Delhi District Court
Kanchan Dwivedi vs Satya Prakash Dwivedi on 16 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 05: SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSE01-006974-2019
CRL. APPEAL No. 456/2019
U/S. 378 Cr. P. C.
PS: GOVIND PURI
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kanchan Dwivedi
W/o. Sh. Satya Prakash Dwivedi
D/o. Sh. Rama Shanker
R/o. RZ-2961/33, Gali No.2,
Tuglakabad Extension,
New Delhi - 110 019.
.......APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Satya Prakash Dwivedi
S/o. Late Krishan Prashad Dwivedi
2. Meena Dwivedi
W/o. Late Krishan Prashad Dwivedi
Both R/o.: RZ-J26/211, Gali No.02,
West Sagarpur, New Delhi - 54.
.....RESPONDENTS
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 05.09.2019
Date of Reserving Order : 24.07.2023
Date of Order : 16.08.2023
APPEAL U/S. 378 CR. P. C. FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2019 OF LD. MM-04, MAHILA
COURT, SED, SAKET COURT, IN CR. CASE TITLED AS
'STATE VS. SATYA PRAKASH DWIVEDI & ANR.'
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 1/17
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 03/07/2019 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-04, South- East District, Saket Court, in case FIR No.286/2009, PS Govind Puri, titled as 'State Vs. Satya Prakash Dwivedi & Anr., vide which respondent no.1 Satya Prakash Dwivedi was acquitted of the charged offence U/s. 498A IPC, whereas, respondent no.2 Meena Dwivedi was acquitted of the charged offence U/s. 406 IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that during the subsistence of marriage between accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi (husband of complainant/respondent no.1 herein) and complainant Kanchan Dwivedi (appellant herein) i.e., from the date of marriage 18/11/2005, accused (respondent no.1) harassed the complainant to coerce her or her family to meet his unlawful demand of dowry and subjected her to cruelty (physical as well as mental). On the other hand, accused Meena Kumari Dwivedi (mother-in- law of complainant/respondent no.2 herein) being entrusted with dominion over the jewellery/stridhan articles of complainant Kanchan Dwivedi, committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating them. Accused/respondent no.1 Satya Prakash Dwivedi was charged for the offence U/s. 498A IPC, whereas, accused/respondent no.2 Meena Kumari Dwivedi was charged for the offence U/s. 406 IPC.
3. As per Trial Court record, to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1/complainant Kanchan Dwivedi (appellant CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 2/17 herein), who deposed about filing of complaint Ex. PW1/A dated 30/10/2010 before Women Cell, Sarita Vihar, against accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi and Meena Dwivedi (respondents herein) as well as filing of application U/s. 156(3) CrPC before Ld. MM, Saket Courts, on the basis of which case FIR No.286/2009, U/s. 498A/406 was registered. PW2 Ravi Shankar, brother of complainant, who deposed about marriage of his sister Kanchan alongwith accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi on 18/11/2015 and the demand of more dowry made by in-laws of his sister. PW3 ASI Kesha Ram, Duty Officer, who deposed about registration of FIR Ex. PW3/B on receipt of complaint from ASI Ombir. PW4 HC Sanjeev Kumar, who deposed about production of dowry articles by accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi at PS Govind Puri and preparation of their list as well as seizure Ex. PW1/D, by the IO. PW5 SI Ombir Singh, who deposed about registration of FIR through Ct. Jeet Singh, Settlement Deed, Mark 'D', between accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi and complainant Kanchan Dwivedi and preparation of cancellation report on the basis of settlement. PW6 Rama Shankar, father of appellant/complainant Kanchan Dwivedi, who deposed about marriage of his daughter/complainant alongwith accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi, dowry demanded by the accused persons and conduct of the accused persons/respondents towards his daughter. PW7/IO Inspector Bhanu Prakash, who deposed about investigation conducted by him after re-opening of the case with permission of ACP concerned.
4. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 3/17 accused persons and their statements were recorded U/s. 281 CrPC. They denied all incriminating evidence and asserted that they did not commit any offence and were falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi stated that the complainant wanted him to stay away from his family and filed false case against him. Accused Meena Kumari Dwivedi stated she did not have any Stridhan articles of complainant and she returned it to complainant on 25/12/2010. The accused persons preferred to lead evidence in their defence. Accused Satya Prakash examined himself as DW1.
