Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Vinod Kumar & Ors. on 20 July, 2013

                          IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
      METROPOLITAN  MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
                      SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.


State  Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. 
FIR No. 328/01
P.S. :  Mehrauli 
U/S : 498A/406/34 IPC
CASE ID: 02403R0492132003


JUDGMENT

1.DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE                 : 21.06.2002

2.SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE                               : 434/2

3.DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE         : 03.12.96 till 2000.

4.NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT                                 :  Smt. Rekha 

5.NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS : 1. Vinod Kumar (Husband) S/o Sh. Kishan Pal R/o Naya Gaon, P.S Sohana, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana

2. Kishan Pal (father­in­law) S/o Sh. Tirkha R/o Naya Gaon, P.S Sohana, Distt. Gurgaon State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

Haryana

3. Smt. Parmali Devi (mother­in­law) W/o Kishan Pal R/o Naya Gaon, P.S Sohana, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana

4. Rakesh (Devar) S/o Kishan Pal R/o Naya Gaon, P.S Sohana, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana

5. Jai Bir (Nandoi) S/o Shri Chand R/o Village Tigaon P.S Charsa, Distt.

Faridabad, Haryana

6. Veena (Nanad) W/o Sh. Jai Bir R/o Village Tigaon P.S Charsa, Distt.

Faridabad, Haryana

6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/S 498­A/406/34 IPC State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty

8. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED: 12.07.2013

9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquittal

10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 20.07.2013 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:­

1. The present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated Nil received by ACP, CAW Cell on 11.04.2001. The complaint was lodged by Smt. Rekha, who shall be referred as ''the complainant", hereinafter, against her husband Sh. Vinod Kumar and other relatives of the husband.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant married to accused Vinod on 03.12.1996 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies Her father spent Rs. 5 Lakhs in her marriage. He also gifted 35 Tolas of gold and 80 Tolas of silver jewelery articles. The accused persons were not happy with the dowry articles. They started torturing the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs and a maruti car. The specific incidents of torture narrated in the complaint are as under:­ State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

2.(i) On 07.12.1996, the complainant was beaten up and abused. She was locked up in a room and kept hungry for two days. She was taken out of the room on 09.12.1996 and was threatened of dire consequences if demands were not fulfilled. On the evening of 10.12.96, she was left at her parental house. She informed them of the demand of accused persons. On 11.12.1996, father of the complainant went to the matrimonial house and requested the accused persons not to torture his daughter. Accused persons repeated their demand of maruti car and cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs. On 22.12.96, father of the complainant arranged Rs. 50,000/­ and went with her to her matrimonial house, paid the money to her husband in the presence of other accused persons and requested them to keep their daughter well. The accused persons mend their behaviour for some days thereafter, but again started insisting on fulfillment of their demands and threatened the complainant.

2.(ii) Husband of the complainant left her to her parental house on first Holi and told her not to enter in the matrimonial house without Rs. 2 Lakhs and maruti car. The complainant informed her parents and her father again arranged a sum of Rs. 50,000/­ and paid to the husband of the complainant at her matrimonial house when he went to drop her after ten days of Holi. Again, the accused persons State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

mend their behaviour for some days but thereafter, started extending physical and mental torture.

                  2.(iii)          The complainant could not give birth to 
                  a child. Hence, all the            accused   persons   called 
                  her barren and tortured her.
                  2.(iv)           In   the   year   1998   on   the   eve   of   Bhai 
                  Dooj,   the   brother   of   the   complainant   went   to   her 

matrimonial house where mother­in­law and sister­in­ law repeated the demands of Rs. 2 lakhs and maruti car. They referred the complainant as Barren. Brother of the complainant objected to it at which they abused him and the complainant.

