Delhi District Court
State vs Chander Shekhar & Ors. on 22 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
State Vs Chander Shekhar & Ors.
FIR NO. 346/07
P.S : Prasad Nagar
Case ID No. 02401R0885342008
Date of institution of case : 02.05.2008
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 22.09.2015
Date of judgment : 22.09.2015
Advocates appearing in the case:
Ms. Parul Singh, Ld. APP for the state.
Mr. Raghav Parvatiyar, Ld. Counsel for both the accused.
JUDGEMENT U/S 498A/406 IPC:
1. Name of the complainant : Dr. Hemlata Renu
2. Name of accused and Address : (1) Chander Shekhar
S/o Sh. Bhagwat Prasad
R/o H.No. 25A, PhaseI
Pocket3, Mayur Vihar
Delhi
(2)Bhagwat Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Makkhan Singh
R/o H.No. 25A, PhaseI
Pocket3, Mayur Vihar
Delhi
(expired on 25.04.2010.
Proceedings abated on
10.11.2010)
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 1/34
(3)Ramawati
W/o Late Sh. Makkhan Singh
R/o H.No. 25A, PhaseI
Pocket3, Mayur Vihar
Delhi
3. Offence complained of : 498A/406 IPC
4. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. Final order : Acquitted
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1 The brief facts of the case are that complainant got married
to the accused Chander Shekhar on 11.12.2005, according to Hindu rites
and customs. Parents of the complainant had spent a huge amount of
money in her marriage. They had given ornaments, clothes and various
other articles of very high value in her marriage. It is stated that on
14.12.2005 when the complainant returned to her matrimonial house after
Pagphera ceremony, her husband had asked her to furnish the details of
her financial investments. All the accused persons had told the
complainant that her parents had not given the dowry as per their
expectations. It is further stated that accused persons had told her that
they were expecting cash amount of Rupees 10 lacs and that car would be
in the name of accused Chander Shekhar.
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 2/34
It is further stated that on 24.12.2005 complainant alongwith
her husband had gone for honeymoon to Jammu and KulluManali and
returned to Delhi only on 31.12.2005. During that period also, husband of
the complainant kept on continuously repeated the abovesaid demands
and thus pressurized the complainant. Accused husband had threatened
the complainant that if his demands were not fulfilled, he would not keep
any matrimonial relation with the complainant. It is further stated that in
the first week of January, husband of the complainant took her to Dilshad
Garden and showed her four different houses through some property
broker. Accused husband had then told her that he wanted to purchase a
house for his parents and told her to arrange the finance herself or from
her parents.
It is further stated that in the first week of February 2006,
her husband, motherinlaw and fatherinlaw started pressurizing her to
hand over all her costly ornaments to them. Ultimately, on 13.02.2006, in
the morning when the complainant was leaving for her duty, she was
forced to hand over all her ornaments and other stridhan article to them.
Since, then, all the ornaments are with them and have not been returned
despite repeated requests.
It is further stated that on 28.02.2006 husband of
complainant demanded Rs.15,000/ per month from the complainant.
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 3/34
Accused had also threatened her that if she would not pay the same, she
had to leave her matrimonial home. It is further stated that on 01.03.2006,
complainant went for her job at 6.30 pm and next day while, coming from
the job, she stopped at her parental house to see her ailing mother who
was paralyzed. Complainant called her husband over phone to ask him
about his well being, he told the complainant that she need not to enter
the matrimonial house unless an arrangement of rupees 15,000/ for the
said month was not made. After that, complainant made several calls to
her husband for patch up but he did not respond. Since then, the
complainant is residing at her parental house.
It is further stated that husband of complainant had started
demanding $ 1000 approximately per month from brother of the
complainant who is in USA. It is further stated that on 08.03.2006, father
and maternal uncle of the complainant went to matrimonial house of the
complainant to deliver gifts and sweets on the occasion of Holi festival
but they were mistreated. It is further stated that the husband of the
complainant had raised a new demand of Rs.29 lacs from the father of the
complainant for admission in some course in Australia. When, her father
had showed his incapability to fulfill the said demand, her husband made
second demand to pay rupees 45,000/ @ rupees 15,000/ per month from
December 2005 when the marriage took place to March 2006. It is
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 4/34
further stated that father of the complainant agreed to pay rupees 15,000/
per month starting from March 2006. Accordingly, father of complainant
paid rupees 15,000/ on 17.03.2006 through two cheques and further paid
an amount of rupees 15,000/ on 16.04.2006 through cheques. It is further
stated that on 02.05.2006, husband of the complainant had telephonically
called her father and demanded an amount of Rs.7.5 lacs for admission in
MBA course in Delhi to which father of the complainant refused.
