Delhi District Court
State vs . Jaspal Singh & Ors. on 25 September, 2012
In The Court of Ms. Vandana, MM, Mahila Court, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Jaspal Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 111/99
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
PS Mukherjee Nagar.
JUDGMENT
S.No. of the case : 570/2/26.11.2008 Date of Commission of offence : Since 18.04.1999 Name of the Complainant : Smt. Sonia
Name of the accused persons : 1. Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh, R/o 10/3, Double Story, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Neetu Arora W/o Sh. Jainender Arora, R/o 790, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
3. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh, R/o 10/3, Double Story, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.
4. Smt. Jasbir Kakkar W/o Sh. Nand Kishore, R/o A27, Kewal Park Extension, Azad Pur, Delhi.
5. Surjeet Singh (Since expired) S/o Late Sh. Sant Singh.
R/o 10/3, Double Story, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.
Offence Complained of : 498A/406/34 IPC Plea of accused persons : Plead not guilty. Date of order : 25.09.2012 Final order : Acquittal. FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 1/11 Brief Reasons For Such Decision:
1. The brief facts of the case are that during the subsistence of marriage dated 18.04.1999 of Smt. Sonia and accused Jaspal, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused physical as well as mental cruelty to Smt. Sonia for non fulfillment of demands of dowry and further all the accused persons being entrusted with the stridhan articles of Smt. Sonia, converted the same to their own use and committed offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. After supply of copy of charge sheet against the accused persons, charge for the commission of offences punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
It is pertinent to mention here that accused Surjeet Singh expired on 08.11.2003 and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 05.11.2004.
3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
4. PW1ASI M.S. Raj is the duty officer who proved the FIR of the present case vide Ex. PW1/A. PW2Rajiv Gumber deposed that on 24.01.1999, engagement ceremony of his sister Soniya was performed with accused Jaspal. At the time of engagement, he had given one gold ring to the accused husband, 21 sweet boxes, one fruit bucket and Rs. 2100/ cash to the accused Jaspal, Rs. 700/ to the father of Jaspal and Rs. 500/ to each of the sisters of the accused Jaspal. As per the decided schedule of marriage function, the accused persons arrived on 18.04.1999 at Community Centre, Parmanand Colony, Delhi. After giving the FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 2/11 barat reception and entertaining them, they went to nearby Gurudwara for Phera and marriage ceremony. After the completion of marriage ceremony, they returned to the Community Center where they had arranged lunch and other food items to be served to the barat. After taking lunch when his sister was to leave her parental home then father of Jaspal and his sisters namely, Jasmeet and Nitu told that the dowry they had given to them is not according to their expectations. On that very moment, they straight away demanded fridge, Colour TV and Scooter. They assured them to fulfill the said demands of TV, Fridge and Scooter later on. After that they took his sister Soniya and his brother Pankaj with them. After traveling about half a kilometer, they dropped his sister Soniya and his brother Pankaj and went away. After that he along with his mother, brother Pankaj, his friend Nitin and some of the relatives went to the police station Mukherjee Nagar and lodged the complaint. The complaint was lodged on the statement of his mother. The said complaint of his mother is Ex. PW2/A. The list of dowry articles was also prepared in his presence. The list of dowry articles running in four pages is collectively Ex. PW2/B. The photographs of the marriage ceremony Six in number are collectively Ex. PW2/C. The Invitation Card of the marriage is Ex. PW2/D. The fact that the accused persons dropped his sister on account of dowry was also reported in one of the National Hindi Daily News Paper namely, Nav Bharat Times dated 19.04.1999. The news paper cutting is Mark X. PW3Sh. Nitin Kapoor deposed that on 18.04.1999, the marriage of Soniya, who is sister of his friends Rajiv and Pankaj was solemnized with accused Jaspal. He attended the marriage function. The marriage ceremonies were performed at Gurudwara, Parmanand Colony. After the marriage ceremonies were completed at Gurudwara, they came to Community Center where there were arrangements for the lunch for baraties. Both the sisters of the accused, husband of one of the said sisters and the elder brother of the FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 3/11 accused raised a demand of AC, TV, Fridge and other usual house hold articles from the complainant. They all assured them the said dowry articles would be given to them later on. Thereafter, the accused persons took Soniya and Pankaj with them. After traveling about 100 to 150 meters, accused persons dropped Soniya and Pankaj and went away. Thereafter, he accompanied his friend Rajiv, his mother, Pankaj and some other persons and they went to PSMukherjee Nagar where on the statement of mother of Soniya namely, Lal Devi an FIR was registered. Smt. Lal Devi did not sign her statement in his presence. Vol. He was not allowed to go inside the police station.
