Delhi District Court
Neelam Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH ,
SPECIAL JUDGE;NDPS SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
CA 96/2018
CNR NO. DLST010019622018
Neelam Singh
d/o Sh. Prehlad Singh
r/o E92, Saket, New Delhi .......... Appellant
versus
1 The State (NCT of Delhi)
2 Bhagat Dahiya
s/o Sh. B.S. Dahiya
3 B.S. Dahiya
s/o Sh. Shiv Lal
4 Rajbala
w/o Sh. B.S. Dahiya
5 Neetu Dahiya
d/o Sh. B.S. Dahiya ......... Respondents
all r/o A3, Shama Appartments, Plot No.32, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi110075.
Date of Institution : 21st March 2018
Date of Judgment : 13th December 2018
CA 151/2018
CNR NO. DLST010025872018
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor, Delhi .......... Petitioner
versus
CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 1/9
CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors
1 Sh. Bhagat Dahiya
s/o Sh. B.S. Dahiya,
r/o D851, PeshvaRoad,
Goyal Market, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi.
2 Sh. B.S. Dahiya
s/o Sh. Shiv Lal,
r/o D851, PeshvaRoad,
Goyal Market, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi.
3 Smt. Raj Bala Dahiya
w/o Sh. B.S. Dahiya,
r/o D851, PeshvaRoad,
Goyal Market, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi.
4 Smt. Nitu Dahiya
w/o Sh. Pankaj Kandhari,
r/o D851, PeshvaRoad,
Goyal Market, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi ......... Respondents/Accused
Date of Institution : 21st April 2018
Date of Judgment : 13th December 2018
J U D G M E N T
1 CA 151/2018 has been filed by the State and CA 96/2018 has
been filed by the complainant. Both appeals are directed against judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Ld. MM03, South (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, Delhi in FIR No.848/2004 titled State Vs Bhagat Dahiya U/s 406/498A/34 IPC, PS Malviya Nagar. There were five accused in the said FIR. One of the accused namely Smt. Bhanumati expired. Ld. Trial Court framed the charge CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 2/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors against the remaining accused namely Bhagat Dahiya, B.S. Dahiya, Raj Bala Dahiya and Nitu Dahiya U/s 498A/34 IPC and U/s 406/34 IPC. Charge U/s 354 IPC was also framed against the accused B.S. Dahiya. By the impugned judgment, ld. Trial Court acquitted all accused of the charges framed against them.
2 Complainant got married to the accused Bhagat Dahiya on 02.07.2002. Accused B.S. Dahiya is the father in law, accused Raj Bala Dahiya is the mother in law and accused Nitu Dahiya is the sister in law of the complainant.
3 To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Complainant was examined as PW1 and her father Mr. Prahlad Singh was examined as PW3. In their defence, the accused examined DW1 Ms. Santosh and DW2 Mr. Rishal Singh who is elder brother of the accused B.S. Dahiya.
4 I have considered the arguments of ld. Addl. PP for the State and arguments of Mr. Amit Khatana, ld. Counsel for the appellant / complainant and arguments of Mr. H.R. Khan Suhel, ld. Counsel for the accused / respondents.
5 The grounds of appeal, it is stated that the ld. Trial Court did not properly consider the deposition of the witnesses which proves that the complainant was subjected to cruelty and she was assaulted. PW3 has corroborated the allegations made by PW1. DW3 Mr. Rishal Singh admitted his crossexamination that cash was given in the marriage. When the complainant went to take her stri dhan articles, the lock of the almirah could not be opened and it had CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 3/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors to be broken by calling a black smith. The lock of the almirah had been changed and this shows the intention on the part of the accused to misappropriate the stri dhan articles. PW6 ASI Jalbir Singh has corroborated this facts. PW10 and PW11 proved that the complainant went to PS Mandir Marg on 18.12.2003 with her parents. She had abrasions on face and she was treated at RML hospital. Ld. Trial Court wrongly held that mere demand without consequences in case of non fulfillment of the demand, does not amount to cruelty u/s 498A IPC. The testimony of PW1 had to be considered as a whole. Part of the statement could not have been used to discard the allegation for demand of a bigger car. Even if the view of the Ld. Trial Court was correct, respondent no.4 Ms. Nitu Dahiya should have been convicted for the offence u/s 323 IPC. Failure of the complainant to mention the specific dates in respect of the offence u/s 406 IPC and 354 IPC does not mean that the allegations were false. Failure of the complainant to produce the bills also cannot be ground to disbelieve the allegations U/s 406 IPC. 6 It is settled principle of law that the appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of the Trial Court, if the view taken by the Ld. Trial Court is a possible view. An accused with a judgment of acquittal has double presumption of innocence. 7 FIR was registered on the complaint dated 07.04.2004 to CAW Cell. The said complaint was exhibited during trial as Ex.PW1/A. According to the complaint, she had also submitted a complaint dated 29.11.2003 to the SHO, PS Gole Market, Mandir CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 4/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors Marg, copy of which was placed on record of the Trial Court as Mark A. On 18.12.2003, the complainant went to PS Mandir Marg and her statement was recorded vide DD no.16A which was exhibited in the crossexamination of the complainant as Ex.PW1/DX2. 8 Section 498A IPC provides for punishment to the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Cruelty is defined under explanation (a) & (b) of Section 498A IPC. The complaint Ex.PW1/A on which the FIR was registered, contains narration of events of about two years. In her crossexamination, PW1 stated that on barat, lagan, sagai, bidai and one more ceremony, her father in law demanded Rs. 21,000/ on each occasion. Accused had denied the alleged demand. To prove the allegations, prosecution relied upon photograph Mark PW3/B in which the accused Bhagat Dahiya can be seen receiving some cash. DW2 stated that cash was received as part of customary shagun. Even if the photograph is admitted to be correct, it does not show payment of Rs. 21,000/ each on five different occasions. PW1 has stated in her crossexamination that she had not given any photographs to the IO to show that cash or envelopes containing cash were being given by her parents to her husband and his family members during the different ceremonies mentioned above. 9 PW1 alleged that she was not being allowed to look after of the needs of her husband as the demands were not being fulfilled. In her crossexamination, she has stated that her mother in law used to help her regularly to prepare the meals. Sometimes they used to CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 5/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors prepare the meals together and sometimes she used to cook separately on the advice of her mother in law. If the mother in law was assisting the complainant/PW1 in preparation of the meals, it is not believable that she would have assaulted her in December 2002 when she was warming milk for her husband. It is also not believable that she would have told her that unless she brings sufficient dowry, she will not be allowed to do any work for her husband.