It is further stated that on 17.05.2006, husband of the
complainant again telephonically called the father of the complainant and
told that the complainant would be allowed to live at her matrimonial
home only on the conditions of fulfillment of his demands for money and
in addition he set forth the following conditions:
a) Complainant would resign from her govt. job.
b) Complainant will not visit to her parents and will have no concern
and relations with them
c) complainant will have to undergo a medical test.
It is further stated that father and other relatives of the
complainant with a view to ensure that her marriage should be saved,
visited her inlaws 23 times until 29.05.2006. On 29.05.2006
complainant alongwith her father and other relatives went to her
matrimonial house where father of the complainant pleaded her inlaws
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 5/34
not to behave in a cruel manner with the complainant but her inlaws
refused to desist their demands. It was agreed that the inlaws of
complainant would return the car of the complainant on the condition that
her father would give in writing that the matter had been amicably and
mutually settled out of the court. Her father agreed and gave that
assurance in writing on 09.06.2006. After, that father of the complainant
made several attempts to settle the matter by calling the accused persons
and their relatives but to no avail. Thereafter, complainant had filed the
complaint against the accused persons before the Crime Against Women
Cell. First information report was registered against them on 03.09.2007.
2. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was
conducted. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in
the court against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was
taken and all accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face
the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied
with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and
vide order dated 28.06.2010, charge u/s 498A/406 IPC was framed
against accused Chander Shekhar and Ramawati to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 10.03.2011 charge u/s 4 of
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 6/34
Dowry Prohibition Act was also framed against both the abovementioned
accused persons to which they individually pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for prosecution
evidence. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced six
witnesses. Complainant Dr. Hemlata Renu has been examined as PW1.
PW1 during the course of her examination in chief deposed that in her
marriage with accused Chander Shekhar all the household articles,
expensive clothes and jewellery were given by her family. PW1 has relied
upon the list of articles which are Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/D.
PW1 further deposed that after marriage on 11.12.2005, she went to her
matrimonial house and came back to her parental house only on
12.12.2005. PW1 again went back to her matrimonial house and on
14.12.2005 accused husband had inquired her financial status, bank
balance, investments etc.
PW1 further deposed that in the evening when she was
having the tea, her sisterinlaw Sheetal, motherinlaw Ramawati, father
inlaw Bhagwat Prasad and her husband started saying that they have
received insufficient dowry in the marriage. PW1 further deposed that all
the accused persons told her that they were expecting at least rupees 10
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 7/34
lacs in cash, car in the name of accused husband and many other articles
in the marriage. PW1 further deposed that she went to honeymoon to
Manali and also visited the house of her sisterinlaw at Jammu. The
accused husband had then told her that if his demand of rupees 10 lacs,
independent car and other articles would not be fulfilled, he would not
have any physical relationship with her. The accused husband has also
threatened that if his demands would not be fulfilled, he would give her
divorce.
PW1 further deposed that on 08.01.2006 the examination for
medical entrance was held and her husband had taken her to the
examination center. From the examination center, she was brought to
Dilshad Garden area. PW1 further deposed that 45 flats were shown to
her and she was asked that she had to purchase a house on EMIs (equal
monthly installments) which would be paid either by her or by her
parents. On 13.02.2006 her husband, father in law and mother in law
forced her to hand over all the jewelery articles to them. Eventually, she
had to hand over her all the jewelery articles to her husband, father in law
and mother in law. On 28.02.2006, an amount of rupees 15,000/ was
demanded by her husband and he told her that unless that amount would
not be paid, she was not be allowed to live at the matrimonial house.
PW1 further deposed that on 01.03.2006 same demand was
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 8/34
again made when PW1 was leaving the matrimonial house for night duty.
On 02.03.2006 after her duty at Tihar Jail PW1 went to her parental
house to see her ailing mother. Her husband again called her over
telephone and demanded an amount of rupees 15,000/ from her. PW1
further deposed that on 08.03.2006 her father and Mama went to her
matrimonial house to give gifts of Holi but they were mistreated by
accused persons. Her husband had demanded an amount of rupees 29
lacs from her father for her studies abroad. On, denial by father of the
complainant, accused husband had demanded rupees 45,000/ for the
expenses from December 2005 to March 2006. PW1 further deposed that
her father had assured the accused that he would pay rupees 15,000/
from March onwards on the condition of letting his daughter live
peacefully in the matrimonial house and that accused husband would talk
to her.
