Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh & Ors. on 20 March, 2018
STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MAYURI SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:MAHILA COURT01: SOUTH DISTRICT:
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
State versus Suresh & Ors.
FIR No. 34/10
PS Vasant Kunj (South)
U/s - 498A/406/34 IPC
CNR No. DLST020000692010
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 151/2/10
2. Date of commission : After marriage on 21.06.2003 till the
year 2009
3. Date of institution of the case : 25.09.2010
4. Name of complainant : Ms. Neetu D/o Sh. Braham Singh
5. Name of accused person : 1. Suresh S/o Sh. Prem Raj
2. Hansraj (details not mentioned in
the chargesheet and not summoned
by the court)
3. Prem Raj S/o Sh. Gurdap Singh
4. Sumitra W/o Prem Raj
5. Rohtash S/o Dharam Singh
6. Kusum W/o Rohtash
7. Ramo D/o Prem Raj
8. Lalit S/o Prem Raj.
Accused no. 3 to 8 discharged by
the court vide order dated
07.09.2013
6. Offence complained of : 498A IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No.34/10 1/15
STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
8. Arguments heard on : 20.03.2018
9. Final order : Acquittal.
10 Date of judgment : 20.03.2018.
FACTS AS ALLEGED BY THE PROSECUTION:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that one complaint was filed by the complainant Neetu against her husband and inlaws in the CAW Cell, stating that she got legally married to accused Suresh on 21.06.2003 and after two months of her marriage, all accused persons told the complainant that the articles brought by her in her marriage were of inferior quality and her father did not give a Pulsar bike, but a scooter of inferior quality. They demanded Rs. One lakh and said that they will burn the complainant alive if demand was not fulfilled. Her motherinlaw and sisterinlaw used to beat her and taunt her for inferior dowry even after birth of a baby boy on 24.01.2006. On 15.06.2007, all accused persons again demanded Rs. One lakh within 10 days and due to nonfulfillment of demand, they threw the complainant out of the matrimonial home on 19.06.2007. On 06.02.2009, husband of the complainant Suresh came to her parental house and demanded Rs. One lakh and further threatened to kill her if the demand was not fulfilled. Accused Suresh had also demanded Rs. One lakh from her and her parents as a pre condition to let her live with them at the matrimonial home.
2. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered for offence u/s FIR No.34/10 2/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
498A/406/34 IPC. Investigation was undertaken. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against all accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons namely Suresh, Rohtash, Kusum, Prem Raj, Sumitra, Ramo and Lalit were summoned CHARGE:
3. Vide order dated 07.09.2013, accused persons Rohtash, Kusum, Prem Raj, Sumitra, Ramo, Hansraj and Lalit were discharged from the present case. Charge was framed against accused Suresh for offence u/s 498A IPC for subjecting complainant to cruelty during subsistence of marriage of complainant with accused i.e from 21.06.2003 till the year 2009. Accused Suresh was discharged for offence u/s 406 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.
4. Prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. A brief scrutiny of prosecution evidence is as follows:
(a) PW1 Ms. Neetu deposed she was married to accused Suresh on 21.06.2003 and after marriage she went to her matrimonial home in Meerut and after 12 months, all accused persons started torturing her for not doing household chores inspite of her doing FIR No.34/10 3/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
entire household chores. All accused persons also used to mentally torture her for not bringing bike, as scooter was given in the marriage. Accused Suresh also demanded Rs. One lakh in lieu of motorbike. On 24.01.2006, PW1 was blessed with a son and even after birth of her son, behaviour of accused persons did not change and all accused persons used to taunt and harass her for not bringing motorbike. Accused also did not allow PW1 to meet her parents and whenever any family member of PW1 used to visit her, accused Suresh used to throw brick pieces on them from the roof and did not let them to enter in the matrimonial home. PW1 stayed for about 11½ years in her matrimonial home with all accused persons. Thereafter, she informed her parents about ill behaviour of accused persons and one day, her parents came to her matrimonial home and took her to her parental home in Delhi. Since then PW1/complainant was residing with her parents. After two years of her leaving the matrimonial home, her parents took her to the matrimonial home, but accused persons did not allow her to enter inside the house. Thereafter, she filed a complaint in CAW Cell Ex.PW1/A. Accused Suresh participated in the CAW Cell proceedings, but no compromise could be effected. List of istridhan articles alongwith the complaint is Ex.PW1/B.