10 In her crossexamination PW1 stated that after the marriage she went for honeymoon. She and her husband live happily during the honeymoon. She also went for a vacation of 78 days with her husband after about one year of marriage but she did not remember where she had gone. She stated that the attitude of her husband (accused Bhagat Dahiya) was in different from the time of marriage as he had turned away his face during the pheras. If the attitude of her husband was in different and he was not happy with the marriage, how could the couple be happy during the honeymoon and why they would go for a vacation after about one year of the marriage. She did not remember the place where she went with her husband for vacation but she remembers various incidents with great detail which are mentioned in Ex.PW1/A. This is not natural. In her crossexamination, she also admitted the photograph Ex.PW1/D1 and that she had gone to Vaishno Devi with her husband for 34 days. The photograph is dated 07.10.2003. If the complainant was facing harassment as narrated in Ex.PW1/A, normally she would not CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 6/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors be traveling with her husband for pilgrimage in October 2003. She also stated in the crossexamination that she was sharing bed room with her husband and none of the accused had any objection in this regard. If the mother in law was not permitting her to boil milk for her husband because she was not getting the demands fulfilled, she would have not allowed her to share the bedroom with her husband. 11 PW1 and PW3 are the only witnesses examined in support of the allegations contained in Ex.PW1/A. She admitted in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/DX11, there was no allegation for demand of Rs. 6 lakhs. In DD no.16A Ex.PW1/DX2, there is no specific amount mentioned, though, it is stated that the accused were demanding lakhs of rupees to purchase a house for her husband. In his crossexamination, PW3 stated that the demand for Rs. 6 lakhs was made 1012 days prior to the marriage. He admitted that in his statement U/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/X, it is not mentioned that demand of Rs. 6 lakhs was made prior to the marriage.
12 PW1 admitted in her crossexamination dated 25.08.2015 that her sister in law arranged the tickets when she went for the honeymoon with her husband. She also admitted that at the time of marriage, her sister in law (accused Nitu Dahiya) was posted at Calicut / Khozikod as Air hostess. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the marriage of the complainant, the accused Nitu Dahiya ceased to be employed and started residing with her parents and the complainant. If the attitude of the accused towards CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 7/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors the complainant was bad right from the time of marriage as stated in Ex.PW1/A, why would her sister in law arrange the tickets. It is also not believable that the sister in law who was working at a different place would be troubling her as alleged in Ex.PW1/A. 13 The allegation of outraging of modesty by the accused B.S. Dahiya was not reported to any authority and the complainant continued to reside in the same house which is not normal. PW3 (father of the complainant) stated that he had warned the accused B.S. Dahiya after the incident was reported to him. Under normal circumstance, PW3 would not have allowed the complainant to continue living in the same house with the accused B.S. Dahiya. 14 In DD no.16A Ex.PW1/DX2, it is mentioned that the complainant had injury marks on left cheek whereas according to the MLC Mark PW3/1, the complainant had multiple abrasions on the right cheek of about 6 - 7 cm. The doctor who prepared the MLC could not be examined and in his place the prosecution examined PW5 Dr. Sunil Saxena. PW5 admitted that he had not examined the complainant.
15 The fact that the complainant could not open the almirah with her keys when she went to her matrimonial home with her family members and PW6 ASI Jalbir Singh on 27.10.2004 to take her stri dhan articles, does not necessarily mean that the accused had changed the locks. Prosecution did not prove that the complainant was carrying the right keys for the almirah. If the accused wanted to misappropriate the articles, they could have removed them instead of CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 8/9 CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors changing the locks of the almirah. The complainant received stri dhan articles as per list Ex.PW6/A and the accused also gave a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to her in pursuance of the order on anticipatory bail. This amount was given towards any article which might have been left out. This shows that there was no misappropriation. It is also to be noted that as per allegation of the complainant, her stri dhan articles were taken away without her consent and there was not entrustment. For the offence U/s 406 IPC entrustment is required. 16 Taking into consideration the facts mentioned above, the view taken by the Ld. Trial Court that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be against the facts and law. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Both appeals are dismissed. 17 Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room. Copy of the judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court with TCR.
(announced in the (Rajesh Kumar Singh )
open Court on Digitally Special Judge (NDPS)
signed by
13th December 2018 ) RAJESH South District: Saket
RAJESH
KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.12.15
11:07:18
+0530
CA 96/2018 Neelam Singh Vs State 9/9
CA 151/2018 State (through PP) Vs Bhagat Dahiya & Ors