PW1 further deposed that his father had given two cheques
bearing no. 513161 dated 15.03.2006 for rupees 5000/ and another
cheque bearing no. 367855 dated 16.03.2006 for rupees 10,000/ in the
month of April. PW1 further deposed that her father had given another
cheque bearing no. 513162 dated 16.04.2006 for rupees 5000/ and
another cheque bearing no. 561061 dated 17.04.2006 for rupees 10,000/
both favouring the accused Chander Shekhar. On 24.03.2006, accused
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 9/34
Chander Shekhar called her father and gave a list of dowry articles and
asked him to sign the same. On the same day, he again demanded Rs.15
lacs and as he was going to take admission in USA. Her father again
refused and showed his inability to fulfill the demand. PW1 further
deposed that on 02.05.2006 accused called her father on telephone and
demanded rupees 7.5 lacs for taking admission in MBA course at Delhi
but her father again refused as the accused husband was not talking with
her even after taking the money through cheques. PW1 further deposed
that on 17.05.2006 her husband again called her father and told him that
she would be allowed to enter in matrimonial house on following
conditions:
(1) that complainant had to leave her government job
(2) that complainant would break the relationship with her father
(3) that complainant will not visit her parental house
(4) that complainant had to go through the medical test.
Accused had also told her father "jab ye ghar ayegi tab mai
isko thik kar dunga". PW1 further deposed that on 28.05.2006 she
alongwith her father and some other relatives went to the matrimonial
house to talk with the accused persons. PW1 further deposed that on the
same day, she demanded her clothes and jewelery as she had to attend the
marriage of her cousin but the same was refused by the accused persons.
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 10/34
PW1 further deposed that her car bearing no. DL2C AD 3543 was with
the accused husband and he refused to return the same even after several
demands. PW1 further deposed that on 09.06.2006 list of dowry articles
lying with the accused persons was prepared by the accused persons. In
July 2006 complainant went to USA to visit her brother and there she
came to know that accused Chander Shekhar was demanding $1000 from
her brother and in the way was harassing him. Accused husband had filed
a civil suit to declare his marriage null and void on the ground that
complainant was not a women and was not mentally fit to solemnize the
marriage in November 2006. PW1 further deposed that she was mentally
disturbed by the act of the accused. PW1 thereafter filed a complaint in
CAW cell on 23.03.2007 which is Ex.PW1/X. PW1 has relied upon
documents given by her to the police which are collectively Ex.PW1/E
(OSR). PW1 further deposed that her marriage was never consummated
as the accused told her that the marriage would not be consummated
unless the dowry demands are fulfilled.
PW1 during the course of her cross examination submitted
that her motherinlaw snatched all the jewelery articles in the morning of
13.02.2006. PW1 has submitted that on 01.03.2006 she went to her work
place for night duty and from there she went to her parental house and
never returned back to her matrimonial house. PW1 has herself submitted
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 11/34
during her cross examination that there was no demand at the time of
marriage and only one condition was put by her which was agreed by the
accused persons that they would let her take care of her mother who was
paralytic patient. PW1 has specifically denied that she had filed the
present complaint as counter blast to the petition for annulment of
marriage filed by her husband.
4 ASI Tarsem Kumar has been examined as PW2. PW2 had
received one rukka sent by WSI Meena Yadav, one the basis of which, he
got registered the first information report. PW3 has proved the first
information report Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/B,
both bear his signatures at point A. PW2 also produced the DD entry no.
24A made by him (OSR).
5 SI Dhan Singh has been examined as PW3. PW3 during the
course of his examinationinchief deposed that on 23.03.2007 he was
posted at CWC, Nanak Pura, Delhi. On that day, complaint no. 240 which
is Ex.PW1/X of complainant Dr. Hemlata Renu was marked to him for
inquiry. PW3 further deposed that complainant handed over him list of
stridhan articles, copy of which was also supplied to the other party. PW3
further deposed that on 29.05.2007, accused Chander Shekhar produced
few articles in CAW cell which were taken into possession and handed
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 12/34
over to the complainant as per list Ex.PW3/A. PW3 further deposed that
on 31.05.2007 a list of balanced stridhan articles which were not returned
by the accused persons was handed over to him by the complainant,
which is Mark Z. PW3 recommended for registration of case u/s
498A/406 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. His detailed report
with day to day proceedings is collectively Ex.PW3/B. PW3 after
preparing the final report, submitted the file before higher authority for
further necessary action.
