Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun on 14 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT): SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI State Vs. Arun FIR NO. 49/2004 PS Sriniwas Puri Date of Institution of case : 08.06.2005 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 14.12.2012 Date of judgment : 14.12.2012 JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C . a)Date of offence : After 22.06.1997 b)Offence complained of : Sec.406/34 IPC & Sec. 498 A IPC c)Name of accused, his parentage : 1. Arun Kumar S/o. Sh. Rajender Prasad 2. Rajender Prasad S/o. Sh. Ram Swaroop Both R/o. A59, New Press Colony, Faridabad Haryana. d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. e)Final Order : Acquitted FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 1 of 8 JUDGEMENT:
1. Accused Arun Kumar has been sent to face trial on the allegations that he had subjected complainant Smt. Mamta to cruelty in connection with de mand of dowry at her matrimonial house A59, New Press Colony, Farid abad, Haryana on or after 22.06.1997 during the subsistence of marriage of Smt. Mamta and had also refused to return the Istridhan articles be longing to Smt. Mamta having been entrusted upon him and his father Sh. Rajender Prasad who is coaccused in the matter and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S. 498A IPC and 406/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :
Accused Arun Kumar got married to complainant Mamta on 22.06.1997 in which dowry articles/Istridhan articles as per the capacity of parents of Smt. Mamta were given to the accused persons. A demand of Rs. 50,000/ and a motor cycle was made from her just after marriage on ac count of nonfulfillment of which she was beaten and later on a fateful day, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house after which she was constrained to reside at her parental place and ended up making a com plaint before CAW cell Amar Colony on 01.07.2002. FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. Accused Arun was arrested and sent to custody and later released on bail. Marriage photographs were seized. Some of the dowry articles were returned by accused Arun in CAW Cell. Some were produced in the Police Station which were seized vide the FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 2 of 8 seizure memo. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was pre pared and filed in the court. Cognizance thereupon was taken by the court.
3. Charge for commission of offence punishable u/S. 406/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons and for offence punishable u/S. 498 A IPC additionally upon accused Arun Kumar vide order dated 21/01/2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial instead.
4. Matter was then listed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution has pro duced 6 witnesses. However, defence has not produced any witness.
5. PW1 Smt. Mamta who deposed that a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband on some petty issues after which she filed a com plaint against CAW cell and that she was brought back by her husband to his matrimonial home and later the the issues were settled. She was ob served to have resiled from the statement given to the police and therefore was put to examination by Ld. APP with the permission of the court. In such examination by Ld. APP, she declined the suggestion that she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/ by her in laws or that she was tortured by her husband. In crossexamination by counsel for the accused persons, she clarified that she was not beaten by her husband on the pretext of any dowry demand.
6. PW2 ASI Manju Bala who proved the FIR Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B. She was not put to crossexamination by counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity.
FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 3 of 8
7. PW3 is Ratan Pal who stated that he was not aware as to what was given in the marriage of his sister and the behaviour of inlaws with his sister. He was also observed to have resiled from the statement given to the po lice and was put to examination by Ld. APP in which he pleaded igno rance about any demand having been made by accused persons from his sister and any beatings given by the accused persons to his sister on ac count of nonfulfillment of dowry demands. He was not put to crossex amination by counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity.
8. PW4 is HC Dharampal who deposed to have witnessed the arrest of ac cused Arun Kumar and by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and per sonal search memo Ex. PW4/B. He was not put to crossexamination by counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity.
9. PW5 is SI Anil Malik who deposed to have recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained photograph of marriage vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed to have arrested accused Arun Kumar vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/A and personal search memo Ex. PW4/B. He proved the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B vide which the Istridhan articles of complainant produced by brother of accused on 06.07.2004 were taken into police possession. He deposed to have arrested the other accused persons also. He declined the suggestions put by counsel for the accused persons that any complaint was not made by the complainant with respect to cruelty for dowry demand.
