Delhi District Court
Smt. Rajni (Deceased) vs Rajesh on 24 September, 2010
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 1,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Appeal No. : 06/2010
In FIR No. : 93/94
PS: Adarsh Nagar
U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC
SMT. RAJNI (DECEASED)
w/o Sh. Rajesh
Through her brother
Sh. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Chaman Lal
R/o H. No. 173, School Wali Gali
Azad Pur, Delhi - 110 073
.............Appellant
Versus
1. RAJESH
S/O. Sh. Harmahender Lal
2. SMT. RAM KALI
W/O.Sh. Harmahender Lal
3. SMT. VANDANA
D/O Sh. Harmahender Lal
4. SMT. INDU
D/O Sh. Harmahender Lal
5. SMT. CHANCHAL
D/O Sh. Harmahender Lal
6. SMT. NEELAM
D/O Sh. Harmahender Lal
All r/o 7/52, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
7. The State
.................Respondents
CA NO. 06/2010
SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.
:2:
Date of Institution : 15.03.2010
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 16.03.2010
Arguments heard On : 20.09.2010
Order Announced On : 24.09.2010
ORDER
1. The appeal is preferred by appellant Ashok Kumar, brother of deceased Rajni u/s 374 (1) (a) & (3) CrPC amended against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dt. 05.10.2009 passed by Ld. MM Ms. Smita Garg.
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that accused Rajesh married with deceased Ms. Rajni, the complainant on 13.04.1992 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies. On the basis of complaint of deceased Rajni FIR u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered by PS Adarsh Nagar against respondents / accused Rajesh, Smt. Ram Kali, Smt. Vandana, Smt. Indu, Smt. Chanchal and Smt. Neelam. Accused Ram Kali had already expired.
CA NO. 06/2010
SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.
:3:
3. Ld. Trial Court framed charge for trial of offence u/s 498-A IPC only. Prosecution in order to prove the charges examined PW1 ASI Har Prashad, duty officer and PW2 SI Surender Singh, IO. The Ld. Trial Court vide order dt. 05.10.2009 closed the prosecution evidence and acquitted all the accused persons. On the same date an application of brother of deceased Ashok Kumar was also rejected whereby he wished to appear in witness box to prove a letter written by deceased Rajni in the year 1993 to her father. The appellant aggrieved with the impugned order and judgment preferred this appeal on the ground that Ld. Trial Court grossly erred while closing the prosecution evidence. The Ld. Trial Court brushed aside the statement made by the complainant u/s 161 CrPC. Although the complainant did not appear to complete her evidence before the court because of ill health due to depression. The statement of deceased complainant was exhausted by the IO but this fact was not considered by the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court further erred in not CA NO. 06/2010 SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.
:4: taking on record a letter submitted by the appellant during the trial. It is prayed that the said impugned order be set aside and case may be remanded back.
4. All the respondents contested the appeal and their counsel Sh. A. K. Gupta submitted that the appeal is void of any merit. The complainant was given more than sufficient opportunities to depose but due to her ill health, she failed to appear to complete her examination. There was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, therefore, the Ld. Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused persons. The brother of the deceased was not a witness before the court and the letter was never seized by the police. Therefore, Ld. Trial Court rightly rejected the application of Ashok Kumar, the appellant. Counsel for respondent has submitted that present appeal may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
CA NO. 06/2010
SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.
:5:
6. In this case Ld. Trial Court vide order dt. 04.03.02 framed charge for trial of offence u/s 498-A IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter since 2002 opportunities were granted to the prosecution to lead evidence till the date of decision i.e. 05.10.09, for about 07 years. The judicial record reflects that since 05.09.02 deceased complainant was granted opportunities to appear and on several dates including 27.09.02, 13.12.02, 17.03.03, 16.09.03, 27.02.03 and thereafter deceased appeared only on 07.03.04 but her examination was deferred due to her il health. The non examination of deceased complainant Rajni was beyond the control of prosecution as well as the Ld. Trial Court.
7. The judicial record further reflects that appellant brother of complainant Ashok Kumar was appearing before the court throughout the entire proceedings and specially his presence has been marked on 22.04.04. He had failed to apprise the court regarding the letter CA NO. 06/2010 SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.
:6: of deceased complainant which he filed along with the application in the year 2007. The letter was in his possession since the year 1993. Prosecution has not moved any application before the court for making him a witness as per section 311 CrPC. The brother of deceased complainant waited till 2007 for bringing the fact before the court after the death of his sister i.e. the complainant. Even this court has gone through the letter. All the allegations made in the letter are not covered by Section 498-A IPC. There is no allegation of demand of dowry. Only vague allegations are there about harassment by the respondent. The appellant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Moinuddin Vs. State reported as 2010 IV AD (CRI.) (DHC) 130. In this judgment police seized the document but could not produce the same in the court. However in the present case, police never seized the alleged letter.
8. The present case completely rests upon the testimony of complainant Rajni who is the victim but due to her CA NO. 06/2010 SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.
:7: illness she failed to appear before the court and complete her evidence. The present case pertains to the year 1994 and more than sufficient opportunities have been granted to the prosecution during the marathon trial of this case.
9. The impugned order dt. 05.10.09 and judgment of acquittal, therefore, require no interference. I do not find any merit and substance in the appeal. The appeal filed by appellant is, therefore, dismissed.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Announced in open court Addl. Sessions Judge-01(NW) today 24.09.2010. Rohini Courts, Delhi CA NO. 06/2010 SMT. RAJNI VS.. RAJESH & ORS.