6 Sh. J.K Pali, father of the complainant has been examined as
PW4. PW4 during the course of his examinationinchief deposed that in
roka ceremony and in the marriage of the complainant, he had spent
about rupees 12 lacs. PW4 submitted that he gave the accused persons
all the household article like furniture, electronic goods and also a car.
PW4 further deposed that after marriage his daughter joined her
matrimonial home. She came back on 12.12.2005 for pagphera ceremony
and went back to her matrimonial home on 13.12.2005 along with her
husband. PW4 further deposed that on 02.03.2006, his daughter came to
his house. In the evening, when she rang up her husband, he told her to
bring an amount of rupees 15,000/. He also threatened her that she
would be allowed to come at matrimonial house only on bringing of
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 13/34
money.
PW4 further deposed that the complainant felt very sad and
then told her the complete story of her mental torture by the accused
persons right from the day of marriage. It is stated by the complainant
that her husband and other family members started torturing her stating
that she had not brought proper dowry as they were expecting about
rupees 10 lacs. PW4 further deposed that his daughter told him that on
13.02.2006 when she was going on duty in the morning, her husband,
father in law and mother in law forced her to handover the entire jewelery
which she was having in her safe in order to keep the same in safe
custody. They also threatened her that if she did not give the same then
they could break open the almirah and took away all the jewelery and
other items. Under these circumstances, complainant had given the entire
jewelery to them and went on her duty. PW4 further deposed that his
daughter was always pressurized by the accused persons to give rupees
15,000/ per month form her salary or from him. PW4 further deposed
that since 02.03.2006 his daughter stayed at his house because there was
no response from her husband or his family members.
PW4 further deposed that he along with his brother in law
Hari Har Prashad went to the matrimonial house of the complainant on
08.03.2006 with the articles as per the customs. Accused persons had told
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 14/34
them that complainant had to give at least rupees 15,000/ per month as
her husband had to go abroad for further studies. PW4 further deposed
that he told them that his daughter has now become their family member
and what ever she was earning was their money but accused persons did
not agree to the same. PW4 further deposed that accused told him that he
had been enrolled at Monash University located in Australia and he had
to spent rupees 29 lacs for that and asked him to bear that expense. PW4
expressed his inability to meet that demand. PW4 further deposed that
accused Chander Shekhar had asked him to pay rupees 15,000/ per
month for keeping relations with his daughter and demanded rupees
45,000/ from December, 2005 to March 2006.
PW4 further deposed that accused Chander Shekhar also
gave a chart mark X to show the need of Rs. 15,000/ per month. PW4
further deposed that accused Chander Shekhar told him that he had to
pay rupees 1,60,000/ to his parents which was spent in the marriage and
had to arrange rupees 4,80,000/ for his studies. PW4 further deposed
that he asked accused Chander Shekhar to keep good relations with the
complainant and also asked him to come later on to collect rupees
15,000/ with that condition only.
PW4 further deposed that on 15.03.2006 accused Chander
Shekhar collected two cheques rupees 5,000/ and another of rupees
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 15/34
10,000/ from him. PW4 further deposed that on 24.03.2006 accused
Chander Shekhar again contacted him on mobile and asked him to come
at his house. PW4 further deposed that on 24.03.2006 he went to the
house of accused persons where accused Chander Shekhar told PW4 that
he got admission in Ohio university America and had to spent rupees 15
Lacs. PW4 expressed his inability to give the same and asked him the
reason for not talking the complainant even after payment of rupees
15,000/ but accused did not reply.
PW4 further deposed that on 16.04.2006 accused Chander
Shekhar again came at Tis Hazari Court in his Chamber for collecting of
rupees 15,000/. PW4 further deposed that on 02.05.2006 accused
Chander Shekher again called him on mobile and asked that he had got
admission in MBA at Delhi and demanded rupees 25,000/ which he had
to pay on 07.05.2006 and rupees 1.5 lac which he had to pay on 15th after
getting admission. PW4 asked the accused to contact after 05.05.2006
upon which accused told him that this would be their last meeting. PW4
further deposed that on 14.05.2006 he went to the house of accused
persons and told all the facts to the mother and father of accused Chander
Shekhar that accused Chander Shekhar had collected rupees 30,000/
from him and still not talking with his daughter. PW4 further deposed
that accused Chander Shekhar told that he had collected rupees 30,000/
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 16/34
for his own use as he had spent that amount during his honeymoon. PW4
further deposed that on 17.05.2006, he got a telephone call from accused
Chander Shakher, who told him that he was ready to keep the
complainant under the conditions that:
1. She had to resign from her job.
2. She had to disconnect herself from my family members.
3. She had to go for a medical examination and told that I will set her
right when she would come back.
