Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/310/2002 on 19 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MM02, MAHILA COURT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
FIR No. : 310/02
PS : Keshav Puram
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Unique I.D. No. 02401R0609482003
State v. Satish etc.
J U D G M E N T :
a)Serial No of the case : 123/2/14
b)Date of commission of offence : 09.10.2003
c)Name of the complainant : Identity with held.
d)Name parentage and address
of accused : 1. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Satya
Prakash R/o 164, Govt. Press
Colony, Mayapuri, Delhi.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Satya
Prakash R/o 164, Govt. Press
Colony, Mayapuri, Delhi.
e) Offence complaint of : 498A/406/34 IPC
f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g)Date on which judgment was
reserved : 07.01.2016
h)Final Order : Acquitted
i)Date of decision : 19.01.2016
Brief Statement and Reasons for Decision:
1. The accused persons are facing trial on the allegations that during the subsistence of marriage of complainant (identity withheld) with accused Ashok Kumar which was solemnized on FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 1 of 22 27.02.1990, both accused Satish and Ashok alongwith accused Premwati (proceedings abated) subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demands of dowry. Accused Ashok and Premwati were entrusted with the dowry articles/stridhan which they dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use. On these allegations, FIR was got registered. After investigation, the present charge sheet has been filed for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. On appearance of the accused persons, copy of the charge sheet was supplied. During the pendency of trial, proceedings against accused Premwati were abated. Arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie charge for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was made out against the accused Satish and accused Ashok Kumar to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The remaining accused namely Vijay, Veena, Pushpa and Satya Prakash were discharged by the Ld. Predecessor.
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses.
PW1 HC Savitri stated to have registered the FIR Ex.PW1/A on receiving rukka on 24.08.2002 and made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/B. FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 2 of 22 PW2 Complainant stated that her marriage was solemnized with accused Ashok Kumar on 27.02.1990 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies. She correctly identified the accused in the Court. She stated that in the family of her in laws there were eight members i.e. her husband namely Ashok, her father in law namely Satprakash, her mother in law namely Premwati, her brother in laws namely Satish Kumar and Vijay, her sisters in law namely Pushpa and Veena, and the complainant herself. The accused persons started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry within 15 days of the marriage. Her mother in law taunted her for not bringing dowry as per their demands. She used to switch off the light and fan of the room in which the complainant was staying. The complainant did all the household work but her mother in law used to quarrel with her and beat her. When she complained to her husband, he took the side of his mother. Her mother in law used to threaten to kill her. Her mother in law demanded a scooter just after the marriage and also taunted regarding the furniture and other articles given in the marriage. The accused mother in law used to abet the brother in law of the complainant who gave beatings to the complainant. She used to say that her daughter will not do any work and it is the complainant who FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 3 of 22 will do all the household chores.
Then the mother of the complainant had to undergo eye operation due to which she came to meet her mother to her parental house. Her brother in law arrived there and gave beatings to the complainant in the house of her parents. The accused mother in law did not allow her to enter her matrimonial house. She made complaint to the CAW Cell, Nanakpura from where her case was transferred to Police Station Ashok Vihar. After some time, accused persons approached her parents where they gave assurance not to commit any such act in future. Then, she shifted to rented accommodation with her husband at Hari Nagar. The said accommodation belonged to a relative of her husband. Her husband used to leave the house at about 9:00 am for his job. Thereafter, the owner of the house switched off the lights. In the month of December 1995, when she was in family way, the accused husband neither provided her medical aid nor gave any money to purchase household articles. The complainant used to call her brother for help and her brother used to provide her food. Her husband gave beatings when her brother provided her food and other household articles. Then accused husband lodged a false complaint against the complainant in the police station. He gave beatings to the complainant FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 4 of 22 with a cricket bat at the Hari Nagar house. When the complainant refused to sign the receipt of the dowry articles provided by accused husband, he called his mother, sister and brother. They all also gave beatings to the complainant and threw her out of the rented accommodation. Her mother in law did not want her to remain in the said house. They also threatened to kill the brother and mother of the complainant. In MayJune 1990, when she was in family way accused Satish tried to touch a live electric wire to her. She made complaint dated 05.05.96 to CAW Cell Mark X. Her son Kashish was born on 04.02.1991. At the time of Kua Pujan ceremony of her son, her inlaws quarreled with her parents. She tried to settle the matter with the accused persons but no compromise could be arrived.