2.(v) On 25.04.1999, mother­in­law again repeated the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and a maruti car. The complainant retaliated saying that her father was poor and was unable to fulfill the demand. Hearing this, the accused persons got enraged. Sister­in­law pulled the hairs of the complainant and mother­in­law slapped her. Complainant cried for help after which her brother­in­law, husband and father­in­law also reached there and joined the mother­in­law and sister­in­law in beating the complainant. Brother­in­ law held the hands of the complainant, husband kicked her and gave fist blows and father­in­law hit her with danda. Thereafter, her father­in­law left her at her parental house without saying anything to anyone. After this incident, father of the complainant approached her in­laws for a number of times so that State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

conciliation could be effected. On 21.10.1999, a Panchayat was collected by the father of the complainant at matrimonial house during which accused persons apologized and brought her back. However, they again started torturing her.

2.(vi) On 06.06.2000, the accused/husband, mother­in­law and father­in­law threw the complainant out of the matrimonial house in three wearing cloths after beating her and threatened that she will not be allowed to enter in the house again. They did not return the stridhan despite demand.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, ACP, CAW Cell marked the enquiry to ASI Anju Tyagi on 19.04.2001. ASI Anju Tyagi summoned both the parties and efforts for reconciliation were made but to no avail. Thereafter, she submitted her report on the basis which Addl. DCP­II (South) recommended for registration of FIR on 21.05.2001.

4. On 06.06.2001, vide DD no. 20A at around 8.00 P.M, FIR for the offence punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC was registered with the order of SHO, police station Mehrauli.

5. Investigation was conducted after registration of FIR. During investigation, Istridhan was seized and accused persons were arrested. Statement of various witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court on 21.06.2002. Court took cognizance of the offence on the same day and accused persons were summoned. They entered appearance on 04.09.2002. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to them in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

7. Vide order dated 14.01.2004 it was observed that a prima facie case for the offences punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC was made out against all the six accused persons while offence u/s 406/34 IPC was made out against the husband, mother­in­law and father­in­law. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. In order to prove the aforesaid case, prosecution has examined total thirteen witnesses. Out of the thirteen witnesses, four are public witnesses and the remaining nine are police officials. Public witnesses :

9. PW1 is the complainant. During her examination­in­chief, she deposed that she married to the accused Vinod on 03.12.1996. A sum of Rs. 5.75 lakhs was spent in her marriage. Istridhan as per list Ex.PW1/A was handed over to her. However, all the accused persons were not satisfied with State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

the dowry articles and they started torturing her. She was beaten up by them. All the accused persons used to call her barren and would demand maruti car. Her father paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/­ twice to fulfill their demand but this did not satisfy the accused persons despite the fact that her father had given 35 tolas of gold and 80 tolas of silver in her marriage, and requested them with folded hands to keep her well quite a number of times. She identified her complaint Ex.PW1/B.

10. Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the Court to cross examine this witness without declaring her hostile on the ground that she was silent about certain incidents narrated by her in the complaint. This request of ld. APP was allowed by the Court. During cross­examination, Ld. APP put leading questions to her picking up each content of the complaint and each of the incident, which were answered in affirmative by the complainant. She further identified her marriage card as Ex.PW1/C, and the seizure memo vide which her istridhan was seized as Ex.PW1/D. She also produced the seized istridhan articles which are Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 identity of which was not disputed by the ld. counsel for the accused.

11. During cross­examination by the ld. defence counsel, she deposed that she had three sisters and all of them got married on 03.12.96 State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

i.e. the day of her marriage, in the same pandaal. She also deposed that her father gave same dowry articles to all the four sisters and at the time of her marriage, he was employed in Delhi Water Supply. She was unable to tell the designation of her father and deposed that she was only 15 years of age at the time of marriage. When she was questioned about the incident of 06.06.2000, she stated that she was shown to a doctor after the said incident but she does not remember the name of the doctor and she further cannot say as to for how long she was given treatment. She also deposed that her father does not own any four wheeler. She admitted that the accused Vinod was handicap but denied the suggestion that she did not like her marriage with the accused due to the fact that he was handicap. She denied that she had taken away all her istridhan. She admitted that she had appeared in a case filed by her husband against her at Gurgaon Courts but denied that the present complaint was filed by her as a counter blast to the said case of her husband.