PW4 further deposed that his daughter asked her motherin
law to give back her jewelery and clothes but her motherinlaw refused
to return the same. Then, the complainant requested her fatherinlaw to
return her car as she had to travel a lot to attend her duty from Karol
Bagh to Tihar Jail but her father in law replied that the car would be
returned if she would give in writing that the matter had been settled
amicably. PW4 further deposed that ultimately on 09.06.2006, he had
given in writing that the matter would be settled amicably if the car was
returned on that day itself. On 09.06.2006, PW4 alongwith his brother in
law went to the house of accused persons to take the car with the duly
signed receipt from the complainant, which is Ex.PW4/A. Another
receipt dated 09.06.2006 regarding the Santro car is Ex.PW4/B signed at
the house of accused by father in law of complainant and one neighbour
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 17/34
Harbir Singh.
PW4 further deposed that on 09.06.2006, he gave in writing,
vide endorsement Mark A, on a list of articles presented by father in law
of complainant that he would not take any legal action if the car would be
delivered on that day and all the matters would be settled amicably. PW4
further deposed that the same was written under the pressure of accused
persons as they were not returning the car despite demands made on
several occasions. PW4 further deposed that in the month of January
2007, they got an application for amendment of petition of annulment of
marriage from the court filed by accused Chander Shekhar and later on
when they came to know the contents of petition after attending the court,
the averments were defamatory and absolutely false.
PW4 further deposed that they tried to settle the matter
amicably by calling the relatives but of no avail. Ultimately, complainant
had to file the present complaint with CAW Cell. PW4 further deposed
that during inquiry in CAW Cell, efforts were made for settlement but the
accused persons were not ready for the same. PW4 further deposed that
efforts were made at Mediation Center also but due to absence of accused
persons, no settlement arrived. PW4 further deposed that few articles
were returned in CAW cell vide list Ex.PW3/A. PW4 also relied upon the
balance list of articles given by the complainant Ex.PW4/C. PW4 further
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 18/34
deposed that during investigation, he handed over to IO, form of Monash
University Australia, two letters of PNB dated 12.10.2007, one letter
dated 19.01.2008 of Syndicate Bank, handover slip of car, emails sent by
accused Chander Shekhar to son of PW4 which were seized by IO vide
memo Ex.PW1/I. PW4 also relied upon car handing over receipt Mark B,
incomplete list of articles dated 24.03.2006 Mark C, form of Monash
University Mark C, two letters of PNB Bank dated 12.10.2007 Mark E
(Colly), letter dated 19.01.2008 of Syndicate bank Mark F and Emails
sent by accused to his son Mark G (colly).
During the course of his cross examination, PW4 submitted
that after solemnization of marriage on 11.12.2005, complainant stayed at
her matrimonial home only till 01.03.2006. PW4 denied the suggestion
put to him by counsel for the accused that the complainant stayed at her
matrimonial house only for 12 days. PW4 further deposed that on
02.03.2006, his daughter came to their house directly from her duty and
told him that her husband had asked her that in case she did not bring
rupees 15,000/, she was not be allowed to enter in the matrimonial
home. PW4 further deposed that he and his daughter did not lodge any
complaint in that regard.
7 SI Meena Yadav has been examined as PW5. During the
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 19/34
course of her examination in chief, PW5 deposed that on 24.08.2007 the
present complaint was marked to her for necessary action and for
registration of case. PW5 made endorsement regarding the same at point
A on Ex.PW5/A. PW5 also made endorsement on the complaint vide
endorsement Ex.PW5/B and handed over the rukka to HC Chand for
registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, HC Chand came back to
CAW cell and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to her. Further
investigation in the present matter was conducted by another IO as PW5
was transferred.