She was examined by Ld. APP for the State to ascertain certain facts. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State she admitted that the accused husband and other in laws threatened to kill her and the rickshaw puller who used to take her son to school. She made a complaint about the incident to PP Shanti Nagar which is Mark H2. She gave a complaint to the CAW Cell in the year 2002 Ex. PW3/A. She also gave a list of dowry articles Ex. PW2/A1 to the IO on 27.07.02. The said articles were taken on superdari vide FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 5 of 22 superdarinama Ex.PW2/B1. She also gave a list of articles which were not returned by her in laws Ex. PW2/B2. On 20.10.02 she was called by IO to identify the articles produced by her in laws which were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/B3 but she refused to take those articles as they did not belong to her.
PW3 ACP Nirmala Devi, stated that on 10.06.02 she was posted at CAW Cell. She received a complaint Ex.PW3/A. No compromise could take place between the parties. Hence, a final report Mark X was given by her for registration of case against accused persons.
PW4 ASI Brijveer Singh, stated that on 19.09.2002, he joined the investigation with W/ASI Roshni, Ct. Kiran Pal and Complainant. They searched the matrimonial house of complainant in the presence of two inhabitants of the locality who were joined in the investigation and stridhan articles were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. PW5 IO SI Roshni stated to have received complaint from CAW Cell on 24.08.02 and made endorsement Ex.PW5/A on the same for registration of FIR. On 10.09.02 the marriage card and photographs of marriage were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 6 of 22 On 19.09.02 the seized articles were recovered at the instance of complainant from the house of accused. On 22.10.02, the accused father in law produced stridhan articles of the complainant in the CAW Cell which the complainant refused to identify and then memo Ex.PW2/B3 was prepared.
PW6 Bhagwat Dayal is the brother of the complainant. He stated that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with accused Ashok on 27.02.1990. Even before the marriage i.e. at the time of roka ceremony on 20.02.1990, the accused Satish and his father had thrown away the shagun money and quarreled with his mother on the pretext of less amount given in milni ceremony. After 20.02.1990, father of the accused visited their house and asked for a high standard marriage. At the time of marriage accused Satish, Satya Prakash, Ashok and both sisters in law demanded a scooter and some dowry in marriage. All accused persons quarreled with them. They also quarreled with them whenever they visited the house of the accused persons on the pretext of insufficient dowry given at the time of engagement. When PW6 visited the matrimonial house of his sister, she told him that her in laws did not provide her proper food and gave beatings to her mercilessly. She also told that she was ill treated by her FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 7 of 22 husband and his brother gave beatings. The accused persons taunted her and her mother in law threatened her. He corroborated the version of the complainant.
PW7 HC Manoj Kumar stated to have deposited the stridhan articles in the Malkhana vide entry dated 19.12.02 in register no. 19 Ex. PW7/A. PW8 SI Darshna corroborated the prosecution version. She stated to have served notice on the complainant u/s 91 Cr.P.C on 26.10.2002 Ex. PW8/A. She also served notice to accused Ashok Ex. PW8/A1. On 19.12.2002, the complainant and accused husband came to CAW Cell and the inlaws of the complainant produced some dowry articles which were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/B. The accused persons namely Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Premwati, Veena, Satish, Pushpa and Satya Prakash were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/C to PW8/I respectively. After crossexamination of the witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed.