12. As she was questioned about the Panchayat, she deposed that the Panchayat was held at the house of her in­laws and she was present in the Panchayat alongwith her father. She further deposed that the accused persons had admitted their mistake in her presence. A writing was given by State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

them in the Panchayat which may be lying with her father. She admitted that her sister­in­laws was already married prior to her marriage. She further admitted that she had already obtained ex­prate divorce from her husband and re­married. When questioned about payment of Rs. 50,000/­, she deposed that she did not see her father giving Rs. 50,000/­to her in­laws as she was in Parda but stated that one of the relative was present at the time of payment. When she was questioned about name of the relative, she stated that she did not remember. When she was questioned about the dates on which she was beaten up by the accused persons, she stated that she was unable to tell the dates as she was illiterate. She denied that she was not happy in her second marriage and she tried to consume poison. She further denied that all her four sisters were given in marriage on the same day as her father was having financial problem and stated that her father was suffering from heart attack and that is why all the four sisters were given in marriage together.

13. PW3 Sh. Hari Kishan also deposed about the marriage of PW1 with the accused Vinod. He deposed that he had given 8 tolas of gold and 1­1.5 kg silver items to the complainant in the marriage and the list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage but it was handed over to the State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

accused persons. Regarding the entrustment of the articles, he deposed that the articles were gifted to the husband and father­in­law. He further deposed that his daughter had come for Phera ceremony for the first time on 10.12.1996 and she stayed with him for 8­10 days. She was brought from her matrimonial house by his family members but was taken back by her husband properly. He deposed that the taunts started after the Phera ceremony and this fact was conveyed to him by one of the neighbourer Bhule Sukhdar. He also deposed about payment of cash of Rs. 50,000/­ to the accused persons twice and stated that once it was given at the house of the accused and for the second time, it was given at his house to accused Vinod for purchase of a vehicle. He further stated that accused persons had beaten her daughter in the year 1998 and he visited her house for the first time at that time. He saw his daughter in an injured condition. Blood was oozing out from her forehead and all over her body. He tried to take his daughter to the parental house but the accused persons did not agree after which he gathered some of his relatives and brought her back. He further deposed that some of the articles were recovered and even after filing of the present complaint, the accused persons threatened him and his daughter regarding which he lodged DD no. 16A dated 16.04.2001 at the police station Defence State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

Colony copy of which is Ex.PW2/A. He also identified his statement which is Ex.PW3/A recorded on 04.05.2001, where he prayed for closure of enquiry at CAW Cell and registration of case. Regarding the Panchayat, he deposed that no Panchayat was held between him and the accused persons.

14. This witness was also cross­examined by the Ld. APP and during cross­examination, he stated that the accused persons had given an affidavit in his favour in the presence of one Bhule Sukhdar saying that they will not harass his daughter in future. The affidavit was identified by him as Mark A. On the suggestion of Ld. APP, he deposed that his daughter had come to his house for the first time on 10.12.1996 after marriage. She was very frightened at that time and she told him that the accused persons had given her beatings on 07.12.1996. He also thereafter admitted that on 11.12.1996, he went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and requested the accused persons not to harass her but they demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs and a maruti car after which he paid Rs. 50,000/­ on 22.12.1996. He also admitted about the Panchayat and further payment of Rs. 50,000/­ to the accused, and identified his statement dated 10.06.2001 as Ex.PW3/B, which was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

15. During cross­examination by the ld. counsel for the accused, he State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

admitted that all his four daughters were given in the marriage on the same day. He was working in Delhi Jal Board at that time and his monthly salary was Rs. 2800/­ per month approximately. He deposed that apart from salary, he had some agricultural land but did not give any description of the land. He admitted that prior to the present complaint, no complaint of cruelty was lodged either by him or his daughter in the police station. He admitted that he did not have any receipts of the jewelery purchased at the time of marriage of her daughter and again during cross­examination, he admitted that till the time of first visit of her daughter for Phera ceremony after 7­8 days of marriage, there was no problem from the side of the accused persons. He stated that his daughter knows little Hindi.