5. Upon hearing the final arguments from both sides, Ld. Trial Court vide its judgment dated 03/07/2019 acquitted respondent no.1 Satya Prakash Dwivedi of the charged offence U/s. 498A IPC and respondent no.2 Meena Kumari Dwivedi of the charged offence U/s. 406 IPC.
6. Ld. Counsel for appellant vehemently argued that Ld. Trial Court wrongly acquitted respondents Satya Prakash Dwivedi and Meena Dwivedi. He argued that the impugned judgment was perverse and not sustainable. Ld. Counsel for appellant argued that testimony of PW1 remained unrebutted on material points and nothing relevant could be extracted by the accused persons in lengthy cross-examination, to shake her deposition. It was argued that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that through oral and corroborative documentary evidence the essential ingredients of offence under Section 498A IPC and 406 IPC were established beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents and they accordingly deserved to be convicted for the said offences.
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 4/177. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that impugned judgment is well reasoned and the respondents deserved to be acquitted since the respective offence charged against them were not proved. He argued that the Appellate Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal in a routine manner merely because it appreciated the evidence differently and takes different view of evidence than the Trial Court. He argued that in a catena of judicial precedents, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there must be 'substantial and compelling reasons' to hold that the Trial Court was wrong. He argued that Ld. Trial Court appreciated each and every oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution in great detail and delivered the well reasoned order of acquittal through the impugned judgment, on account of which it could not be termed as perverse, illogical or irrational.
8. Ld. Counsel for respondents relied upon following judicial precedents in support of his arguments:-
i) Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration, MANU/SC/0285/1984;
ii) H.B. Gandhi & Ors. Vs. Gopinath & Sons 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312;
iii) Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 353;
iv) Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450;
v) V. Sejappa Vs. State 2016 AIR (SC) 2045;
vi) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 2297; &
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 5/17
vii) Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. AIR
1999 SC 677.
9.(a) The gravamen of offence alleged against the respondents was that respondent Satya Prakash Dwivedi married appellant/complainant Ms. Kanchan Dwivedi on 18/11/2005. In the marriage, parents of Kanchan gave ample amount of dowry on demand of the bride-groom side. After the marriage, Kanchan was allegedly harassed, tortured and taunted by the accused persons to bring more dowry. Every time Kanchan visited her parental home, she was pressurized by accused persons to bring clothes, money, air conditioner, car or other costly articles, from her parents. Respondent Meena Kumari (mother of Satya Prakash) allegedly taunted Kanchan that she was not happy about her marriage with Satya Prakash since he could have got much better wife who would have brought lots of jewellery and cash in dowry. Meena Kumari allegedly took away all the jewellary and stridhan articles from Kanchan on 12/02/2006 on the pretext that they would be safe with her. She retained the stridhan articles in her custody despite repeated demands from Kanchan. Kanchan was allegedly forced to hand over her salary to Meena Kumari, whereas, Satya Prakash wilfully neglected to maintain and take care of Kanchan and their child.
9.(b) It was alleged that in first week of May-2007, accused persons pressurized Kanchan to demand Air Conditioner from her parents, in pursuance of which Kanchan's brother gifted an Air Conditioner of Blue Star Company to them. On 21/07/2007, Kanchan was forced to demand a car from her parents, in CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 6/17 pursuance of which they had to gift a Maruti Zen Car to accused persons. When Kanchan became pregnant and was unable to perform household chorus, Satya Prakash and Meena Kumari refused to take care of her. Satya Prakash pressurized Kanchan on multiple occasions to abort the child since he did not want a child. During the period from 24/07/2007 to 04/08/2007, Kanchan was not given food by Satya Prakash and Meena Kumari, and she was left to starve for twelve days without basic food, as a result of which she became sick. On 04/08/2007 when Kanchan complained, Satya Prakash forcibly dropped her at her parental home in order to force her to abort the child.
9.(c) On 02/03/2008, when Kanchan was admitted in Holy Child Hospital to deliver the child, Satya Prakash refused to complete the formalities for her cesarean operation. Satya Prakash abused and shouted at Kanchan that it was not his child. Satya Prakash and Meena Kumari even did not pay for hospital and medical expenses for delivery of the girl child on 03/03/2008. Finally, on 06/03/2008 Kanchan got the criminal complaint filed at PS New Friends Colony against them.
10. The offence of subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband is punishable U/s. 498A IPC. The offence of cruelty has been explained through two clauses -
a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 7/17
b) Harassment of woman where such harassment is with a 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.
