Delhi District Court
Fir No.588/96 State vs . Satender Yadav Etc. Ps:Janak Puri on 30 September, 2013
FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri
IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT)03,WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc.
FIR No: 588/96
P.S. Janak Puri
U/s 498A/406 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0215182001
2. Date of complaint : 10.07.1996
3. Name of the complainant : Smt. Sarita Yadav
4. Name, parentage & addresses of
the accused persons : Accused No.1 Satender
Yadav S/o Late Sh.
Nathu Ram R/o 13/61,
President Estate Market,
Gali No.31, New Delhi.
Accused No.2 Shanti
Devi W/o Late Sh.
Nathu Ram R/o 13/61,
President Estate Market,
Gali No.31, New Delhi
Accused No.3 Nathu
Ram S/o Sh. Gajadhar
Singh R/o 13/61,
President Estate Market,
Gali No.31, New Delhi
(proceedings against
accused no.3 Nathu
State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.1
FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri
Ram stands abated
vide order dated
14.02.2007)
5. Offence complaint of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Convicted
8. Date of order : 28.09.2013.
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
1. Accused have been forwarded by the SHO of PS Janak Puri to face trial U/s 498A/406 IPC.
2. In a nut shell, the prosecution story is that complaint was made by complainant PWSarita Yadav that during the subsistence of her marriage with the accused no.1 Satender Yadav since 04.12.1994, her husband accused no.1 Satender Yadav alongwith his mother accused no.2 Shanti Devi and his father accused no.3 Nathu Ram (since deceased) in furtherance of their common intention have subjected complainant to cruelty in order to compel her to fulfill their demand for dowry and all the accused persons namely accused no.1 Satender Yadav and his mother accused no.2 Shanti Devi and his father accused no.3 Nathu Ram ( since deceased) in furtherance State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.2 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri of their common intention have also wrongfully misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant entrusted to them and converted the same to their own use and refused to return the same on demand of the complainant. On this complaint, present FIR was registered and after completion of remaining investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons free of cost U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Before hearing the arguments on charge, accused no.3 Nathu Ram has expired on 09.06.2006 and so the proceedings against accused no.3 Nathu Ram stands abated vide order dated 14.02.2007.
5. Finding a prima facie case, accused no.1 Satender Yadav and accused no. 2 Shanti Devi are charged U/s 498A/406/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution to prove its case examined four witnesses namely PW1ASI Pinky Kalra, PW2Sarita Yadav, PW3Sh. Radhey Shyam Yadav and PW4Inspector Ram Kishan.
State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.3 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri
7. Statement of both the accused namely accused Satender Yadav and accused Shanti Devi U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded separately wherein they denied the incriminating evidence and they stated that accused Satender had caught the diary of the complainant and had read that complainant had an affair with one Narender Chauhan and when confronted complainant filed a false case against all of them to hide the truth. Also, both the accused namely accused Satender Yadav and accused Shanti Devi chose to lead defence evidence.
8. Both the accused namely accused Satender Yadav and accused Shanti Devi in their defence examined DW1 Ram Dev and thereby they closed their defence evidence vide their separate statement recorded in this regard.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence Counsel and gone through the case file carefully and thoroughly.
10. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined formal witness like PW1 ASI Pinky Kalra and she stated that on 10.07.1996, at about 12:15 p.m., on the basis of complaint, received State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.4 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri from CAW Cell Tilak Nagar, she registered the present FIR and copy of same is Ex.PW1/A and she also made endorsement on complaint Ex.PW1/B.