16. When he was questioned about the bruises on the person of his daughter and about medical treatment, he deposed that due to the fear of the society, he did not take his daughter for medical examination to any doctor though the doctor was called at his house and he did not tell the police about this. He denied the suggestion that his daughter refused to join the matrimonial house as the accused was handicapp. When questioned about the expenses of marriage, he stated that he spent Rs. 10­12 Lakhs in the marriage of the complainant. Further regarding payment of Rs. 50,000/­, he State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

stated that this amount was paid from his own savings. He denied that he had given all his four daughters in marriage as his financial condition was not good.

17. PW4 Shyam Vir and PW5 Prakash deposed that on 03.12.1996, they had attended the marriage of the complainant with accused Vinod and in the marriage, father of the complainant had given lot of dowry articles like almirah, bed, T.V. Fridge, cooler and jewelery. These witnesses were cross­ examined by the ld. counsel for the accused and during cross­examination, they deposed that on 03.12.1996 two daughters of Hari Pehlwan (i.e. father of the complainant) were given in marriage.

Police witnesses

18. Total nine police officials were examined by the prosecution. Out of the nine police officials, two are formal witnesses and remaining seven were involved in the investigation.

Formal witnesses

19. PW2 HC Jawahar Lal deposed that on 30.04.2001, he was working as a duty officer in police station Mehrauli and he recorded DD no. 16A on the basis of the statement of Hari Pehlwan, father of the complainant, which is Ex.PW2/AD. In the said DD entry, it was recorded that the accused State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

persons were extending threats to Hari Pehlwan.

20. PW9 ASI Suraj Mal deposed that he was working as a duty officer and he registered the FIR. He also identified the FIR Ex.PW9/A and endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW9/B. Witnesses to investigation

21. PW9 SI Bikram Singh is the IO of the case, who deposed about the steps of investigation undertaken by him. He deposed that on 06.06.2001, FIR was registered and the investigation of the case was marked to him. On 05.07.2001, he went to Naya Gaon, police station Sohna, Gurgaon which was the matrimonial house of the complainant alongwith PW3 Hari Kishan and PW7 ASI Mohd. Ali. The complainant was also accompanying him. At the instance of the complainant, he recovered the stridhan of the complainant and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. He also deposed about the arrest and personal search of accused Vinod and Kishan Pal on the same day and identified their arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D. He was corroborated by PW6 HC Babita and PW7 ASI Mohd. Ali on this aspect.

22. PW9 further deposed that on 11.09.2001, accused Parmali Devi surrendered in the police station and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/A. State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

PW8 W/HC Dhanwanti also corroborated PW9 on this aspect.

23. PW9 also deposed that on 16.09.2001, accused Vinod and Jai Bir were arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B in the presence of PW10 ASI Suraj Mal. ASI Suraj Mal corroborated PW9 on this aspect.

24. It was moreover deposed by PW9 that on 20.09.2001, accused Rakesh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/A and PW11 ASI Rajender Singh corroborated him on this aspect.

25. During cross­examination, PW9 admitted that he did not record the statement of the neighbourers and no receipt of jewelery etc. was shown to him by the complainant. He also deposed that he had demanded the bank statement regarding the amount of Rs. 50,000/­ allegedly paid by the father of the complainant twice but the same was not handed over to him. He also admitted that all the articles shown by the complainant from the matrimonial house were seized. It was further deposed by him that no witness of alleged Panchayat was produced before him and hence, he did not examine any such witness. It was also the admission of PW9 that one more sister of the complainant was married in the house of the accused persons but no complaint regarding demand of dowry was lodged by her.