PW4Sh. Pankaj Kumar deposed that he is the son of the complainant late Smt. Lal Devi. On 24.1.1999, Sagai ceremony of his sister Sonia was performed with accused Jashpal at their residence i.e. 22/3, Indira Vikas Colony, Delhi. In the Sagai ceremony they had given one gold ring, 2100/ cash, some sweet boxes, fruits etc. to the accused Jaspal. They had also given cash of Rs. 500/ each to the sisters of accused Jaspal namely Jasbir and Neetu and also to his father namely late Sh. Surjit Singh. The date of marriage of his sister Sonia was fixed for 18.4.1999.
For the performance of marriage ceremony they had booked a community center situated in Parmanand Colony and for the phera ceremony they had made arrangement at Gurudwara Singh Saheb in Parmanand Colony, Delhi. During the intervening period of the Sagai and marriage ceremony accused Jaspal used to talk to his sister on telephone frequently. They went twice for lunch and also for shopping together. Once he accompanied them for lunch. Once they also went together to watch a movie. Marriage ceremony was to be performed during day time. After the Phera Ceremony in Gurdwara Singh Saheb, they all returned to the Community center where the arrangement for lunch for the Baraties and guests was made by them. During the lunch period, the sisters FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 4/11 of accused Jaspal namely Jasbir and Neetu and brother Bittoo started creating hue and cry by saying that as to why their demand of color TV, fridge and scooter had not been fulfilled. They persuaded them with folded hands that they would fulfill their aforesaid demand later on and requested them that let the marriage ceremony be performed peacefully. After completion of marriage ceremony, he got into the Maruti Van in which his sister alongwith accused Jaspal were to leave for her matrimonial home. After going about 100 meters from the Community center, the accused persons namely Neetu, Jasbir, Bittoo and other family members of in laws of his sister stopped their van forcibly by saying that they would not allow his sister to go to her matrimonial home. At that time the said accused persons told that since their demands had not been fulfilled, they would not take his sister to her matrimonial home. They also said that if any family member would ask them that why they had not brought his sister to her matrimonial home, they would say that his sister was of unsound mind. Thereafter the said accused persons forcibly dropped his sister alongwith him from the van and left. He informed his family members and went to Police station to lodge a complaint. His mother gave a complaint to the police which is already Ex. PW2/A. The list of stridhan articles at the time of marriage is already Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter, his statement was also recorded by the police. Due to the acts of accused persons his sister Sonia went into depression and his whole family had undergone extreme mental agony.
PW5Ct. Satya Pal deposed that on 18.04.1999, on receipt of DD No. 16A by HC Mahavir, he alongwith him went at Parmanand Colony, MCD Office. There they met the complainant Lal Devi. IO recorded her statement and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of case. He went to the PS and got the case registered and returned back with copy of FIR and original rukka alongwith SISurender to whom the further investigation was marked. He handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SISurender. FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 5/11 Thereafter, he along with HC Mahavir, SISurender and son of the complainant went to double story, Vijay Nagar, but the house was found locked. IO recorded his statement.
PW6SI Surender Singh deposed that on 18.04.1999, HC Mahavir had sent one rukka in the PS and after registration of the case, investigation of this case was marked to him. He reached at the spot at Parmanand Colony, near MCD Office where he met complainant Smt. Lal Devi and her daughter and IOHC Mahavir Singh. The complainant Smt. Lal Devi stated that her daughter was deserted by her husband and in laws immediately after the marriage. She was deserted immediately at the time of departure of doli for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. He verified these facts and examined the witnesses, prepared site plan Ex. PW6/A and searched for the accused persons but could not find them. Later on the accused persons took anticipatory bail. He formally arrested five accused persons later on vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/B, PW6/C, PW6/D, PW6/E and PW6/F. He collected the photographs which are placed on record and are mark A, B, C, D, E and Ex. PW2/C and marriage card which is Ex. PW6/G. The complainant was asked to join investigation for recovery as per the list submitted by her to which she produced the compromise deed Ex. PW4/DA and said that she does not want to join the recovery proceedings. Thereafter, he prepared challan and filed the same in the court.
PW7Aashish Gumber deposed that Smt. Sonia is his cousin sister. On 18.04.1999, he had come to attend her marriage which was organized at Community Hall in Permanand Colony, Kingsway Camp. At the time of Vidai ceremony, father, brother and sisters of the groom said that they have received less dowry and they demanded Colour TV and Scooter on which his paternal aunt (Tai) Smt. Lal Devi stated that she will send these goods later on and asked the accused persons to proceed ahead with doli. Rajeev and Pankaj FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 6/11 who are real brother of Sonia (bride) joined alongwith the bride and bridegroom in Maruti Van towards matrimonial home of Sonia and on the way all the three i.e. Rajeev, Pankaj and Sonia were dropped from the Maruti Van and accused persons fled away without the bride.
5. All accused persons were examined U/s. 313 Cr. PC wherein all the incriminating evidence on record alongwith documents were put to them to which their stand was of general denial. The accused persons chose for leading evidence in their defence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for state and Ld. counsel for the accused persons. The record has also been perused carefully.
