Delhi District Court
State vs . Suresh Kumar Arora Etc. on 26 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS VANDANA JAIN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR NO.: 182/2008
P.S.: Farsh Bazar
U/Section 498-A/406/34 IPC
State VS. Suresh Kumar Arora Etc.
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of commission of : 28.1.1995 till 20.11.1996. offence
2. Name of complainant : Smt. Rajni, D/o Sh. Jugal Kishore Harit, R/o H.No. 500/22,D-4. Gali No.10, Bhikam Singh Colony, Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, his : 1. Ajay Kumar, parentage and address S/o Sh. Itwari Singh, R/o 591/28 G Sahdev Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.
2. Vijay, S/o Sh. Itwari Singh, R/o 591/28 G Sahdev Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.
3. Smt. Birma Devi, W/o Sh. Itwari Singh, R/o 591/28G Sahdev Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.
(EXPIRED)
4. Smt. Shashi, W/o Sh. Sant Ram, R/o 875, Gautam Gali No.3, Jwala Nagar, Delhi.
4.Offence complained of : U/s 498-A/406 IPC
5. The date of order : 11.5.2012
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. The final order : Acquitted.
Reserved for judgment : 7.5.2012
Date of judgment : 11.5.2012
FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc.
2
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The brief facts of the present case which culminated into present FIR are that the complainant got married with accused Ajay Kumar on 28.1.1995 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and the parents of the complainant had spent beyond their capacity in the marriage of the complainant. It is further stated that for 4-5 months she remained quite well in the matrimonial house and thereafter all accused persons i.e. Ajay Kumar (husband) Vijay (brother in law/Devar), Shashi (sister in law/nanad) including Birma Devi (mother in law: now deceased), started taunting her and raised demand for Rs. 50,000/- and her mother in law and sister in law used to instigate her husband and on their instigation he used to give beatings to her. Brother in law/Devar Vijay used to outrage her modesty and when she used to complain to her mother in law about the conduct of her brother in law her mother in law said "AISA TOH HAR GHAR MEIN HOTA HAI". After six months of marriage her husband at the instigation of Vijay (brother in law/Devar) and Shashi (sister in law/nanad) gave beatings to her and left her at the parental home at 10.00pm at night and stated that she should come back home only after Rs. 50,000/- is paid by her father. However, after intervention of respectable members of the family re-conciliation was done and she again joined her matrimonial home. Again a computer was demanded after about 1½ months and her father gave Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing the FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 3 computer to her husband Ajay on 12.2.1996. Thereafter, on 15.8.1996 when she was at the advance stage of pregnancy all accused persons namely Ajay Kumar (husband) Vijay (brother in law/Devar), Shashi (sister in law/nanad) including Birma Devi (mother in law: now deceased) left the complainant at her parental home for bringing money in wearing clothes only and all the dowry articles were lying in the matrimonial home and when she demanded the same back, they refused to return the same.
2. FIR was registered on 7.3.1997 and investigation was done and the charge sheet was filed before this court on 3.6.1997 and vide order dated 26.4.2001 charge for the offence punishable U/s 498-A/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons Ajay Kumar (husband) Vijay (brother in law/Devar), Shashi (sister in law/nanad) including Birma Devi (mother in law: now deceased) and charge for the offence punishable U/s 406 was framed only against accused Ajay Kumar (husband) Vijay (brother in law/Devar) and Shashi (sister in law/nanad). The said charge was read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution cited as many as 8 witnesses namely Smt. Rajni (complainant), Sh. Jugal Kishore (father of complainant), Smt. Laxmi Devi (mother of complainant), Sh. Jhumman Lal, Sh. Mamchand, Sh. Sohan Lal, HC Ashok Kumar, Ct. Chandra Veer, DO/ASI Munshi Singh, MHC(M) and IO/SI Pushp Lata Tyagi. Out of which ASI Munshi Singh, Rajni, Jugal Kishore, FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 4 Laxmi Devi, HC Ashok Kumar, HC Chandravir, Mam Chand, ASI Pushplata, ASI Geeta Rani were examined as PW-1 to PW-8 respectively.