26. PW12 WSI Anju Tyagi deposed that she was posted in CAW State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

Cell and the complaint on the basis of which FIR was lodged, was marked to her for enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, she recommended for registration of FIR. During cross­examination, she could not answer any question put forth by the ld. counsel for the accused and stated that she was unable to reveal anything about the enquiry due to lapse of time and she needed to look into the record for refreshing her memory.

27. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons on 14.07.2011 U/s 313 Cr.P.C and all the six accused persons denied the incriminating evidence and stated that complainant wanted to obtain divorce from accused Rakesh as she did not like the fact that he was handicap. They further stated that it was accused Vinod who first moved an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and this application was withdrawn by him at the instance of the father of the complainant who stated that the matter would be compromised. However, the complainant later on refused to withdraw her complaint before CAW Cell.

28. Two witnesses were examined by the accused persons in their defence. DW1 is the accused Vinod himself and DW2 is Lakhan Singh, neighbourer of the accused. DW1 Vinod deposed that he married to the complainant but she did not like his appearance as he was handicap and State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

also the surrounding environment as there was no water supply, wash room and toilet in the house. She went back to her parental house and did not return. Certain Panchayats were convened at the behest of the accused persons after which she returned in the year 2000 but was taken back under the pretext of marriage at a neighbour's family from where she did not return. He proved his petition filed before the Ld. Family Court u/s 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, certified copy of which is Ex.DW1/A. It was deposed by him that the complainant offered to withdraw her complaint and inturn requested the accused to withdraw his petition after which the same was disposed off as withdrawn. He relied upon the certified copy of the order which is Ex.DW1/B. However, the complainant did not withdraw her complaint and instead filed a divorce petition and obtained ex­parte divorce, copy of the petition is Ex.DW1/C. He further deposed that the complainant took away all her articles while leaving the matrimonial house.

29. During cross­examination, he deposed that the complainant showed her dissatisfaction to his leg when she visited the matrimonial house second time after Phera ceremony. He also deposed that he did not meet the complainant prior to marriage and after marriage, she had stayed only for ten days in the matrimonial house. He admitted that he is driver by profession but State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

denied that he wanted a car to ply and demanded money from the father of the complainant or that he misappropriated the jewelery of the complainant or that he had beaten the complainant in the year 1998 due to which she got injuries. He denied that Bhule Sukhdar was his neighborer.

30. DW2 Lakhan Singh deposed that he was residing in the neighborhood of the accused persons and he attended the marriage of the complainant with the accused in the year 1996. He deposed that it was a simple marriage and only traditional items were given. The complainant did not like the surrounding environment and life style of the accused persons due to which her father did not send her back after marriage. The Panchayat was convened at the instance of the accused persons and father of the complainant agreed to send her but did not keep his promise.

31. DW2 deposed that the complainant was never harassed by the accused persons. However, during cross­examination, he deposed that he came to know about all the aforesaid facts either from the father of the accused or from the women folks of the village and none of the incidents deposed by him was based upon his personal knowledge.

32. Arguments were heard after completion of evidence. Ld. APP for the State argued that both the public witnesses have supported the case State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

of the prosecution and hence the accused persons should be convicted. On the other hand, ld. defence counsel argued that there are certain major contradictions in the testimony of the public witnesses and hence, the accused persons should be acquitted.

33. I have considered the rival contentions. Record perused.

34. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.

35. Section 498A IPC punishes cruelty extended to the wife by the husband and his relatives. This cruelty can be physical or mental cruelty of such nature as is likely to cause grave injury on the person of the wife or as is likely to drive her to commit suicide, or else, it can be a cruelty in the form of demand of money or valuable security and consequent harassment for coercing the wife or her relatives to fulfill the said demand.

36. Section 406 IPC punishes criminal breach of trust. Entrustment of property and its misappropriation by the accused are the essential ingredients of this section.