(b) PW2 Vimla Devi deposed that on 21.06.2003, marriage of her daughter was solemnized with accused Suresh. Husband of PW2 had spent huge amount of money in the marriage. In January FIR No.34/10 4/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
2004, inlaws of her daughter started harassing her and they were asking for Rs. One lakh from them. On 15 th January 2006, when her daughter gave birth to a baby boy, accused persons again demanded Rs. One lakh. Accused Suresh also did not let PW2 and her family to meet PW1 and thereafter, she paid Rs. One lakh to accused persons. On 20.06.2007, son of aunt of accused Suresh came to PW2 and told that her daughter and accused Suresh had died in an accident. Thereafter, PW2 went to the house of her daughter/PW1 and found that everything narrated to her was wrong and her daughter was in a bad condition and there was blue abrasion on her body and thereafter, PW2 brought PW1 to her house.
(c) PW3 Brahm Singh deposed that on 21.06.2003, marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused Suresh and he spent huge amount of money in the marriage and gave sufficient dowry articles to her as per list Ex.PW1/B. After marriage, accused persons and their relatives started harassing her and accused Suresh did not want to live with his daughter/PW1. On 24.01.2006 daughter of PW3 gave birth to a baby boy and thereafter, his daughter PW1 informed him that accused persons were demanding Rs. One lakh from her. Thereafter, PW3 alongwith his fatherinlaw went to the house of his daughter and tried to make understand the accused persons, but they were continuously demanding Rs. One lakh. After 23 months, a call was received FIR No.34/10 5/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
from the house of accused persons that an accident had taken place after which, PW3 went to house of accused persons. On the said day, his daughter was taken to PS by accused persons and their relatives and thereafter, PW3 alongwith his family also went to PS where a compromise was effected.
(d) PW4 SI Gyan Prabha deposed that on 10.02.2009 complaint Ex,PW1/A was marked to her and during enquiry, she called both the parties and made efforts for reconciliation, but no reconciliation could be arrived at and she also referred both the parties to mediation cell, but all in vain. Thereafter, she prepared final report Ex.PW4/A and recommended registration of FIR.
(e) PW5 W/SI Kailash deposed that on 05.02.2010, investigation of the present case was entrusted to her and on 06.02.2010, she visited house of complainant and recorded her statement as well as statement of parents. On 15.02.2010 complainant handed over marriage photograph to PW5 and she seized the same vide Ex. PW5/A. On 17.02.2010, PW5 moved an application to ACP for arrest of accused which is Ex.PW5/B. On 29.03.2010, she seized dowry articles and handed over the same to complainant vide seizure memo and handing over memo Ex.PW1/C. On 12.06.2010, PW 5 arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C. FIR No.34/10 6/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
(f) Vide statement dated 16.08.2017, accused admitted FIR which is Ex.C1.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C:
5. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he denied the same.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
6. Accused chose to examine himself in his defence. He filed on record copy of letter written by complainant to Ravi already Mark A and copy of letter written by Ravi to his wife Ex.DW1/A. He stated that his wife had love affair with Ravi and the letters exchanged between them were caught by police and Ravi and his wife were taken to PS Medical Parents of complainant were also called in the PS. Copy of letter written by father of complainant to SHO PS Medical Meerut is Mark DW1/A. Parents of complainant took her to their house and thereafter, she never returned and filed a case against accused.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. Final arguments have been heard and record has been carefully perused. Ld. Substitute APP stated that prosecution witnesses are reliable and have duly proved the case of the prosecution.
FIR No.34/10 7/158. Ld Counsel for the accused submitted that allegations are vague and burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. There is discrepancy in the testimonies of material witnesses and there is no medical document in support of the allegations. It was also submitted that the complainant had a love affair with someone else and hence, she left the accused on her own and made a false complaint against him. It was further submitted that testimony of accused as DW 1 is credible.