3. All the incriminating material was put to both the accused and their statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
In reply to the incriminating evidence accused Ashok Kumar admitted that his marriage was solemnized on 27.02.1990. It FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 8 of 22 was a simple marriage with no dowry. He did not harass the complainant nor the other coaccused harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. His son was born at Safdarjung Hospital. It is a Government Hospital, so, no expenses were borne by the complainant. He did not quarrel with the parents of the complainant at the time of kua pujan ceremony of his son. His mother did not quarrel with the complainant or beat her. Complainant is a quarrelsome lady and used to quarrel with him on petty matters. He stated that the house at Hari Nagar did not belong to his relative. He got it on rent through property dealer. Accused Ashok, stated that the brother of the complainant never provided any food or daily needs for the complainant. Accused used to provide for the daily needs alongwith medical aid. He denied to have beaten the complainant with a cricket bat. He stated that the custody of his son has been provided to him by the order of the Guardianship Court. All the articles were returned to the complainant and nothing was left with him. The photographs on record are not of marriage but of first Karvachauth. He denied to have quarreled for demand of scooter or more dowry from the complainant. The father of the complainant had died 6 months prior to her marriage. The marriage was solemnized without any dowry. The elder brother of the FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 9 of 22 complainant namely Kailash Sharma made arrangements for the marriage alongwith uncle (chacha) of the complainant namely Radhey Shyam Sharma. Due to their intervention, the marriage was solemnized in a simple manner as the father of complainant namely Puran Chand Sharma had expired around 6 months prior to the marriage. Neither the accused nor the complainant side wanted to solemnize the marriage in a lavish way. The accused never demanded any dowry from the complainant or her family members. He stated that he and his brother have been falsely implicated in this matter. The complainant left the matrimonial house in the year 1996. Then, accused Ashok filed a case for custody of his son in the Guardianship Court. As a counter blast to that case, the complainant filed a suit for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. They are living separately since the year 1996 and did not have any concern with each other. After a gap of 6 years, she filed the present complaint against the accused and his family members in the year 2002 on baseless facts. He stated that there is no proof of the allegations mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has been torturing him and his family members for the past more than 20 years. He is physically handicapped and having certificate of less than 40% permanent disability. He has never FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 10 of 22 tortured, beaten or demanded any dowry from the complainant.
In reply to the incriminating evidence, accused Satish Kumar, also denied the allegations against him and reiterated the version of accused Ashok Kumar in totality. Both accused chose to lead evidence in defence.
4. In defence, the accused persons examined four witnesses namely Shanti Devi as DW1, Kailash Sharma as DW2, Monika Sharma as DW3 and Kashish Sharma i.e. son of accused Ashok and the complainant as DW4.
DW1 Shanti Devi is the maternal aunt of the accused. She stated that she is also related to the complainant on the paternal side. She stated that the marriage between the parties was a simple one with no dowry articles given as father of the complainant had already expired few months prior to the marriage. No dowry demand was raised by the accused. Even at Milni Ceremony nothing was demanded. PW6 Bhagwat Dayal, the brother of the complainant, was minor at the time of marriage of the complainant. The elder brother of the complainant Kailash Sharma was the head of the family at the time of marriage. She used to visit the matrimonial house of the complainant. The complainant never complained to her about any ill FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 11 of 22 treatment by the accused or his family members. The Guardianship Court ordered both the complainant and the accused husband to stay at her house but the complainant refused to stay at her house. No jewelery articles were brought by the complainant at the time of her marriage. Accused was having cordial relationship with the complainant but the complainant was blunt and cunning towards accused and his family members.
DW2 Kailash Sharma is the real brother of the complainant. He corroborated the version of DW1 and stated that their father expired in June 1989. After death of his father, he got the complainant married to accused Ashok. All the arrangements were made by him in the marriage. He stated that no dowry articles were given to the accused or his family members. The complainant i.e. his sister neither complained to him about any beatings nor about not been given proper food by the accused. The accused Ashok used to keep the complainant happy. The family members of the complainant never paid the delivery charges at the time of birth of son of the complainant. The behaviour of accused Ashok was always cordial with the complainant. After 23 months of the marriage of his sister, when he went to her matrimonial house, he found an amulet( tabiz). When FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 12 of 22 he inquired about the amulet from the complainant, she told that it was given by her mother and her younger brother Bhagwat Dayal. The complainant always found fault with Ashok. He stated that accused Ashok was a thorough Gentleman of calm nature.