11. In the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court dealt with offence U/s. 498A IPC, but only to the limited extent of explanation (b) thereof; appreciation of evidence and assessment thereof in respect of explanation (a) of the provision was completely missing in the impugned judgment. In paragraph no.17 of the judgment, Ld. Trial Court mentioned that - " The term cruelty has been defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. In the instant case, the prosecution has pressed clause (b) thereof into service". Ld. Trial Court completely missed to appreciate the evidence in respect of clause (a) to Explanation of Section 498A IPC, whereas, the charge framed by Ld. MM on 13/03/2014 for offence U/s. 498A IPC was comprehensive and encompassed clause (a) as well as clause (b) of Explanation appended to the provision. Ld. Trial Court palpably misapplied itself and mistakenly compressed the scope of offence to be proved.
12. Ld. Counsel for appellant pointed out that, although, Ld. Trial Court dealt with the testimonies of witnesses recorded from both sides, it missed to deal with vital cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in which the suggestion of the accused i.e. respondents Satya Prakash and Meena Kumari would itself prove beyond reasonable doubt that Satya Prakash subjected Kanchan CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 8/17 to cruelty, whereas, Meena Kumari committed criminal breach of trust in respect of stridhan articles of Kanchan.
13. In cross-examination, PW1 Kanchan replied that - It is true that I was given no food by my husband for 12 days w.e.f. 24.07.2007 - 04.08.2007. I took glucose water and fruits for 12 days. I do not remember as to how many days I stayed at my husband's place and how many days I attended the office. It is wrong to suggest that I was present on duty in my NHRC office from 24.07.2007 - 04.08.2007 & therefore, there was no opportunity to starve me for all the 12 days.
It is evident that the suggestion made by the defence counsel to PW1 in cross-examination was incriminating in nature and directly pointed out towards the cruelty to which PW1 Kanchan was subjected by accused Satya Prakash. The Trial Court completely missed to consider this part of evidence, in which Satya Prakash incriminated himself by way of cross- examination (Ref.: Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 355, paragraph no. 38-44 thereof). It is observed that the period from 24.07.2007 - 04.08.2007 was a time of initial days of pregnancy of complainant Kanchan, when it was crucial for Satya Prakash to take utmost care of her health and nutrition. To the contrary, what Satya Prakash did was to deprive the complainant of meals and nutrition for 12 days that was palpable conduct of cruelty towards her.
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 9/1714. PW1 Kanchan deposed that on 04/08/2007, when she was pregnant, her husband Satya Prakash dropped her at her parental house saying that he would accept her back at matrimonial home only if she aborted the child. Satya Prakash cross examined PW1 and suggested that on 04/08/2007 he dropped complainant at her parental home and since then she had been living with her parents. He did not even cross examine PW1 with the suggestion that he wanted the child to take birth and that he never asked his wife Kanchan to abort the child. From the evidence it was clearly proved that Satya Prakash subjected Kanchan to cruelty by pressurizing her to abort the fetus, and when she did not comply, he dropped her to her parental home with intention to abandon her. Satya Prakash did not cross examine PW1 to show that demand of abortion was not the reason why he dropped and abandoned Kanchan at her parental home on 04/08/2007. He did not even suggest to PW1 with a plausible reason why he dropped and abandoned her at her parental home.
15. In her testimony, PW1 Kanchan deposed that on 03/03/2008, she gave birth to a baby child through cesarean operation and nobody from her in-law's family came to look after and see the child. On 07/03/2008, she was discharged from hospital and went back to her parental house. Notably PW1 was not cross-examined by defence in this regard.
It needs no elaboration that it was an extreme instance of mental cruelty towards Kanchan that her husband Satya Prakash did not even come to see his child on her birth in the hospital, leaving alone the question of taking care of her during pre and post delivery period. Admittedly, Satya Prakash did not even pay CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 10/17 the hospital bill for delivery of the child. He had no justification to decline to pay the hospital bill only because Kanchan opted for Holy Family Hospital over AIIMS Hospital for delivery of the child. For the entire period of pregnancy, delivery of child in hospital and period post-delivery of child, Satya Prakash had abandoned Kanchan at her parental home and refused to accept her back in the matrimonial home, leaving alone the question of taking care of her and the infant child. The effect on physical and mental health of Kanchan because of wilful conduct of Satya Prakash would be tremendous.