8 SI Indu Rani has been examined as PW6. During the course
of examination in chief, PW6 deposed that on 21.09.2007, she was posted
at CAW cell, Kamla Nagar where investigation of the present case was
assigned to her with the case file. PW6 recorded the statement of
witnesses. PW6 collected some relevant documents from the father of the
complainant and seized the same vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/H &
Ex.PW1/I and documents Ex.PW1/E (runs into 7 pages) and documents
Ex.PW1/G (runs into 12 pages). PW6 further deposed that the accused
persons were formally arrested and granted bail vide arrest memos
Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/C. PW6 also collected marriage card and
photographs Ex.PW1/F & Ex.PW1/J through seizure memo Ex.PW1/H.
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 20/34
After completion of investigation, chargesheet was prepared under the
supervision of ACP, CAW cell.
During the course of cross examination, PW6 submitted that
he had recovered the photocopy of documents Mark X, Mark B and Mark
G from the complainant. PW6 did not know in whose handwriting the
said documents were neither she verified the handwriting. PW6
submitted that she had not verified the internet protocol addresses of E
mails. PW6 denied that she had not verified the handwriting and internet
protocol address as the same did not belong to the accused.
9 Vide order dated 21.12.2013 and 12.11.2014 in view of the
prevailing circumstances, the evidence of cited witnesses Harihar Prasad
and J.K Pali was dispensed with.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
10 After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed
for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
statement of accused Ramawati and Chandra Shekhar u/s 313 Cr.P.C was
recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on
record were put to them, to which they denied as false and incorrect and
claimed to have falsely implicated in this case. Accused Chandra Shekhar
submitted that the complainant remained with him at his house for about
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 21/34
12 days and thereafter she went to her parental house. He also submitted
that the complainant forced him to live with her family as Gharjamai.
Accused Chandra Shekhar also submitted that they never demanded any
dowry nor tortured the complainant. Both the accused preferred to lead
evidence in their defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
11 Accused has led his defence evidence. In the defence,
accused Chandra Shekhar examined himself as DW1. DW1 during the
course of his examinationinchief deposed that on 14.12.2005 he
alongwith the complainant went to a restaurant. There the complainant
expressed her feeling to reside in her parental house as her mother was
suffering from paralysis and her father was an old aged person, which
was rejected by him. DW1 further deposed that on 15.12.2005,
complainant went back to her parental house and when he went to take
her back, she refused to come with him. She told him that she would
directly accompany him for honeymoon on 23.12.2005. DW1 further
deposed that when he told his fatherinlaw about the desire of the
complainant to live in her parental house, he told him that in the marriage
compromise had to be made.
DW1 further deposed that on 23.12.2005 he went to Jammu
and Manali for his honeymoon where he tried to consummate his
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 22/34
marriage but the complainant was not ready for the same. Complainant
directly told him that only when accused would be ready to live in her
parental house, marriage could be consummated. DW1 further deposed
that again on 15.01.2006 complainant denied to consummate the
marriage. DW1 further deposed that on 17.01.2006 she again went back to
her parental house and started avoiding the accused on one pretext or the
other. Accused informed her behaviour to her father and brother and they
both asked him to have patience.
DW1 further deposed that in February 2006, father of the
complainant came to his house, asked him to go abroad for his studies
and also expressed his desire to bear the expenses. Father of the
complainant suggested him names of some universities where he could
apply. DW1 also deposed that his fatherinlaw had taken his email
address and passwords under the pretext of filling forms. DW1 further
deposed that on abovesaid pretext, father of the complainant had also
taken his account details. His fatherinlaw then got credited two cheques
of rupees 15,000/ each in his account for the purpose of applying in
universities. DW1 further deposed that on 28.05.2006, when complainant
came to her matrimonial house she had also seen all the documents of the
accused.
DW1 further deposed that on 09.06.2006, his fatherinlaw
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 23/34
came to his house alongwith his brotherinlaw and told his father there
there are lots of temperamental differences between the accused and his
daughter. His fatherinlaw also told that therefore, marriage could not
sustain and both the parties agreed to undergo mutual divorce. DW1 has
also relied upon photocopy of list which was allegedly supplied by his
fatherinlaw for the purpose of settlement, which is Ex.DW1/A. DW1
further deposed that car was returned back on that day itself. DW1
further deposed that on 10.06.2006 and 11.06.2006, his father went to
meet his fatherinlaw for completing the formalities of settlement but his
father in law denied the same and threatened his father.