4. PW-1, ASI Munshi Singh, is the Duty Officer who registered the FIR. He stated that on oath that on 7.3.1997 he was posted as Duty Officer in PS Anand Vihar and his duty hours were from 4.00pm to 12 midnight. He further stated that ASI Pushplata Tyagi brought a rukka for registration of FIR. He further stated that on the basis of said rukka he registered FIR in his hand writing. He proved on record the copy of FIR as Ex. PW-1/A which bears his signature. He further stated that after registering the FIR he handed over hte copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
5. PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. defence counse. In his cross examination PW-1 stated that there was no list of dowry articles when the complaint was filed. He further stated that the complaint was in Hindi.
6. PW -2 is the complainant. She stated on oath that he got married to accused Ajay Kumar on 28.1.1995 and her parents gave articles as per list Ex. PW-2/A. She further stated her in laws had also given her jewellery articles. After the performance of marriage all the dowry articles were taken by her husband alongwith his family members to her matrimonial home. It is further stated that her husband Ajay Kumar, Vijay (brother in law/Devar), Shashi (sister in law/nanad), Birma Devi (mother in law), Itwari Singh (Father in FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 5 law) and son of sister in law who had expired used to stay in the matrimonial home and she was kept well for about two months and thereafter her husband started giving her beatings. She was told to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents and her husband left her at parental home to bring money. On the next she brought Rs. 20000/- from her parents. She further stated that her brother in law Vijay misbehave with her and he had also written a letter to her asking her to leave her husband Ajay and the same letter is placed on record. It is further stated that after 3-4 months of marriage her devar gave her beatings. Her nanad also quarrelled with her when she was pregnant and told her that after delivery her parents should give her scooter, cash and other articles, which were not given at the time of marriage, so that accused Ajay could open his own business. She further stated that during the quarrel accused Shashi had thrown tea on her stomach as a result of which she received burn injuries, but she was not medically treated for the same. She further stated that again her husband asked her to bring money and on his demand she brought Rs. 10,000/- from her parental home to purchase a computer. It is further stated that her istridhan articles were partly recovered by the police and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. She further stated that on 17.8.1996 she was turned out from her matrimonial home by her mother in law, sister in law, brother in law and husband. She went to her parental home in three wearing clothes and the jewellery FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 6 which she was wearing were removed by her husband and sister in law. On the next date a baby girl was born to her and all expenses on the delivery of said child were born by her parents. It is further stated that her parents had intimated about the birth of the child to her in laws but no one came from the house of accused persons. Since then she is staying at her parental home and one complaint was subsequently made in Dowry Cell at Shalimar Park which is available on record as Ex. PW-2/E and her dowry articles were not returned even in CAW Cell.
7. PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein she denied that she had been divorced by her husband. She further stated that she had filed a divorce petition. She has denied that she has re-married. She further stated that she had written a complaint to CAW Cell in Hindi language on which her attention was drawn to complaint Ex. PW-2/E , but she denied to have been made by her and her signature on that . She further stated that police did not record her statement after she gave her statement in CAW Cell in Hindi. List of dowry articles was also prepared in her own writing. She further stated that the list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage and the same was handed over to her in laws which was in the hand writing of her parents. She further stated that her mother in law did not come in barat and her dowry articles were sent to her matrimonial home on 29.1.1995 and the same was taken by her sister in law namely Shashi , father in law Itwari Singh, FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 7 Brother in law Vijay and Nandoi Sant Ram to her matrimonial home. She admitted that her husband and father in law are doing the business of supplying books.
8. PW-2 was again cross examined on 5.2.2004 wherein she stated that she had not received her complete istridhan articles. She admitted that a divorce decree has been granted. She denied the suggestion that she had filed a maintenance petition or petition for restitution of conjugal rites. She denied the suggestion that no demand was made by any of the accused persons at any point of time and she did not want to live in her matrimonial home as her requirements were not fulfilled as the financial condition of her in laws was not good.
