Delhi does not inspire confidence and rather makes the whole allegation flimsy. Even in the complaint on the basis of which this FIR has been registered, it is nowhere mentioned that any amount was demanded by the father of the victim. There is not available on record any statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the father where it is mentioned that any dowry was ever demanded from the father and therefore, this is a fresh allegation raised for the first time only during trial.
21. Therefore, considering all the facts as mentioned above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable Page No. 17 of 18 FIR No. 481/05 P. S. Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Iftekhar doubt that the complainant was treated with cruelty by the accused over demands of dowry. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 498A IPC.
DECISION
22. The accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 498A IPC with which he was charged.
23. File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in (MONIKA SAROHA)
the open Court on 20.02.2015 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket
New Delhi.
Page No. 18 of 18