DW1 further deposed that on 12.06.2006, he had applied for
his anticipatory bail and on 14.06.2006 he had preferred an informatory
application to the police showing his apprehension that his wife might
had got him arrested. DW1 further deposed that on 18.06.2006 his father
inlaw visited his house and demanded rupees 93,000/ for full and final
settlement of all the cases. He had given that amount to his fatherinlaw
but the matter has not been settled till date. DW1 had then filed divorce
petition for declaration of his marriage null and void. After receiving the
notice of that petition, complainant had filed the present complaint before
CAW cell on 23.03.2007. DW1 also deposed that the present complaint is
counter blast to the divorce petition filed by him. DW1 has also submitted
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 24/34
that after registration of FIR and further during the bail proceedings on
16.11.2007, complainant had received an amount of rupees 1,37,000/
through cheque, which is Mark DA3 as full and final settlement amount.
DW1 during the course of his cross examination by Ld. APP
has vehemently denied the suggestion put to him that complainant wanted
to consummate the marriage and in fact it was the accused who does not
want to consummate the marriage.
12 During the course of arguments, the below mentioned
arguments were preferred by Ld. APP alongwith Ld. Counsel for the
complainant :
(i) that accused persons had harassed and tortured the complainant.
(ii)that accused persons had been told in advance that complainant
had to take care of her ailing mother but later on accused husband
had started objecting the same.
(iii)that accused husband has on various occasions tortured the
complainant and demanded money for purchasing the house as
well as for funding of his studies in foreign countries or in Delhi.
(iv)that behaviour of the accused right from day one of the marriage
was abusive towards the complainant.
(v) that accused has even sent the emails for raising demands of
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 25/34
$1000 to the brother of the complainant
(vi)that accused had also raised demands from father of the
complainant for funding of his studies which father of the
complainant had to fulfill.
(vii)that stridhan articles of complainant is still lying with the accused
persons.
13 During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
accused preferred below mentioned arguments :
(i) that father of the complainant had always tortured the accused and
his family members.
(ii)that it is the father of the complainant who guides the complainant
not to follow the accused husband as he was not well educated.
(iii)that father of the complainant himself made the offer to the
accused for studying abroad and on that pretext took his email ID,
passwords and other account details.
(iv)that father of the complainant had himself deposited two cheques
of rupees 15,000/ each into the account of the accused husband for
the use of accused i.e for filling forms in various universities.
(v) that there is material improvements in the testimonies of all
material witnesses of the prosecution therefore, their testimonies
are liable to be discarded.
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 26/34
DISCUSSION AND DECISION:
14 Let us now first discuss the relevant provisions of law
applicable in the present facts and circumstances. Later on, the
applicability of those provisions in the present scenario will be discussed.
The word cruelty u/s 498A IPC means the harassment of the
woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or also on account
of failure by her to meet such demand. The allegations that the accused
persons had beaten the complainant as such does not fall under the
cruelty as defined u/s 498A IPC. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a
precondition to attract the provision of explanation (b) of section 498A
IPC.
In the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar
Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, the
Bombay High Court had observed that it is not every harassment or every
type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. While interpreting
the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision
reported as State of H.P v. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty
under explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand
of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 27/34
Section 498A, IPC. It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498A
IPC and aforenoted judicial pronouncements that precondition for
attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC is the
demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of
giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then
such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498A
IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as
held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Shobha Rani v.
Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121. In said case, it was observed that
cruelty under Section 498A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
The object of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 is
to discourage the very demand for the property or the valuable security to
be given as consideration for marriage between the parties. To make the
dowry an offence under Section 4, it should be given at or before or after
the marriage in connection with the marriage. A person can be
prosecuted in respect of the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. Ordinarily,
offences against married woman are being committed with in the four
corners of a house and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or
harassment on woman by her husband and relatives of the husband is not
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 28/34
available. Further, the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be thrown
out and the only requirement for the Court is to consider their evidence
with great care and caution and if such evidence does not satisfy the test
of credibility, then the Court can disbelieve the same. (Mallanna v. State
of Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC 523).
15 The question now arises as to the reliability and
trustworthiness of PW1 and PW4 as regards their allegations with the
accused persons. Previous to the instant complaint, there was no
complaint made at any point of time by PWs and especially the
complainant about being subjected to any type of cruelty. PW4 has
deposed in his examinationinchief that he alongwith his brotherinlaw
Hari Har Prasad went to the matrimonial house of the complainant on
08.03.2006 where they both were allegedly mistreated. The
aforementioned Hari Har Prasad has never been examined by the
prosecution.
Further, both the complainant as well as her father deposed
that the accused husband had also sent emails to her brother and raised
demands of money from him also. Copy (Mark G) of one of the emails
has been relied upon by the father of the complainant. The alleged
sending of the aforementioned email has never been proved in
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 29/34
accordance with the applicable and relevant provisions of the law.