LEGAL PROVISIONS TO BE SEEN:
9. Charge has been framed against the accused for offence u/s 498A IPC.
Section 498A IPC provides punishment for subjecting a woman to cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband. A bare perusal shows that the word cruelty encompasses any of the following elements:
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or
(b) Any wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave physical or mental injury to the woman; or
(c) Any wilful act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental of the woman.
Any harassment of the woman with a view to meet any unlawful demand for dowry.
FIR No.34/10 8/15ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS:
10. The most important witness examined in the present case is complainant herself and the whole case of the prosecution is heavily dependent on her testimony. When testimony of PW1 is analyzed carefully, it is seen that the same is not only vague but full of material discrepancies. According to PW1, after 12 months of her marriage, accused Suresh and his other family members started torturing her for not doing household work. In this regard, it is seen that she has not mentioned the manner in which she was tortured and what was done or said to her towards alleged torturing of her. PW1 has further alleged that she was threatened for life for not bringing bike as her father had given a scooter instead. Again, PW1 failed to disclose as to when she was so threatened and if the demand for bike was repetitive, the period during which the same was made and by whom and what was uttered to her. Even the year in which the said dowry demand was raised is not specified in her examinationinchief. According to PW1, accused had demanded Rs. One lakh in lieu of motorcycle but she failed to disclose the date, time and the place of the alleged demand.
11. It is amusing to note that according to PW1, her son was born on 24.01.2006 by Cesarean Section and Rs. 50,000/ was spent in the surgery and this expense was fully met by the accused persons. It is FIR No.34/10 9/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
strange that on the one hand, PW1 deposed that behaviour of accused and his family members did not change even after the birth of her son and she was taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry and on the other hand, no demand was raised at the time of delivery of the child.
12. According to PW1, whenever her parental family members used to visit her, accused used to throw brick pieces on them from roof and did not let them enter the matrimonial house to meet her. PW1 has not specified the dates on which any such visits were made. Even the time of visit is not specified. It is not specified that as to who from the parental family had visited and when. It is strange that the act of random throwing of bricks from the roof towards the road will not be opposed by the neighbours. None from the neighbourhood was examined in support of such an allegation.
13. According to PW1, one day her parents came to her matrimonial home at Meerut and took her to Delhi after she had informed them about the ill behaviour of accused. However, the version of PW2 is in sharp contrast to the testimony of PW1. According to him on 20.06.2007, accused's cousin had visited him and informed that PW1 and accused had died in an accident and thereafter, he had been to the matrimonial house of PW1 and found her in bad condition and taken her back to parental home. PW1 is completely silent in her testimony regarding sustaining of any injury on 20.06.2007. Rather, she has not deposed regarding any such alleged incident regarding 20.06.2007 in FIR No.34/10 10/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
her testimony. It is further relevant to mention that during her cross examination by Ld. APP, she denied that on 15.06.2007, her husband and inlaws had demanded Rs. One lakh to be given within 10 days or that she had disclosed this fact to her parents. Even while admitting the suggestion of Ld. APP that her parents and other relatives had visited her matrimonial home on 19.06.2007 and taken her back, she did not utter a word to suggest that she was beaten on that day by the accused or was in bad shape due to any beatings given to her.