37. A careful perusal of the testimony of the two public witnesses reveals many anomalies and contradictions. The manner of examination of PW1 and PW3 itself raised doubt upon the story of the prosecution. It is State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

worthy to note that when PW1 first appeared in the witness box, she did not depose much about the contents of her complaint but only talked about the allegations of demand of maruti car and beatings in general without adverting to the date, time and place and without specifying the role of each of the accused. Similar is the position with PW3, who is the father of the complainant. Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the Court to cross examine these two witnesses and during cross­examination, each content of the complaint was put to these witnesses which was simply answered in affirmative by them. This makes it clear that none of the incidents mentioned in the complaint came out of the mouth of the witnesses naturally but it was suggested to them. This raises two presumptions. First that the witnesses had forgotten about the incidents due to lapse of time; and second that the story put forth in the complaint may have been concocted. Now, as per record, the complaint was lodged in March, 2001. In the complaint, the complainant stated about each of the incident of cruelty in specific giving the date of such cruelty and also the place. She remembered each and every event that occurred since 1996. She was examined in the court in 2004. It appears strange and unbelievable that she remembered each and every incident since 1996 in the year 2001, but she forgot everything in the year State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

2004 i.e. just after 3 years. During her cross­examination, PW1 had taken a defence that she is illiterate and that is why she was unable to tell the exact date and time. However, the manner in which the complaint has been written, it is clear that it was written by the complainant or on her dictation and not by an illiterate person. The tenor of writing states that it was a semi literate person who was writing it. In this situation, the plea of the complainant that she is illiterate appears to be an after thought specifically if considered in light of her father's statement who deposed that complainant knew Hindi. Even otherwise, the contents of the complaint were in the specific knowledge of the complainant only and hence it could not have been dictated or written by anyone else except the complainant. All this is suggestive of the fact that the allegations in the complaint may have been concocted.

38. Further there are contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW1 and PW3, who are the material witnesses of the prosecution. In her complaint, PW1 talked about various incidents of cruelty. The first incident narrated by her pertains to the cruelty between 07.12.1996 till 22.12.1996. As per the complaint, during this period, the complainant had gone to her parents house for Phera ceremony. In her complaint, it was alleged by PW1 that she was beaten and locked from 07.12.1996 to State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

09.12.1996 and thereafter, the accused persons left her in her matrimonial house. However, during deposition, father of the complainant deposed that his family members had brought the complainant from the matrimonial house and she was taken properly by her husband after 8­10 days and till then, there were no problems from the side of in­laws.

39. PW1 also stated in her complaint that her father had left her in the matrimonial house on 22.12.1996 and he paid Rs. 50,000/­ to the accused persons on that day. But this statement is in clear contradiction to the testimony of PW3, father of the complainant, who deposed that the husband of the complainant took her from the matrimonial house properly after Phera ceremony. Father did not utter a single word about the payment of Rs. 50,000/­ to the accused at the time of Phera ceremony.

40. The complainant further stated in her complaint that Rs. 50,000/­ was paid to her husband at the time of Holi i.e. in the year 1997. The father also deposed that Rs. 50,000/­ once was paid to the accused in the year 1997­1998 but did not depose that this amount was paid at the time of Holi. He further deposed that at the second time, Rs. 50,000/­ was paid to the accused Vinod at the parental house of the complainant. However, the complainant had stated in her complaint and also answered in affirmative State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

while questioned by the Ld. APP for the State that after Holi her father had left her at the matrimonial house and paid the money there. This again shows contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW3 about the place and time of payment of Rs.50,000/­ for the second time.