Brother of the complainant has also never been examined by the
prosecution to establish what has been alleged by the complainant as well
as by her father. Prosecution has miserably failed to give any ground for
nonexamination of brother of the complainant when it has been
specifically deposed by the complainant that demands had also been
raised to him by the accused husband. Investigating Officer during the
course of his cross examination has also accepted the fact that she had not
verified the internet protocol address of the alleged emails.
PW4 has also relied upon certain photocopies on which
something has been written in hand stating that those were the demands
made by the accused husband from him as well as his daughter. Neither it
has been deciphered on plain reading what has been written in those
white papers and for what purpose the same has been written? Even the
handwriting on these papers has never been verified.
Further, father of the complainant has also relied upon one
form of Monash University allegedly belonging to the accused husband
with the submission that same had been given by the accused to raise his
demand for money. Photocopies of two declarations on the letter head of
Punjab National Bank and one on the letter head of Syndicate Bank has
been filed to show that the cheques in the name of accused Chander
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 30/34
Shekhar has been got debited from the respective accounts of father of
the complainant Sh. J.K Pali and the complainant Hemlata Renu.
Accused husband during the course of his examinationinchief as DW1
has himself submitted that he had taken two cheques of rupees 15,000/
each from the father of the complainant though, according to him he had
taken them at the instance of father of the complainant. DW1 has
specifically submitted that he had never pressurized the father of the
complainant for giving the same. Now, in these circumstances, there are
two versions of the same fact, one from the point of view of the father of
the complainant and other from the point of view of the accused. While,
father of the complainant has submitted that he had given these cheques
as they had been demanded by the accused. Per contra, accused has
submitted that it was the father of the complainant who had given him
those two cheques for filling up the forms. No other independent witness
has been brought on record to establish what has been said by the father
of the complainant. Also, no complaint in that regard has ever been
lodged by the complainant or her father.
PW4 had on various occasions submitted that accused had
contacted him on phone and made various demands. No phone number
from which call had been allegedly made or on which call had been
received put on record for verification of the dates. No call detail records
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 31/34
have also been furnished. Learned counsel for the accused persons had
pointed out various improvements made by PW1 and PW4 during the
recording of their testimonies before the court from the earlier
complaint/statements.
It is a well established notion that in a criminal case, proof
does not rest on mere preponderance of probability and the prosecution
has to discharge the burden to a greater degree in proof, beyond
reasonable doubt. The presumption is that the accused is innocent till the
contrary is clearly established. The burden of proof that the accused is
guilty is always on the prosecution and if there is reasonable doubt about
the guilt of the accused, benefit of doubt must go to him. Cockburn, C.J.
said, "the doubt, the benefit of which the accused is entitled, must be such as, rational thinking, sensible man may fairly and reasonably entertain, not the doubts of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself, in a vain and idle skepticism. There must be doubt which a man may honestly and conscientiously entertain."
Further, it is a well established understanding that when two views may be possible the view in favour of the accused must be given preference. The burden of proof that the accused is guilty is always on the prosecution and if there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, benefit of doubt must go to him. In State of Rajasthan vs. Raja FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 32/34 Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, it was held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond pales of reasonable doubts and there should not be any iota of doubts in favour of the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Thus, in the light of these factors it is not unsafe to reach on opinion that prosecution has failed to show any approximity or chain of events to establish the fact that all the accused systematically committed cruelty against the complainant as envisage under Section 498A IPC. Benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused persons and accordingly, both the accused viz. Chander Shekhar and Ramawati are acquitted for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Also, in view of the abovementioned discussion, both the accused viz. Chander Shekhar and Ramawati are also acquitted for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 16 With respect to the allegations u/s 406 IPC charge was framed against both the accused. No receipt of purchase of any dowry article has been put on record by the prosecution. Further, there are no FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 33/34 clear and specific allegations about the entrustment of istridhan to any of the accused persons. Complainant has not specifically mentioned as to which item of dowry was entrusted to which of the accused persons. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the entrustment and consequent misappropriation, accused Chander Shekhar and Ramawati are acquitted for the offence u/s 406 IPC. At request, previous bail bonds of both the accused persons are further extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today
on this 22nd day of September, 2015. (MANU VEDWAN)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mahila Court, Central01, Delhi
FIR No. 346/07 State Vs Chandra Shekhar 34/34