16. PW1 deposed that on 02/03/2008 when she was admitted in Holy Family Hospital for delivery of child through cesarean operation, her husband Satya Prakash came to hospital in the evening and behaved very rudely with her. Again, on 03/03/2008 at 07:00AM, Satya Prakash came to hospital and behaved rudely with the complainant. He stated that he was not responsible for the child and he would not deposit the money in hospital to pay the bill. At that time PW1 was put on drip of glucose. PW1 stated that because of rude behaviour of Satya Prakash, her BP went high and blood came in glucose drip pipe because of which her condition became critical. Satya Prakash did not cross examine PW1 regarding his behaviour in hospital on 02/03/2008 and 03/03/2008, although, he put limited suggestion to PW1 that he visited the hospital on 02/03/2008 and gave his consent on 03/03/2008 for surgery. It was amply proved from the testimony of PW1 that behaviour of Satya Prakash was rude and cruel towards his wife Kanchan that adversely affected her mental and physical health.
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 11/1717. Ld. Trial Court erroneously observed (paragraph no.35 of impugned judgment) that perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals that most of the allegations therein are general in nature and devoid of any dates etc. Ld. Trial Court also erroneously concluded that there was inconsistency in the version of complainant in her statement Ex. PW1/A given to police and her testimony recorded in Court as PW1, and it was of no assistance to the prosecution to prove that accused Satya Prakash Dwivedi subjected complainant to harassment.
18. PW1 Kanchan admitted in cross-examination that she received her stridhan articles as mentioned in serial no. 1-31 of list Ex. PW1/D, on 25/12/2010. She replied that the list Ex. PW1/D mentioned those stridhan items that were not returned by her husband and in-laws. It is observed that Satya Prakash was evidently cruel in wrongful retention of stridhan articles of Kanchan till 25/12/2010, although, he had dropped and abandoned her at her parental home on 04/08/2007. Satya Prakash and his family had no justification to retain the stridhan articles even after abandoning complainant Kanchan at her parental home.
19. Ld. Trial Court erroneously refused to assign evidentiary value to testimonies of PW2 Ravi Shankar and PW6 Rama Shankar on the ground that the alleged demands of car and AC were not made by accused persons to them directly. Their testimonies were erroneously discarded as hearsay evidence. Their testimony were, in fact, relevant to corroborate the version CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 12/17 of PW1 to the extant that dowry articles, including AC and car were given after the marriage to Satya Prakash. They corroborated the version of PW1 that Satya Prakash did not want the child and pressurized Kanchan to abort the fetus, and when she refused, he abandoned her at her parental home on 04/08/2007.
20.(a) It is worth observing here that Satya Prakash deposed as a defence witness (DW1) during the trial. He stated that complainant Kanchan and her parents pressurized him to leave his parents and live separately from them. He stated that he requested Kanchan to adjust with her in-laws in the same home, but she refused. He stated that Kanchan wrongfully refused for medical check-ups and delivery of child at AIIMS Hospital and started taking treatment from Holy Family Hospital without his consent. He stated that Kanchan's mother slapped him in hospital on 02/03/2008. He stated that Kanchan refused to come back to matrimonial home despite his repeated requests. He stated that Kanchan filed false police complaint to pressurize him to live separately from his parents. He sought to disclose his privileged communication with his wife Kanchan to the Court in the form of an audio recording Ex. DW1/B, which was legally inadmissible.
20.(b) It is observed that the facts deposed by DW1 Satya Prakash had no foundation in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. In his deposition, he introduced completely new facts in his defence, taking the prosecution by surprise. Without needing elaboration, it is observed that deposition of DW1 Satya Prakash is a defence afterthought, having no probative value.
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 13/1721. The question is - whether Satya Prakash was merely 'insensitive' as distinguished from being 'cruel' in his conduct towards his wife Kanchan, so that his conduct does not fall foul of Section 498A IPC? The answer is in negative. The wilful conduct of Satya Prakash towards Kanchan was patently cruel and was calculated to endanger her physical and mental health. His conduct is exactly what Section 498A IPC seeks to punish.
22. The acquittal of accused/respondent no.1 Satya Prakash by Ld. Trial Court for offence U/s. 498A IPC has, indeed, resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was completely against the weight of evidence and was, therefore, perverse. This Court is compelled to hold that Ld. Trial Court was wrong in acquitting Satya Prakash. The impugned judgment, so far as, it acquitted accused Satya Prakash of offence U/s. 498A IPC, is set aside.
Accused/respondent no.1 Satya Prakash is hereby convicted for offence U/s. 498A IPC.