11. Prosecution in order to prove its case also examined the most crucial witness complainant cum victim cum eye witness i.e. PW2 Smt. Sarita Yadav and she stated that on 04.12.1994 she was married to accused Satender who is present in the Court today & correctly identified, according to Hindu Rites. She further stated that in her marriage, her father had spent around Rs. 22.5 lacs and after her marriage, accused persons kept her happily only for 15 days and after 15 days of her marriage, accused Satender, accused Nathu Ram her father in law and accused Shanti Devi her mother in law started harassing her for the demand of dowry. She further stated that her husband started beating her for demand of dowry and her parents in law were silent spectator during the beating by her husband. She further stated that in February, 1995, in the night of Shivratri, her husband made her write a letter describing that she have an affair with another man. She further stated that her parents in law and husband were not satisfied with the dowry and all the accused persons used to beat her and to torture her physically and mentally. She further stated that in March, 1995, she made a State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.5 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri complaint against accused persons at CAW Cell, Rajouri Garden. She further stated that she was called from her parental home and her husband accused Satender offered her to take her to his village before her mother in law and father in law with an intention to kill her. She further stated that on 29.05.96, she was turned out of her matrimonial home in wearing clothes and in this regard, she made a written complaint before PS Chanakya Puri. She further stated that after hatching a conspiracy, maternal aunt of accused Satender induced her in getting married to accused Satender. She further stated that her mother in law, father in law disclosed that her husband was having illicit relations with his maternal aunt i.e Shimla due to which she suffered mental agony. She further stated that she tried to save her matrimonial home by tolerating the indifferent behaviour of accused. She further stated that her all istridhan are still lying with the accused persons which was entrusted to them at the time of marriage, however, some dowry articles were produced by the accused persons before CAW Cell and same were taken by her vide memo Ex.PW2/A. She further stated that after finding no option, she made a complaint before CAW Cell Tilak Nagar and same is Ex.PW2/B. She further stated that she was also handed over the dowry list and same is Ex.PW2/C running in 4 pages. State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.6 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri
12. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW3 Sh. Radhey Shyam Yadav father of complainant and he stated that his daughter Sarita was married to accused Satender in December, 1994 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremony. He further stated that at the time of marriage of his daughter sufficient dowry article as per his capacity were given to the accused persons. He further stated that after the marriage, his daughter went to matrimonial home. He further stated that after the first Shivratri which fell after the marriage of his daughter, demand of dowry i.e cash which varied from Rs.20,000/, Rs.50,000/ was made by accused Satender and Late Sh. Nathu Singh (father in law) from his daughter. He further stated that his daughter was physically and mentally tortured by the accused persons and specially accused Satender for fulfillment of said demand of theirs and the said fact told to him by his daughter to his house after around 2 to 2 ½ months of marriage. He further stated that he was incapable to fulfill the said demands of the accused persons. He further stated that in the month of May or June 1996 (he do not remember the date due to lapse of time) his daughter was expelled out of her matrimonial house by the accused persons in single wearing apparels. He further stated that a complaint was lodged at CAW Cell by his daughter against the accused persons and it is only through the instance of CAW Cell that few dowry articles State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.7 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri of his daughter i.e utensils and furnitures were recovered and still her rest of istridhan articles and specially her ornaments are lying in the possession of the accused persons.
13. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW4 Inspector Ram Kishan and he stated that on 10.07.1996, he was handed over the further investigation in the present case. He further stated that he examined the PWs Radhey Shyam, Smt. Sushila and complainant Sarita. He further stated that he collected the marriage proof i.e marriage card, marriage photo and marked as Mark X1 & X2 vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He further stated that thereafter, he recovered dowry articles and handed over the same to the complainant vide memo already Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that accused Satender, accused Nathu Singh and accused Shanti Devi were arrested by him and the arrest memo of accused Shanti Devi is Ex.PW4/F and the personal search of the accused persons was conducted by him vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D & Ex.PW4/E and all the accused persons namely accused Satender, accused Shanti Devi & Nathu Singh are present in the court today. He further stated that he prepared challan and filed it in the Court. Ld. APP for the State contended that offence U/s 498A IPC is a continuing offence and therefore, the mere fact that some compromise reached before the State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.8 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri CAW Cell is of no use to the accused as offence U/s 498A IPC is also a non compoundable offence. Ld. APP for the State also contended that offence U/s 406 IPC committed even for a time being is also an offence within the meaning of the Section. Ld. APP for the State further contended that even after the compromise, complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 29.05.1996 in single wearing apparel and her entire istridhan was not returned to the complainant inspite of the same demanded by the complainant. Ld. APP for the State also contended that evidence of DW1 Ram Dev could be of no use to the accused because DW1 Ram Dev is an interested witness as accused Satender is the nephew of DW1 Ram Dev. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution is able to prove its case and both the accused persons namely accused Satender and accused Shanti Devi should be accordingly convicted.
14. On the other hand, both the accused have raised the only defence that as accused Satender had caught the diary of the complainant and read that complainant had an affair with one Narender Chauhan and when the complainant was confronted, then complainant filed the present false complaint against all of the accused to hide the truth. Both the accused to prove their defence has examined DW1 Ram Dev and he stated that father of Sarita had State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.9 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri come to his place in respect of the marriage as accused Satender was living with him and there was no demand of dowry. He further stated that neither the same was discussed and no dowry was given at the time of marriage or after the marriage. He further stated that only normal things were given and the marriage broke between Satender and Sarita due to the adamant nature of the father of Sarita. He further stated that Sarita wanted to marry somebody else and it was a forced marriage with Satender.