41. PW3 was specifically questioned about the source of his income and he deposed that he was working in Delhi Jal Board and earning Rs. 2,800/­ per month. He further deposed that Rs. 50,000/­ was paid by him twice to the accused persons from his savings. But he did not explain as to what were those savings from where he withdrew Rs. 50,000/­ twice. PW9, IO of the case, also deposed that no proof of payment of Rs. 50,000/­ twice was handed over to him by the complainant or her father. It was also admitted by the complainant and her father that on the day of marriage of the complainant, three other sisters were also given in marriage. PW3 had deposed that he spent around Rs. 10­12 Lakhs in the marriage of each of his daughter i.e. around Rs. 40 Lakhs on the same day in marriage of his four daughters. However, no source of earning apart from salary of Rs. 2,800/­ was shown. It is unbelievable and improbable that a person earning Rs. 2,800/­ per month having four girls to raise was able to save such a huge amount for spending in the marriage of his four daughters. Though PW3 had State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

deposed that he was also receiving some income from agricultural land but he did not give any description of such land, neither any amount of such income was specified. The inexplicable source of income suggests that the allegations may have been concocted and the complainant and her father are not coming clean to the court on this aspect.

42. The complainant stated in her complaint that the accused persons used to call her barren but no specific date, time and place have been mentioned either in the complaint or in her deposition in the court. Further, regarding the incident of 1998 when the brother of the complainant was allegedly abused by the accused persons, no witness was examined and father of the complainant deposed that it was he who had visited her in the year 1998 and he found her in an injured condition and she was taken to the doctor. But, complainant did not depose anything about any incident of beating in the year 1998. In fact, she deposed about the incident of beating, that occurred in the year 1999. However, as per her own allegations, father of the complainant did not visit her in the matrimonial house but it was her father­in­law who left her at her parental house and while leaving her, he did not talk to anybody and quietly left.

43. Both the public witnesses deposed that a Panchayat was State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

convened at their instance during which accused persons admitted their mistake. This fact of Panchayat was denied by the accused persons. They deposed that the Panchayat was convened at their instance during which father of the complainant accepted his mistake and agreed to send his daughter back. In this regard, PW1 deposed that the Panchayat was convened at her matrimonial house and she was present at that time but PW3 deposed that PW1 was not present. PW3 further relied upon affidavit Mark A to say that the accused persons had admitted their mistakes in the said affidavits. However, perusal of the affidavit reveals that this affidavit was sworn and signed by the father of the complainant himself stating that the accused persons had admitted their mistake and there is no statement of the accused persons in this respect. The affidavit being a self­serving document, it cannot be relied upon to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

44. The complainant, during her cross­examination, admitted that a case was filed by her husband at Gurgaon courts though she had stated that she had no knowledge about the nature of the case. She further admitted that the present complaint was filed by her after filing of the aforesaid case by her husband in Gurgaon. PW3 appeared in the witness box and deposed that the case was filed by him u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the complainant State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

was not ready to join the matrimonial house and father of the complainant also was adamant not to send her. The conduct of the complainant in filing the present complaint after receiving notice of the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act itself suggests that the present complaint may have been a counter blast. This fact is also strengthened from the fact that the complainant filed a case of divorce against the accused and infact obtained divorce ex­parte.

45. Father of the complainant also deposed that he was beaten by the accused persons with lathi when he went to bring his daughter back but there is no mention of any such incident in the complaint.

46. Regarding the offence of criminal breach of trust, no allegation of entrustment was leveled by the complainant either in her complaint or during her deposition. There is further no deposition or the allegations with respect not to the fact that the complainant demanded her Stridhan back but it was returned by the accused persons. No date, time and place of any entrustment or demand was deposed before the court. The complainant also did not produce any list of Stridhan that may have been prepared at the time of marriage in compliance to section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. No receipts regarding purchase of the articles were handed over to the IO and State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors.

not proof of expenditure was shown or proved in the court. Father of the complainant failed to show the source of income from where he could have purchased 35 Tolas of gold and 80 tolas of silver for gifting the same to her one daughter and similar kind of gold and silver to other three daughters.

47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am constraint to observe that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offences charged.

Pronounced in open court                                   (JYOTI KLER)
on 20  July, 2013
        th
                                               M.M/Mahila Court/South District
                                                     New Delhi/20.07.2013




State Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. 
FIR No. 328/01                                                                              Page No.  28/28