9. PW-3 Sh. Jugal Kishore is father of the complainant. He stated on oath that his daughter got married in the year 1995 and the dowry was given as per list on record. He further stated that for two months his daughter was kept well in her matrimonial home and thereafter all accused persons started making demand of money. It is further stated by PW-3 that after 3-4 months of marriage he had given Rs. 10,000/- on demand of the accused persons. After payment of money the behaviour of accused persons improved and again they started harassing the complainant. He further stated that his daughter became pregnant, all her delivery expenses were borne by him and accused persons did not come thereafter. He further stated that the accused persons refused to keep his FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 8 daughter saying that the child was illegitimate. Thereafter, a complaint was made to CAW Cell. He further stated that the istridhan articles of his daughter was recovered partly. He further stated that accused Ajay alongwith his 2-3 friends came to his house and threatened them as they had filed a criminal case against them.
10. PW-3 was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he stated that list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage at the time of Vidai Ceremony in his own handwriting, but no signatures were obtained from other side and even he had not signed the list. It is further stated byPW-3 that accused Ajay used to do book binding work during those days. It is further stated that he used to work as Mason during those days and used to earn Rs. 200/- per day and he had spent Rs. 1.5 lacs in his daughters marriage. It is further stated that he is not an income tax payee. He further stated that he had not withdrawn any money from the bank for the purpose of his daughters marriage.. It is further stated that his daughter had told his son about the harassment and demand of accused persons and he had come to know from his son about the harassment and demands of accused persons. He further stated that he had visited his daughter's matrimonial house and only then his daughter had told him about the harassment and demand of dowry. He further stated that the delivery of the child was done in their house. He further admitted that even day to day FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 9 requirements of his daughter was not fulfilled in the house of accused persons. He further stated that his daughter had been brought up in pampered circumstances. He further admitted that his daughter used to complain that her requirements were not fulfilled at her matrimonial home and therefore his daughter did not want to go to her matrimonial home. It is further stated that apart from these his daughter did not want to go to her matrimonial house as she was being harassed in her matrimonial home. He admitted that a divorce decree was granted in her favour and thereafter she remarried. Again said that his daughter is not re- married. He denied the suggestion that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons and he did not pay Rs. 10,000/- to accused Ajay. He stated that istridhan articles were recovered from the house of accused persons. He further stated that he had told the police in his statement that his daughter was kept well for 1 ½ months after marriage and thereafter accused persons started harassing her. He admitted that the statement dated 7.3.1997 is given by him to the police. He was confronted with Ex. PW-3/A wherein it is not so recorded. He further stated that he had given Rs. 10,000/- after about four months of marriage of his daughter. He further stated that accused persons left his daughter 1 ½ month before his delivery.
11. PW-4 Smt. Laxmi Devi is mother of the complainant. She stated on oath that her daughter was married with accused Ajay FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 10 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. She further stated that after about 4-5 months of marriage her daughter made complaint about the taunting for bringing less dowry. She has further stated that accused Ajay used to harass the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from and she was many a times dropped by her in laws to her parental home. She stated that on 12.2.1996 her husband gave Rs. 10,000/- to the inlaws of her daughter for bringing computer. On 15.8.1996 her daughter was beaten up by accused Ajay and others and was dropped at her residence and on 18.8.1996 her daughter gave birth to a female child. She further stated that after the birth of the child they tried to compromise the matter but the accused persons did not compromise and a complaint was lodged to CAW Cell on 7.3.1997.
12. PW-4 was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein she stated that accused Shashi was the mediator of the marriage. She further stated that one list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage and the same was handed over to the accused persons. She has further stated that major items of dowry articles including jewellery were recovered by IO during the investigation of the case. She had denied that her daughter used to make complaint to her that she has not been married to the family as per her choice. She further stated that she cannot tell the date, month or year of making demand of Rs. 50,000/-. She voluntarily stated that the said demand for Rs. 50,000/- was made when her daugher FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 11 was on family way. She further that Rs.10000/- was given for purchasing computer prior to demand of Rs. 50000/-. She further stated that Rs. 10,000/- was given for the purpose of purchasing computer by her husband 4/5 prior to the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. She further stated that her husband is a building contractor. She feigned ignorance about the divorce of her daughter. She further denied that her daughter was never subjected to any kind of cruelty and no demand was ever raised by the accused persons.