DW3 Monika Sharma is the sister in law (Bhabhi) of the complainant. She is wife of PW6 Bhagwat Dayal. She also corroborated the version of DW1 and DW2. She stated that the complainant is working in Anganwadi as a teacher and getting salary of more than Rs.10,000/. The complainant filed a false case against her brother where she alleged to have given Rs. 1 lakh to her brother to get a job for the daughter of her sister namely Archana. But later, she withdrew the civil suit. Both complainant and her husband Bhagwat Dayal demanded dowry and money from her.
DW4 Kashish Sharma is the son of complainant. He stated that the complainant was very rude to him and used to beat him without any reason. She did not feed him properly. His uncle/mama Bhagwat Dayal also used to beat him and abuse him. His father never gave beatings to the complainant. When he was in VII standard, complainant asked him to go to his father, get Rs. 45 lakhs from him and then stay with him forever.
FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 13 of 22 After crossexamination, defence evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. I have heard Ms. Yogita Kaushik, Ld. APP for State and Shri A. Dhalla, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the Court record. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant has stated that Rupees 2.5 lakhs were spent in her marriage whereas list of articles filed by her contains articles which are of value of about Rs. 2.85 lacs.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for commission of offence U/s 498A/406/34 IPC the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients : a. The complainant was subjected to cruelty or harassment; b. The cruelty or harassment was caused by her husband or his relatives;
c. The cruelty was (a) with a view to drive her to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mental or physical;
d. The harassment of the complainant was (a) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 14 of 22 demand of any property or valuable security; or (b) On account of failure of the complainant or her relation to meet such unlawful demand.
e. There must be entrustment of the property, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use. It is cardinal principle of law that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the case of the prosecution should stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favor of the accused persons.
7. As regards the offence u/s 406 IPC in Annu Gill v. State 2001 V AD (Delhi) 411 it has been held that to constitute offence U/s. 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it or domain over it, by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. In the present matter PW2 did not utter single word that she entrusted her istridhan articles to the accused Satish and Ashok. FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 15 of 22
8. In the present case all the defence witnesses including the brother of the complainant, stated that the marriage was simple marriage and no dowry or any other articles were given at the time of marriage due to death of father of the complainant. In such a situation a doubt arises whether any article was there or not. Even if it is presumed that there were articles of the complainant as per list of articles provided by the complainant. But those articles are no where stated to be entrusted to the accused Satish or accused Ashok by the complainant. It is not the case that the accused persons did not return the istridhan articles of the complainant. When the articles were demanded they returned the articles in the CAW Cell while counseling was going on. The complainant herself refused to take some of the articles which did not belong to her as per her own version. She stated that articles Ex. PW2/B2 were not returned by the accused persons. But the complainant has not produced any receipt of such articles on record. She herself admitted not to have place on record any bills of jewelery or the other articles given in marriage stating that she can not produce those bills as those bills were old.
9. The brother of the complainant who has been examined as DW2 has denied to have given any articles or dowry to the FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 16 of 22 complainant at the time of her marriage. He has also stated that he was the head of the family at that time and the marriage was solemnized in a simple manner without any dowry. The complainant has no where stated to have entrusted her stridhan to the accused. She has not stated anywhere that despite demanding her articles/jewellery/ istridhan was not returned by the above mentioned person. Hence, the offence u/s 406 IPC against the accused persons is not prove beyond reasonable doubt.