15. Ld. defence counsel contended that although DW1 Ram Dev was a prosecution witness but he has deposed in favour of the accused and this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. defence counsel further contended that PW3 Sh. Radhey Shyam Yadav in his cross examination admitted that in February, 1995 his daughter had for the first time made a complaint at CAW Cell, Rajouri Garden. He further admitted that there was a compromise in that matter. He further admitted that after compromise his daughter again resided at her matrimonial house. He further stated that his daughter had visited his house for approximately 8 times during the period which falls between the date of compromise in the year 1995 till 29.05.1996. He further admitted that he had brought his daughter on 29.05.1996 from her matrimonial house. He further State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.10 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri voluntarily stated that on that day the father in law of his daughter had made a telephonic call to him and asked him to take his daughter back with him. He further stated that on 31.05.1996 the case was registered, however, the complaint was made 34 days prior to registration of the case. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that PW2 Sarita Yadav in her cross examination stated that for the first time she had lodged a complaint with CAW Cell in March 1995. She admitted that a compromise was effected in the said complaint and thereafter, she had again joined her husband and went back to her matrimonial home. She further admitted that she continued to stay at her matrimonial home after the said compromise till 29.05.1996. She further admitted that after the compromise, she alongwith accused Satender used to visit CAW Cell every month for reporting. She further voluntarily stated that small disputes used to be there between them, however, when the disputes increased, her parents in law had called her parents and sent her alongwith them on 29.05.1996. Ld. defence counsel contended that aforesaid statement shows that a compromise was reached between complainant and the accused before CAW Cell and as a result, all the cruelty inflicted upon the complainant before the said compromise was condoned by the complainant and for the period after the compromise when the complainant stayed alongwith the accused at her matrimonial home, State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.11 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri there were only trivial disputes between the parties and therefore, offence U/s 498A IPC is not made out against the accused persons and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story.
16. Ld. defence counsel further contended that PW3 Radhey Shyam Yadav in his cross examination stated that in the marriage of his daughter, he gave articles like furnitures, gold articles and clothing etc. as per list given to CAW Cell. He further stated that he had not filed the receipts in respect of the said articles and he cannot produce said receipts as the case is already around 1015 years old and if he would be having any of them they might be in very bad condition. Ld. defence counsel contended that this shows that father of the complainant could not prove the ownership of the articles given by him as istridhan to the complainant and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. defence counsel further contended that the testimony of PW2 Sarita Yadav could not be relied upon as she is an interested witness and she wants to get rid of her husband accused Satender. Ld. defence counsel contended that all these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and both the accused persons should be accordingly acquitted.
State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.12 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri
17. Keeping in view of the fact that the defence taken by accused that from the diary of the complainant, accused Satender came to know that complainant was having an affair with one Narender Chauhan and when the complainant was confronted she filed the present false complaint against the accused persons to hide the truth. This defence taken by the accused could of no use to the accused because accused has not proved his defence by placing on record the said alleged diary in which complainant has herself written about her affair with the Narender Chauhan. Also, PW2 Sarita Yadav in her examination in chief stated that in February 1995 in the night of Shivratri, her husband accused Satender made her write a letter describing that she has an affair with another man. PW2 Sarita Yadav in her cross examination stated that she never used to write daily diary. This shows even if there could be any letter, the said letter has been got written by the accused from the complainant forcibly and by putting undue pressure upon the complainant. Also, the defence taken by the accused could not be proved by the accused by examining any witness in this regard.
18. Further, the contention of the ld. counsel for the accused that PW2 Sarita Yadav complainant cum victim is an interested State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.13 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri witness and her testimony could be of no use to the prosecution. This contention of ld. defence counsel does not holds good due to the reason that offence U/s 498A is committed within the four walls of the matrimonial house and therefore, complainant being the victim, it is within the special knowledge of the complainant of the said incident and therefore, the testimony of complainant is of much high credibility and therefore, could be relied upon. Further, relying upon the provision of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act as whatever has happened with the complainant, it is within the special knowledge of the complainant and therefore, the testimony of complainant is of much high credibility and therefore, could be relied upon. Further, the complainant is the victim and she has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Further, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in State vs Subhash Pagi & Anr. 2004(4) Crime 343, wherein it was held that, "Evidence of a victim or injured witness stands on a different footing as injured witness generally does not have any reason to omit the real culprit and implicate other falsely."
19. Further, considering the contention of ld. defence counsel that DW1 Ram Dev, who was the prosecution witness has given testimony in favour of the accused and therefore, this fact State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.14 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of ld. counsel for the accused does not holds good due to the reason that DW1 Ramdev in his cross examination has admitted that the accused is his nephew. This shows that DW1 Ramdev is the relative of the accused and being an interested witness, his testimony is of no use to the accused.