13. PW-5 HC Ashok Kumar is the witness to the recovery of the articles. He stated on oath that on 18.4.1997 he was posted at PS Anand Vihar. He further stated that he alongwith, IO Pushplata Tyagi alongwith Ct. Chandrabir went to the house of the complainant. He further stated that they alongwith complainant and her father went to the house of accused at Sahdev Gali, Vishwas Nagar. He further stated that at the instance of complainant IO recovered the stridhan articles vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C. He further stated that IO recorded his statement after the arrest of the accused in his presence. The arrest memo of accused is Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B. He further stated that both accused were arrested in his presence.
14. PW-5 was cross examined by defence counsel, wherein he stated that no public person was present at the time of recovery. He further stated that the recovery memo was prepared at the spot. He further stated that all accused persons namely Ajay, Vijay, FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 12 Shashi and Birma Devi were present at the time of recovery. He denied that the entire proceedings were conducted in PS or that he was deposing falsely.
15. PW-6 HC Chandravir, has deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-5 therefore his testimony is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
16. PW-7 is Sh. Mam Chand who stated on oath that on 19.4.2007, he was present during the investigation of the present case at the house of his neighbour Ajay Kumar. He further stated that on that day the accused persons had handed over one coat pant, one bangle box and two golden metal 'laung (nose pin)' to the police. He further stated that at the instance of complainant police seized the above said articles vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/C.
17. PW-7 was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. In his cross examination he stated that the police had seized the coat pant of accused Ajay. He further stated that police did not recorded his statement. He further stated that the document Ex. PW-2/C was not read over to him. He denied that no articles were seized in his presence.
18. PW-8 is ASI Pushplata, who stated on oath that the complaint of present case was marked to her by the then SHO Anand Vihar. She further stated that after conducting the enquiry she recorded the statement of the complainant which is already marked as Ex.
FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 13 PW-2/A and on 7.3.1997 she made endorsement on Ex. PW-8/A for registration of the case and on the basis of said complaint, present case FIR was registered. The said endorsement bears her signature at point A. She further stated that on the same day, she proceeded on the investigation and reached at Bhikam Singh Colony, House No. 500/22, Gali No. 10 where she recorded the statement of complainant's father Jugal Kishore and Jhuman Lal. She further stated that she seized the marriage card vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/B which bears her signature at point A. She further stated that on 18.4.1997, she raided the house of accused persons with the complainant's father at 59/28G, Sahdev Gali, Vishwas Nagar where the accused persons had produced the istridhan articles of the complainant which was taken into possession vide memo already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/B on the identification of complainant and she got the same signed by the witnesses. The accused persons were arrested at the instance of complainant vide conviction slip already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/C which bears her signature at point A and personal search of accused persons was carried out vide memo's already exhibited in the presence of complainant and one HC. The said memos bears her signature at point B. She further stated that the recovered articles were deposited in Malkhana. She further stated that she recorded the statement of witnesses namely Complainant Rajni, Jugal Kishore (Father of the complainant), HC Ashok Kumar and Ct. Chandraveer.
FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 14 She further stated that on 19.4.1997 the said accused persons were produced before the court and PC remand of the three persons were taken. Thereafter, she alongwith complainant and her parents and went to the house of the accused where certain istridhan articles were recovered on identification of the complainant which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/C which bears her signatures at point X. The accused persons were asked to return the remaining articles but they refused to have the same. She further stated that she again recorded the supplementary statements of the witnesses. She further stated that the complaint from CAW Cell was marked to her for investigation. The articles which were seized vide Ex. PW-/C were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of PLT and the seal was handed over to HC Ashok after its use. She further stated that she can identify the articles which were seized by her. She further stated that she prepared the challan and filed it in the court through SHO.