10. As regards the allegations u/s 498A IPC against the accused persons, it is alleged by the complainant that the accused persons started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry within 15 days of the marriage. Her mother in law taunted her for not bringing dowry as per their demands. She used to switch off the light and fan of the room in which the complainant was staying. The complainant did all the household work but her mother in law used to quarrel with her and beat her. When she complained to her husband, he took the side of his mother. Her mother in law used to threaten to kill her. Her mother in law demanded a scooter just after the marriage and also taunted regarding the furniture and other articles given in the marriage. The accused mother in law used to abet the brother in law of FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 17 of 22 the complainant who gave beatings to the complainant. She used to say that her daughter will not do any work and it is the complainant who will do all the household chores.
11. All the above allegations are made against the mother in law against whom proceedings have been abated. Also no date is specified when such incident took place. The allegations are vague in nature. Even though the complainant mentioned that her in laws demanded a scooter but she had not given the details / dates on which the demand was raised by the accused persons. Merely being unhappy/ taunting by the mother in law for insufficient articles given in marriage does not amount to cruelty. In AIR 1996 SC 67 it has been held that some taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry. Though taunting for insufficient dowry is also uncivilized act but does not come in the purview of Section 498A IPC and hence not sufficient to constitute offence U/s 498A IPC.
12. There is no MLC or any complaint made to the police or any other authority regarding any alleged beating given by the accused persons. She never gave any complaint of being beaten by a cricket bat or being touched by electric wire or any threat given to her. She stated to have shifted to rented accommodation with her husband at Hari FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 18 of 22 Nagar. It is alleged that when her husband used to leave the house at about 9:00 am for his job, the owner of the house switched off the lights. The complainant never gave any complaint to the police or to her husband about the same. Moreover, the accused persons can not be held responsible for the conduct of landlord.
13. It is alleged that in the month of December 1995, when she was in family way, the accused husband neither provided her medical aid nor gave any money to purchase household articles. The complainant used to call her brother for help and her brother used to provide her food. Her husband gave beatings when her brother provided her food and other household articles. During cross examination PW2 stated that her younger brother was also married and her sister in law had filed a criminal case against her and her younger brother u/s 498A IPC. She stated that her brother was not working anywhere as he was suffering from heart problem and she is bearing expenses of the treatment of her brother. She is working in Anganwadi and also getting maintenance from her husband. Even though she stated that her brother used to work in the Account Department in the year 1996 and he used to pay food expenses but she could not tell how much her brother used to pay for her food expenses. FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 19 of 22 Hence, the above version of the complainant does not seem to be creditworthy.
14. It is the defence of the accused that since the year 1996 he is residing separately from the complainant and only as a counter blast to the case filed by him for custody of his son, the complainant filed this case and a case for maintenance. He further submits that after a gap of six years i.e. in the year 2002 the complainant got this FIR registered. Hence there is no continuity in the cruelty. It is argued that no cruelty was ever meted out to the complainant and it was the complainant who was quarrelsome by nature. All the defence witnesses have corroborated the version of the accused persons.
15. The complainant admitted that her husband filed a petition in the Guardianship Court for the custody of her son and the said suit has been decreed in favour of the accused husband. From the version of the complainant and the other public witnesses it is clear that there was a quarrel between the complainant and her husband and they also residing separately from other in laws.
16. In Manju RamKalita v. State of Assam, 2009(1) SCC 330 that it is to be established that the woman had been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 20 of 22 the complaint. Petty quarrels can not be termed as cruelty to attract the provision of Section 498A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it become unbearable may be term as cruelty. In the present matter no such incident has been proved by the complainant or her younger brother Bhagwat Dayal to show that the complainant was subjected to continuous cruelty at the hands of the accused persons. The statement of witnesses nowhere shows any clear specific date or place on which the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons.
17. In totality of the facts and circumstances and the above made discussions, the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC could not be proved against both accused Satish Kumar and Ashok Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Satish Kumar and Ashok Kumar stands acquitted of offence charged of. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/ and to place on record recent photograph and fresh address. Bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C furnished by the accused persons and are accepted for 6 months from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 19th day of January, 2016 FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 21 of 22 Susheel Bala Dagar Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02,North West Rohini Courts, Delhi All pages signed.
FIR No. 310/02 State v. Satish etc. Page Number 22 of 22