20. Further considering the contention of ld. defence counsel that the compromise was reached between the complainant and the accused before the CAW Cell and as a result, all the cruelty inflicted upon the complainant before the said compromise was condoned by the complainant and for the period after the said compromise when the complainant stayed alongwith the accused at her matrimonial home, there were only trivial disputes between the parties and therefore, offence U/s 498A IPC is not made out against the accused persons. This contention of Ld. defence counsel does not holds good due to the reason that offence U/s 498A IPC is a non compoundable offence and the complainant has no right to condone the said offence. Also, offence U/s 498A IPC is a continuing offence and in view of the fact that PW2 Sarita Yadav in her cross examination stated that she had got her earlier complaint filed before CAW Cell which was closed after the compromise, reopened in the State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.15 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri month of May 1996. So, this shows that the offence U/s 498A IPC was continuing offence in the present case also. Further, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & Anr. V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 787 wherein it has been laid down that "offence U/s 498A IPC is a continuing offence as it is a matter of common experience that victim is subjected to such cruelty repeatedly and it is more or less like a continuing offence. It is only as a last resort that a wife openly comes before a court to unfold and relate the daydoday torture and cruelty faced by her, inside the house, which many of such victims do not like to be made public".
21. Also, considering the contention of Ld. defence counsel that father of the complainant could not prove the ownership of the articles given by him as istridhan to the complainant and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. This contention of Ld. defence counsel does not holds good due to the reason that PW3 Radhey Shyam Yadav in his cross examination stated that in the marriage of his daughter, he gave articles like furnitures, gold articles and clothing etc. as per list given to CAW Cell. He further stated that he had not filed the receipts in respect of the said articles State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.16 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri and he cannot produce said receipts as the case is already around 1015 years old and if he would be having any of them they might be in very bad condition. This shows that PW3 Radhey Shyam Yadav has himself given the justification for not placing on record the receipts of the said articles.
22. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC are that "accused being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman in furtherance of their common intention subjects such woman to cruelty or harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet their unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." To prove it prosecution examined the most crucial witness PW2 Sarita Yadav complainant cum victim cum eye witness and she stated that after 15 days of her marriage accused Satender Yadav, accused Nathu Ramfather in law (since deceased) and accused Shanti Devimother in law started harassing complainant for demand of dowry and her husband started beating her for demand of dowry and her parents in law were silent spectator during the beating given by her husband. She further stated that her parents in law and husband were not satisfied with the dowry and all State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.17 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri the accused persons used to beat her and to torture her physically and mentally. She further stated that she was called from her parental home and her husband accused Satender offered her to take her to his village before her mother in law and father in law with an intention to kill her. She further stated that on 29.05.1996, she was turned out of her matrimonial home in wearing clothes. She further stated that she tried to save her matrimonial home by tolerating the indifferent behaviour of the accused. She further stated that her mother in law and father in law disclosed that her husband was having illicit relations with his maternal aunt i.e Shimla due to which she suffered mental agony. Also, PW3 Radhey Shyam Yadav father of the complainant has fully corroborated the version of PW2 Sarita Yadav. This shows that accused Satender along with his mother accused Shanti Devi along with Nathu Ram his father (since deceased) harassed the complainant in order to compel the complainant to meet their unlawful demand for dowry. Thus, prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients of offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.
23. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 406/34 IPC are that "accused alongwith other accused persons being in any manner entrusted with the property or State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.18 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri with any dominion over property, in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly misappropriates or converts to their own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person so to do". To prove it prosecution examined PW2 Sarita Yadav complainantcumvictim cum eye witness and she stated that her all istridhan are still lying with the accused persons which was entrusted to them at the time of marriage. She further stated that however, some dowry articles were produced by the accused persons before CAW Cell and same were taken by her vide memo Ex.PW2/A. She further stated that she has also handed over the dowry list and same was Ex.PW2/C. She further stated that on 29.05.1996 she was turned out of her matrimonial home in wearing clothes. She further stated that in her marriage her father had spent around Rs.22.5 lacs. PW3 Radhey Shyam Yadav father of the complainant stated that the time of marriage of his daughter sufficient dowry articles as per his capacity were given to the accused persons. He further stated that in the month of May or June, 1996 his daughter was expelled out of her matrimonial house by the accused persons in single wearing apparels. He further stated that a State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.19 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri complaint was lodged at CAW Cell by his daughter against the accused persons and it was only through the instance of CAW Cell that few dowry articles of his daughter i.e utensils and furniture were recovered and still her rest of istridhan articles and specially her ornaments are lying in the possession of the accused persons. This shows that accused Satender Yadav and his mother accused Shanti Devi along with his father Nathu Ram (since deceased) have wrongfully misappropriated the istridhan specially the ornaments of the complainant and did not returned the same to complainant despite the same demanded by the complainant. Thus, prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients for the offence punishable U/s 406/34 IPC.
24. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning as well as the fact that PW2 Sarita Yadav complainant cum victim cum eye witness has vividly narrated the whole incident in the Court and has stood the test of cross examination and correctly identified her husband accused Satender and her mother in law accused Shanti Devi. Also, I am of the considered view that testimony of PW2 Sarita Yadav is clear, convincing and reliable and no material has come on record which falsify her evidence. Also, PW3 Radhey Shyam Yadav has fully corroborated the version of PW2 Sarita State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.20 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri Yadav. Also all the essential ingredients of offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC has been fully established against both the accused persons namely accused Satender Yadav and accused Shanti Devi. I am of the considered view that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, both the accused persons namely accused Satender Yadav and accused Shanti Devi are accordingly convicted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
Let, both the accused persons namely accused Satender Yadav and accused Shanti Devi be heard separately on the point of sentence on 30.09.2013.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 28.09.2013 (EKTA GAUBA ) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court03/West/Delhi State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.21 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GAUBA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT)3,WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. FIR No:588/96 P.S. Janak Puri U/s 498A/406 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 30.09.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. Devender Chaudhary and Ms. Lajja Verma, Advocates.
This case is fixed today for orders on the point of sentence.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Ld. counsel for both the convict has contended that convict Satender Yadav is 41 years old aged person and convict Shanti Devi is 62 years old aged lady and both the convict are not previous convict and convict Satender Yadav is the sole bread earner of his family. Ld. counsel for both the convict has also requested for grant of probation to both the convict on the ground State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.22 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri that both the convict are not previous convict. Ld. counsel for both the convict further contended that convict Satender Yadav is now a married person with a second wife and having a young child and no such complaint has been made by his second wife against convict Satender Yadav or against his mother convict Shanti Devi and this shows that they are not habitual offenders and therefore, both the convict should be released on probation.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has contended that in the present case, both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav alongwith his mother convict Shanti Devi alongwith his father accused Nathu Ram (since deceased) in furtherance of their common intention have caused physical and mental cruelty and harassed the complainant in order to compel the complainant to meet their unlawful demand for dowry. Ld. APP for the State further contended that convict Satender Yadav alongwith his mother convict Shanti Devi alongwith his father accused Nathu Ram (since deceased) in furtherance of their common intention have also wrongfully misappropriated the istridhan especially the ornaments of the complainant and did not returned the same to the complainant despite the same demanded by the complainant. Ld. APP for the State further contended that maximum punishment be given to both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.23 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri on the ground that complainant is waiting for justice to be given to her for the past 18 years.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi.
Keeping in view the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashabai & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 (2) SCC 224 wherein it has been held that " in cases of crime against women (like cases U/s 498A IPC etc.) committed even by other women at the time of sentencing the deterrent punishment should be given and leniency in sentence is unwarranted."
In light of aforesaid law laid down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the fact that in the present case, Convict Satender Yadav being the husband of the complainant alongwith his mother Convict Shanti Devi alongwith his father accused Nathu Ram (since deceased) in furtherance of their common intention subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment in order to compel the complainant to meet their unlawful demand for dowry and also wrongfully misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant especially the ornaments of the complainant and did not State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.24 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri returned the same to the complainant despite the same demanded by the complainant and in view of the fact that convict Shanti Devi being herself a woman had victimised another woman i.e. complainant who was daughter in law of the convict Shanti Devi and convict Satender Yadav being the husband of the complainant and responsible to happily keep the complainant had victimised and harassed the complainant for demand of dowry and also in view of the fact that harassment of women for demand of dowry is increasing in today's scenario and in view of the facts and circumstances, both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi does not deserves to be released on probation.
I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served if for the offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC, both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
And, for the offence punishable U/s 406/34 IPC, both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.25 FIR No.588/96 State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. PS:Janak Puri Devi are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Both the convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi be given benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment has been supplied to both the Convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi free of cost on the date of judgment itself i.e. 28.09.2013.
Copy of order on sentence be supplied to both the Convict namely convict Satender Yadav and convict Shanti Devi today itself free of cost.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 30.09.2013 (Ekta Gauba)
MM (Mahila Court)03
West,THC,Delhi
State Vs. Satender Yadav Etc. Page No.26