19. PW8 was cross examined by defence counsel wherein she stated that she had visited the house of the accused persons twice. She further stated that on the first visit only father of accused was there and no other accused persons were present there. She further stated that accused she did not gave any notice to the father of the accused persons regarding the purpose of her visit at their house. She stated that she recovered the case property from the house of the accused persons. She further stated that she had called the FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 15 neighbours for joining the seizure proceedings as well as investigation but no person joined the same. She further stated that all the accused persons were present at the time of recovery of istridhan articles of complainant. She further stated that at the time of arrest of accused Ajay and recovery of istridhan articles of accused, complainant and her father were present there. She further stated that she had obtained the signatures of the complainant on Mark D and Ex. PW-2/B. She further stated that articles Ex. PW-2/B were deposited in Malkhana of PS Anand Vihar. She further stated that she had called the neighbours at the time of arrest of accused persons for recording of their statement but no persons joined at that time. She admitted that complainant did not produce any receipt regarding ownership of istridhan articles before her. She further stated that she did not receive any information regarding divorce petition filed by the complainant. She further stated that she had no knowledge whether the complainant got released the articles on Superdari or not. She denied that the complainant herself did not want to reside with the accused persons because they were poor persons and she could not adjust in their family. She denied that she did not investigate the case properly. She further denied that accused persons never harassed or tortured the complainant with regard to demand of dowry.
20. PW-9, is ASI Geeta Rani, who stated on oath that on 22.11.1996 she was posted at CAW Cell, East District as HC. On FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 16 that day, a complaint was received from Smt. Rajni whch was marked to her for enquiry. She further stated that she had issued summons to the accused persons as well as complainant. In pursuance of the summons complainant Rajni turned up. She further stated that she recorded the statement of complainant already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 and Statement Ex. PW-8/A which bears her signature at point A. She further stated that on 2.1.1997 she recorded the statement of complainant which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/G. She further stated that on 22.1.1997, she recorded the statement of complainant Ex. PW-8/C which bears her signature at point A. None of the accused persons joined the enquiry, and she finally sent the complaint for registration of FIR against the accused persons at PS Anand Vihar which was duly forwarded by senior officers. The said witness was not cross examined by defence counsel.
21. After completion of prosecution evidence SA of all accused were recorded, wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case and wished to lead evidence in their defence. On 25.4.2012 matter was listed for defence evidence but no one appeared as DW. At the request of Ld. Counsel for accused case was again adjourned for defence evidence on 30.4.2012 as last opportunity. Even on 30.4.2012 no one appeared FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 17 on behalf of accused persons for their defence. The opportunity of accused persons to lead evidence in their defence was closed. Thereafter, final arguments were heard in the matter.
22. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. APP for State and defence counsel and have perused the record carefully.
23. Since the accused Birma Devi has already expired and proceedings against her have already been abated and the trial has been faced by accused Ajay, Vijay and Shashi, the observation on testimony of all the witnesses shall be made with regard to said three accused only.
24. The complainant Smt. Rajni has stated that after about two months of marriage her husband gave beatings to her and demanded Rs. 20,000/- and he dropped her at night at her parental home and she was left there and she was told by the husband that she can come back to the matrimonial home only if the demand is fulfilled. And on the very next day she brought Rs. 20,000/- from her parents and handed over the same to accused Ajay. In her examination in chief she has also stated that even her parents had also given Rs. 10,000/- to accused Ajay for purchasing computer.
25. PW-3 Sh. Jugal Kishore, father of the complainant however states that after 3-4 months of marriage he had given Rs. 10,000/- on the demand of said accused persons. He has only stated about payment of Rs. 10,000/- at one point of time, however he has remained silent with regard to the payment of Rs. 20,000/- or FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 18 payment of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of computer. He has further failed to given any date and time of making payment. He did not state the fact that his daughter was dropped at his house and only then the payment was made. Even otherwise, the amount of payment as mentioned in testimony of both the witnesses is different. PW-4, Laxmi Devi mother of the complainant has stated that on 12.2.1996 her husband gave Rs. 10,000/- to the in laws of their daughter for bringing computer whereas PW-3 Jugal Kishore as stated that the payment was made after 2-3 months of marriage. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.1.1995 therefore as per the testimony of father of the complainant the payment was made somewhere in April or May 1995. Whereas as per the mother of the complainant the payment was made on 12.2.1996 for purchase of computer. The complainant has not given any date for bringing Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of purchasing computer. There is not even a whisper of payment of Rs. 20,000/- to accused Ajay Kumar by her parents in their testimony. Hence, the statement regarding the payment of money of all the three witnesses, being inconsistent, is not reliable. The statement of star witnesses of the present case in not in consonance with each other.