23. In respect of charge of offence U/s. 406 IPC against revisionist Meena Dwivedi, Ld. Trial Court erroneously observed that entrustment of stridhan articles/dowry by complainant to Meena Kumari was not proved. PW1 Kanchan specifically deposed that in January, 2006, her mother-in-law Meena Kumari asked for jewellery and she gave all of her jewellery to her mother-in-law, who promised that whenever PW1 needed it, she would give it back to PW1. It was argued by respondent that in the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that in testimony of PW1, there was no specific reference that she demanded the entrusted jewellery back, but was refused by CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 14/17 Meena Kumari. It was argued that a mere return of some stridhan articles by accused persons to the complainant on 25/12/2010 vide list Ex. PW1/D and non-return of items mentioned in list Ex. PW1/B did not, ipso facto, prove the offence U/s. 406 IPC [ Ref.:
Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr. 92 (2001) DLT 179].
24. It is observed that in her testimony, PW1 Kanchan stated that she gave the list of stridhan articles, that were wrongfully retained by the accused persons, to the IO. She furnished the photographs Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-14 in which accused persons and their family members could be seen accepting dowry from family of PW1 at the time of marriage. PW1 deposed that accused persons returned some of the articles as mentioned at serial no. 1- 31 of list Ex. PW1/D, on 25/12/2010. However, the list Ex. PW1/B mentioned the stridhan articles, including jewellery belonging to complainant Kanchan, that were not returned by her husband and in-laws.
Significantly, PW6 Rama Shankar (Kanchan's father) was suggested by accused persons in cross-examination that the list Ex. PW1/B pertained to the items of jewellery that were given by him to Kanchan, and that have not been returned by the accused persons till date. PW6 admitted the suggestion whereby accused persons incriminated themselves.
25. It is proved from the testimonies of PW1 and PW6 that Kanchan's father had gifted her valuable jewellery / ornaments in marriage, that was her stridhan. Accused Meena Kumari took away Kanchan's jewellery in January-2006 on the pretext that she CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 15/17 would return it to Kanchan whenever she needed it. On 04/08/2007, Satya Prakash dropped his pregnant wife Kanchan to her parental home and abandoned her there. The conduct of Satya Prakash at the time of delivery of his child in Holy Family Hospital on 03/03/2008 led to filing of police complaint by Kanchan against him and his family on 06/03/2008. The accused persons did not care to return the stridhan articles of complainant even after abandoning her, and thereby misappropriated the stridhan articles. The allegation of criminal misappropriation of jewellery was made against Meena Kumari, who had obtained them from Kanchan in January, 2006. The offence of criminal breach of trust was consummate even before accused persons returned some of the stridhan articles on 25/12/2010, as mentioned in list Ex. PW1/D. The list Ex. PW1/B mentioned the stridhan articles, including jewellery articles that were misappropriated by accused persons, and were never returned to complainant Kanchan. The accused persons did not cross examine PW1 Kanchan with suggestion that no stridhan articles, including jewellery remained unreturned to her. In fact, accused persons cross examined PW6 Rama Shankar with incriminating suggestion in respect of the jewellery articles mentioned in list Ex. PW1/B.
26. The Court concludes that it was amply proved through evidence that respondent Meena Kumari being entrusted with dominion over valuable jewellery articles of complainant Kanchan, dishonestly misappropriated it and thereby committed offence of criminal breach of trust, punishable U/s. 406 IPC. It is observed that Ld. Trial Court completely missed to notice that CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 16/17 dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property or the property over which the accused has domain, was also a key ingredient of offence U/s. 406 IPC.
27. The acquittal of accused/respondent no.2 Meena Kumari Dwivedi by Ld. Trial Court for offence U/s. 406 IPC has, indeed, resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was completely against the weight of evidence and was, therefore, perverse. This Court is compelled to hold that Ld. Trial Court was wrong in acquitting Meena Kumari Dwivedi. The impugned judgment, so far as, it acquitted accused Meena Kumari Dwivedi of offence U/s. 406 IPC, is set aside. Accused/respondent no.2 Meena Kumari Dwivedi is hereby convicted for offence U/s. 406 IPC.
28. In view of foregoing observations and analysis, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal of accused/respondents Satya Prakash Dwivedi and Meena Kumari Dwivedi is set aside. Accused/respondent no.1 Satya Prakash Dwivedi is convicted for the offence U/s. 498A IPC, whereas, accused/respondent no.2 Meena Kumari Dwivedi is convicted for the offence U/s. 406 IPC. The order on sentence shall be passed after completing due procedure.
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL SINGH
Announced in the open court SINGH Date:
2023.08.16
dated: 16.08.2023 16:07:58
+0530
(VISHAL SINGH)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CA No. 456/2019 Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Satya Prakash & Anr. Page No. 17/17