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for commission of offence U/s. 498A IPC, the prosecution was required to prove: a. That the complainant was subjected to cruelty or harassment; b. That the cruelty or harassment was caused by her husband or his relatives; c. That cruelty was (a) with a view to drive her to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mental or physical; or d. That harassment of the complainant was (a) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (b) on account of failure of the complainant or her relation to meet such unlawful demand.
8. The present case is based upon the complaint filed by the mother of the prosecutrix wherein she has stated that at the time of Vidai Ceremony accused husband, his father, his sisters and his brother abused them, quarreled with them and demanded Colour T.V, Fridge and Scooter. It has been further averred therein that when the complainant said FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 7/11 that she would hand over all the articles after some time, then only accused persons took the daughter of the complainant with them but they left her at some distance.
Before discussing the evidence, I would like to point out here that despite issuance of several notice to prosecutrix, she remained untraceable. The mother of the prosecutrix is the complainant in the present case also got expired during the course of the proceedings, hence she could not be examined as well. In the present case, PW2 and PW4 are the real brother of the prosecutrix, PW3 Friend of PW2 and PW7 is the cousin of the prosecutrix.
In view of the above, the testimonies of above said witnesses are of utmost importance.
9. Discussing the depositions of above material witnesses PW2 stated that it was the father of accused and two sisters who made demands but on the other hand PW4 has stated that it was the brother of the accused and his sisters who made demands. However, PW3 stated that both sisters of accused, his brother and accused husband himself made demands.
10. From the above, it can be easily concluded that all the witnesses have deposed inconsistent statements and statement of one witness does not corroborate the other.
11. Coming to the alleged demands it has been deposed by PW2 accused persons demanded one Fridge, one colour T.V. and one scooter but PW3 has deposed that accused persons demanded A.C., T.V., Fridge and other articles. However, PW7 has deposed that only colour T.V and scooter were demanded by the accused persons. FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 8/11
It is relevant to point out here that during chiefexamination PW2 deposed that "after taking lunch when the sister of PW2 was to leave to her parental home then father of Jaspal and his sisters namely Jasmeet and Nitu told that the dowry they had given to them was not according to their exceptions and at same very moment all accused persons straightaway demanded fridge, colour T.V. and scooter". However, PW4 deposed that during the lunch period the sisters of accused namely Jasmeet and Nitu and brother Bittoo started creating hue and cry by saying that as to why their demands of colour T.V., Fridge and scooter had not been fulfilled. Now the statement of PW4 reflects that the alleged demand had been made by the accused persons prior to marriage but PW2 has deposed that demands were made suddenly by all the accused persons in one voice and all of them demanded fridge, colour T.V. and scooter. From the above, it is apparent that both the witnesses have not corroborated each other, rather their version is entirely different.
It is relevant to point out here that PW4 has deposed that during the intervening period of sagai and marriage ceremony accused Jaspal used to talk to his sister on telephone. It is further stated by him that both of them went for lunch and for shopping together. Not only this, they also gone to watch movie together. Now during this period, none of the witness has complained any of the demand raised by the accused at any point of time. It is very shocking that there is no allegation of any demand during the period when the prosecutrix and her husband were meeting together. In these circumstances, it becomes highly unbelievable that accused persons chose the time of vidai ceremony for raising demands of dowry.
In the complaint it has been mentioned that all the articles were given at the time of marriage according to the capacity of the complainant to her daughter in FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 9/11 the marriage but PW4 has made entirely a different statement, he stated that nothing was given at the time of marriage.
12. During chief examination PW4 deposed that accused persons stopped the van forcibly by saying that they would not allow her sister to take to the matrimonial home and they forcibly dropped his sister alongwith him but when he was cross examined on this very point he deposed that in the car only accused husband was there with his driver and PW4 was sitting with his sister in the car then no question at all arises by the sisters and brother of accused to push the prosecutrix and PW4 off from the car as they were not there in the car. The above self contradiction render the testimony of PW4 unreliable.
13. To constitute offence U/s. 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it or domain over it, by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to its own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. (Reliance placed upon 2001 V AD (Delhi) 411 Annu Gill Vs. State and another).
14. In the complaint Ex.PW2/A the prosecutrix has not mentioned as to with whom all stridhan articles were entrusted and when she demanded all her stridhan articles back from the accused persons. Moreover, the list of dowry articles i.e. Ex.PW2/B has not been signed by the prosecutrix, accused husband and by any of the witnesses. Not only, this it does not bear any date as to when it was got prepared. Hence, no authenticity can be said to attach to it.
FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 10/11
15. It would be relevant to mention here, Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it is observed as under: "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks 'credibility', benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to accused".
16. Under the aforesaid discussion it can safely be concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of all the accused persons for the alleged offences. They are accordingly acquitted of the charge U/s. 498A/406/34 IPC. Their sureties stands discharged. Announced and dictated in the open Court today i.e. On 25.09.2012.
(Vandana) MM, Mahila Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi FIR No. 111/99 Page No. 11/11