26. Further the complainant has stated that her brother in law i.e. accused Ajay used to misbehave with her. In her examination in chief the complainant has stated that accused Vijay had written a FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 19 letter to her in which he had asked her to live with him instead of husband Ajay. The complainant has also enclosed photocopy of letter written by accused Vijay . However, this fact of writing letter does not find any mention in complaint Ex. PW-2/K. Further there are no specific allegations against accused Ajay for demanding dowry as no date, month or year is given. The allegations raised against accused with regard to asking for dowry or instigation to the husband for demand of dowry are bald and baseless. It is further alleged that after the marriage brother in law accused Vijay also gave her beatings. Whereas this fact also does not find mention in Ex. PW-2/K and is an after thought and is an improvement therefore her testimony with regard to accused Ajay cannot be relied upon
27. As regards accused sister in law Shashi, the complainant has stated that the said accused had quarrelled with her and told her that after her delivery her parents should give scooter and cash which was not given at the time of marriage so that accused Ajay could open his own business. This fact also does not find any mention in Ex. PW-2/A and the same appears to be an improvement which is not admissible. Further, no date with regard to this demand by accused Shashi has been given. It is further admitted by PW-4 Laxmi Devi that accused Shashi was the mediator of the marriage. Further no specific allegations have been levelled against the sister in law. Complainant in her statement has also stated that accused Shashi had thrown tea on her stomach as a FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 20 result of she sustained burn marks, but she could not get herself medically treated. This fact also does not find mention in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. The allegations levelled against accused sister in law Shashi are vague, general and omnibus. Therefore, they cannot pass through the test of being strictly proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts.
28. The fact that at the time of her delivery the sister in law of the complainant came to their house and instigated her husband to raised demand regarding cash and scooter and on 17.8.1996 she was turned out of her matrimonial home by all accused persons in wearing clothes and on the next date baby girl was born is also disputed. PW-3 has stated that the accused persons had left his daughter at his house 1 ½ months prior to the delivery of her daughter. Whereas PW-4 had stated that on 15.8.1996 her daughter was beaten up by accused Ajay and others and was dropped at their residence and on 18.8.1996 her daughter gave birth to a female child, whereas complainant has stated that she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 11.08.1996 Testimony of all three star witnesses of the present case with regard to the coming of complainant to her parental home is different and different versions are being given by all three witnesses.
29. In view of the unreliable testimony of all the star witnesses of the present case, I feel no hesitation in holding that the allegations U/s 498-A IPC are not made out as testimony of PW-2 contains FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 21 material improvement and embellishments and cannot be held reliable to convict the accused persons.
30. As regards the offence punishable U/s 406 IPC, the complainant has stated that after performance of marriage all the dowry articles were taken by her husband alongwith his family members to the matrimonial house on 28.1.1995. However, there are no allegations of either entrustment of istridhan articles. She has stated that when she was turned out from the matrimonial home she went to her parental home in wearing clothes only. At one place in her examination in chief, she has stated that the jewellery which she was wearing was removed by her sister in law and her husband. However, the complainant has failed to enumerate the jewellery articles which she was wearing and the same were removed by accused Ajay and Shashi. Neither any document with regard to ownership of articles have been produced in support of her contention by the complainant. Further, no date with regard to demand of dowry articles or refusal to return the same has been mentioned by complainant. It is further pertinent to mention here that apart from that, the list of dowry articles has not been proved in accordance with provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act. No document with regard to ownership of the articles which was recovered from the house of accused persons and released to the complainant on Superdari have been produced during the trial. Hence, ingredients of commissions of offence of criminal breach of FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc. 22 trust against any of the accused persons is missing.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the truth of allegations could not be proved due to the non- uniformity in the deposition of witnesses of the present case. Hence accused Ajay, Vijay and Shashi are acquitted in case FIR No. 88/1997, P.S. Anand Vihar. Provision of Section 437 (a) shall apply and previous surety shall remain as surety for next six months. Let file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vandana Jain) On 11th May,2012 M.M./Mahila Court (E) FIR No. 88/1997 State VS Ajay Kumar Etc.