14. The plea of false implication is raised by the accused on ground that complainant had love affair with one person namely Ravi @ Jay. It is interesting to note that during her crossexamination, the letters Mark A were put to PW1, which were admitted to be in her own handwriting by the complainant. This is an admitted documents and hence, needs no formal proving of the same. A bare perusal of this letter shows the amorous nature of the letter and manifests that the same has been written by the complainant to her lover. At the end of the letters, it is specifically mentioned that 'Jay I love you'. The shape of heart is also drawn on the letters. In one of the letters, complainant has also written down some romantic shayari. The handwriting on the said letter is admitted. Even during her crossexamination, PW1 did not deny specifically her relationship with Ravi @ Jay. In her crossexamination, though she did not deny the contents of the letter, she stated that accused had made her forcibly write these letters. However, such an averment on part of complainant cannot be readily bought. During the FIR No.34/10 11/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
entire investigation, complainant never stated to the police that her hand written letters are in possession of the accused or that these letters were forcibly got written from her by accused. No complaint was made against accused in this regard either. During her crossexamination, complainant deposed that she had not complained to the police about the behaviour of accused in forcibly making her write those letters. Hence, it is clear that the excuse given by PW1 is an afterthought and cannot be relied upon. The letters are admitted by PW1 and give credence to the line of defence taken by the accused of false implication due to extra marital affair of the complainant. During his defence evidence, accused relied on the documents Mark A, Ex.DW1/A and Mark DW1/A. According to the accused document Mark DW1/A is the letter written by father of the complainant to the police officials where he mentioned that the complainant had admitted to him the letters written by her to Jay. This document also shows that father of the complainant had given in writing to the police that he has learnt regarding extra marital affair of his daughter and letter written by her to Jay is also admitted and in such a circumstance, he was taking the complainant alongwith him. Though original document was not produced in the court, no suggestion was given by Ld. APP to the accused that this document is forged and fabricated and instead it was suggested to the accused that this document bears his signature at point A. It is further seen that during crossexamination of PW3 (father of the complainant), he deposed that "I do not remember whether my daughter wrote any letter to Ravi @ Jay". In view of such evasive reply given by PW 2 coupled with the fact that FIR No.34/10 12/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
DW1 deposed in his crossexamination that original was in the possession of PW3 and his deposition that this letter was written by his fatherinlaw to the police, the defence of the accused regarding illicit relationship of his wife is further strengthened. It is further seen that DW1 also produced the letter Ex.DW1/A as written by Ravi @ Jay to his wife. During crossexamination by Ld. APP, he deposed that this document was recovered from complainant on 19.06.2007 in his presence and when the letter was recovered by the police, it was in the hand of Neetu. Though accused is not the author of the document, from his testimony together with the testimony of complainant, it can be said that the possibility of recovery of letter from complainant cannot be negated. There is no suggestion given by Ld. APP to accused that this is a forged and fabricated document.
15. According to the complainant, she used to be beaten over the demand of dowry, but not a single document is placed and proved on record in support of such an allegation and her testimony is very vague on the point of the alleged torture and dowry demand from her. As far as PW2 and PW 3 are concerned, they are mere hearsay witnesses to the alleged torture meted out to the complainant and the alleged dowry demand from her. Though PW2 deposed that the accused alongwith his other relatives was demanding Rs. One lakh from him or his family, he did not disclose the date of such demand. Again, while deposing that the demand of Rs. One lakh was made at the time of birth of baby boy, he did not specify the name of the person who had made demand and in FIR No.34/10 13/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
what manner and at what time and place. PW 2 also deposed that he had paid Rs. One lakh to the inlaws of his daughter, but this claim is not substantiated by him. The date of the alleged payment, the place and time of the payment as well as the person to whom the money was handed over is not specified. Even the mode in which the money was paid and the source from which the amount was arranged are not specified. PW1 herself admitted that when her son was born, the entire expenditure in sum of Rs. 50,000/was paid by the accused persons and she did not depose anywhere in her testimony that on 15.01.2006, Rs. One lakh was demanded from her mother or that any such demand was met by her and it is only during her crossexamination by Ld. APP that she accepted the suggestion of demand of Rs. One lakh immediately after birth of her son. However, even during suggestion put by Ld. APP regarding demand of Rs. One lakh, she did not state that any such demand was met by his parents. PW3 is also silent regarding any such alleged payment.
16. The evidence of the complainant and other witnesses do not show that the accused subjected the complainant (PW1) to cruelty as envisaged under section 498A of IPC. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078, Supreme Court held that :"Cruelty" for the purpose of section 498A IPC is to be established in the context of section 498A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and FIR No.34/10 14/15 STATE V. SURESH & ORS.
to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as 'cruelty' to attract the provision of section 498A IPC. In the instant case, there is no evidence to suggest that accused subjected the complainant to cruelty as envisaged under section 498A IPC.
17. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, accused Suresh is acquitted for offence u/s 498A IPC.
Pronounced in open court (MAYURI SINGH)
on 20.03.2018 M.M./Mahila Court01
South District/Saket Courts ND
Digitally
signed by
MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.03.20
16:31:37
+0530
FIR No.34/10 15/15