10. PW6 is Smt. Bimla who deposed that the inlaws of complainant used to FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 4 of 8 torture her for dowry and had also thrown out of the matrimonial house and has not returned half of the dowry articles as yet. She proved the re ceipts of few dowry articles purchased by her in her name as Ex. P1 to P3. In crossexamination, she admitted that divorce between her sister in law and her husband had taken place two years back in Faridabad Court. She further stated that all the Istridhan articles were presented to the com plainant out of their happiness and free will without any demand from the accused persons.
11. Prosecution evidence was then concluded. Incriminating evidence ap pearing against the accused persons was put to both the accused persons u/S. 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. to which they pleaded innocence and claimed the entire prosecution case to be false. They opted not to lead any de fence evidence.
12. Final arguments were advanced. Ld. APP has contended that PW6 Smt. Bimla has supported the prosecution version and even PW1 has supported the prosecution version partially and that the witnesses have been wonover by the accused persons. Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has pleaded for acquittal on the premise that none of the prosecution wit nesses have supported the prosecution version and the benefit has to go in favour of the accused persons.
13. I have perused the case record carefully.
14.There are 6 prosecution witnesses in the matter. PW1 Mamta is the com plainant herself. PW3 Ratan Pal and PW6 Bimla are her brother in law FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 5 of 8 and sister in law respectively. PW1 Mamta who is the most significant prosecution witness being the complainant herself who has put the crimi nal law into motion, has not supported the prosecution version stating that she ended up making the complaint on account of fight with her husband on petty issues. She declined any demand having been made by accused persons or they having beaten her up on account of any dowry demand. She has also categorically denied having written the contents of the com plaint Ex. PW1/A, signatures upon which she had admitted. She has not categorically deposed about any entrustment of any Istridhan article hav ing been made upon both the accused persons or their retention or their refusal to return them back despite her demand. PW3 Ratan Lal has also evaded and denied any direct knowledge about any demand having been made by any of the accused persons at any point of time from the com plainant or the retention of the Istridhan articles of complainant with them despite demand. PW6 Smt. Bimla has made very vague and omnibus al legations of dowry harassment upon complainant, however, neither has she specified the dowry demand nor has she specified as to how she got the knowledge about those dowry demands or harassment. She has also not narrated any incident of any harassment meted upon complainant Mamta by any of the accused persons for any demand of dowry. She has also not clarified about the Istridhan articles in totality having been given to the complainant and the retention or refusal in specific of any of those Istridhan articles, allegedly not returned. This becomes significant in FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 6 of 8 view of the factum that PW1 Mamta herself to whom these articles belong has not stated any of these facts in her testimony. The remaining prosecu tion witnesses are incidental, formal having investigative role whose testi mony can at best be read as complimentary or corroborative of the basic substance which ought to be proved by the public witnesses having been directly confronted with the facts they suffered owing to which they moved the complaint.
15. Prosecution is under a mandate to prove each allegation against the ac cused person constituting the offence under consideration beyond reason able doubt. In this matter, neither any demand of dowry in specific has been deposed by any of the prosecution witnesses nor any harassment of the complainant owing to non fulfillment of dowry demand. Even the contents of complaint Ex. PW1/A has not been proved by the complainant herself. Further, there is no proof with respect to any entrustment of any of the Istridhan articles entrusted to accused persons and their refusal to return them back despite demand in that respect by Mamta. Further, some of the Istridhan articles as stated by PW1 Mamta has already been returned back. Therefore any intention imputing criminal liability of mis appropriating the Istridhan articles cannot be attributed upon the accused persons.
16. In view of the observation made above, the prosecution has failed to es tablish the culpability upon both the accused persons. Accused Arum Ku mar is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable u/S. 498 A IPC FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 7 of 8 and 406/34 IPC and accused Rajender Prased is acquitted of the offence punishable u/S. 406/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court today (SHELLY ARORA)
on 14.12.2012 M.M. /Mahila Court/SED
Saket/ N.D./ 14.12.2012
FIR No. 49/2004 State Vs. Arun Page 8 of 8