Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Avtar & Ors. on 30 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA:
MM (MAHILA COURTS) :TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO. 431/03
UID No. 02401R0181142003
P.S. Kashmere Gate
U/SEC. 498A/406 /34 IPC
STATE VS. RAM AVTAR & ORS.
1.Date of commission of offence : During subsistence of marriage since 13.05.1996
2. Name of the complainant : Ms. Sudha Sharma D/o Sh. Hari Shankar Sharma
3. Name of the accused persons and their : 1. Sh. Ram Avtar parentage and address. S/o Sh. Kailash Chander
2. Ms. Sita @ Ritu D/o Sh. Kailash Chander
3. Sh. Ram Chander S/o Sh. Kailash Chander R/o H NO. 95, Chhatarpur, Near Mata Chowk, Mehrauli, Delhi
4. Sneh Lata W/o Hari Om Sharma(Since discharged)
5. Hari Om Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Prasad (Since discharged) Both R/o H No. 19, Gosala Road, Village Satwari, Mehrauli, Delhi
6. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Chand (Since discharged) R/o E2/52, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
7. Urmila FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
2W/O Sh. Shyam Bihari R/o H No. 313/708, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi.
8. Rajender Prashad s/o Sh. Ram Parashad r/o Tunia Farm House, near Chabra Tent House, Village Satbadi, New Delhi .
( Since discharged. )
9. Premwati w/o Sh. Kailash Chander r/o H NO. 95, Chhatarpur, Near Mata Chowk, Mehrauli, Delhi
10. Kailash Chander, s/o not known, r/o H NO. 95, Chhatarpur, Near Mata Chowk, Mehrauli, Delhi
4. Offence complained of : 498A/406/34 IPC
5. The date of order : 30.05.2014
6. Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not Guilty
7.The final order : Acquitted Counsels for the parties:
For the State : Sh. A.B. Asthana For the Accused persons : Sh. Ravinder Sharma THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Smt. Sudha Sharma D/o Late Sh. Hari Shankar Sharma r/o 1168,Katra Mausam Khan, Bada Bazar Kashmere Gate, Old Delhi, wherein it is stated that on 13.05.1996, the complainant was married to accused Ram Avatar Sharma as per Hindu Rites and customs at FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
3Delhi. At the time of marriage, her brother and other relatives had given sufficient dowry to her husband and in laws and spent around Rs 7,50,000/ out of which Rs 1,00000/ by way of Demand Draft, jewelleries worth Rs 150000 and other household articles were given. It is further stated that after the complainant went to her matrimonial home situated at village Chattarpur, on the very first day, accused persons started showing their true colours. They taunted by saying that the complainant has not brought dowry as per their expectation. Just after three days of marriage, they asked her to telephone at her matrimonial house for bringing Rs 50,000/ immediately. When she expressed her inability to bring the same then they made it clear that she would not be accepted at matrimonial house till their demand is met, on account of which she got scared of her future at matrimonial house. Thereafter she made a call at her parental house and stated about the demands of accused persons. The brothers of the complainant assured that they would certainly arrange the money for her happiness, then only the accused persons allowed her to stay at matrimonial house and gave food etc to eat. It is further stated that on the fourth day, brothers and other relatives of the complainant reached her matrimonial house, then also accused did not hesitate to reiterate their demand of Rs 50,000/. When they expressed their inability then the complainant was abused by the accused persons and they were told that in case their demand is not met then she may be kept at her parental house thereafter the complainant was compelled to come along with her brothers to parental house without her dowry articles. No one from her matrimonial house came to take her back for long. After about four months, brothers of the complainant tried to contact in laws of the complainant but no fruitful result yielded.
2. It is further stated that after six months of her stay at parental house, the accused persons agreed to take her back to matrimonial house only on the intervention of Mediator and some relatives but when she reached there, accused persons again started committing torture upon her and stated that " she is a golden FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
4goose, her late father had left lot of assets behind him, as much as they would torture, she would ask her brothers to bring more and more money and this way they would become rich people". The complainant was directed not to have food and to do all domestic work on her own till their demand was met. When the complainant asked the reason for such behaviour then her sister in law caught hold her hair and started beating her by leg blows, when the complainant requested her not to do so, other accused joined her sister in law and they all started beating her collectively.
3. The complainant did not report the matter to police in order to save her matrimonial life and hoped that their behaviour would change with the passage of time. Thereafter she informed her brother Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma about the incident through telephone. On this her brothers Sudhir Kumar & Avinash Sharma somehow arranged money of Rs 50,000/ and reached at matrimonial house and handed over the money in denomination of Rs 500/ to accused Kailash, only then the matter was pacified.
4. It is further stated that accused used to pick up fight at slightest pretext, they would beat her, would throw food while she used to prepare food but the complainant used to tolerate everything being a devout Hindu wife and never approached police or court of law to report the matter. It is further stated that brothers of the complainant handed over Rs 20,000/ thrice to father in law of the complainant but their demand increased day by day and this way, situation of complainant did not improve.
5. It is further stated that in July, 1997, the complainant got pregnant but all accused kept committing atrocities upon her. In January, 1998, the complainant got severe stomach pain, she requested her mother in law and sister in law to get her medically treated but they did not do it saying that the complainant was making excuses for not doing household work. Thereafter the complainant started taking rest at her room, in the evening the accused persons got angry and threw her out bed and FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
5beat her mercilessly. On the next day, the complainant informed her brothers and requested them to come to her matrimonial house. Her brother took her to parental house for treatment and after some days, she returned her matrimonial house. It is further stated that at time of birth of child, her husband and mother in law demanded Rs 20,000/ from her brother, which was given on 21.03.1998. The complainant gave birth to child on 23.03.1998 at Safdarjung hospital, even at the time of birth of child, accused demanded Rs 50,000/ for Chochak ceremony, which was given by her brothers to accused Kailash Chand after 60 days. It is further stated that even after birth of child, the behaviour of accused did not improve and they kept raising new demands. It is further stated that in November 2000, the complainant again got pregnant then also accused persons again started raising new demands, they all committed torture upon the complainant and forced her to go to her parental house.
6. It is further stated that on 15.06.2001 the complainant was forced to leave matrimonial house in wearing clothes only and no one came to take her back till the birth of second child. It is further stated that family members of the complainant kept trying for amicable settlement and kept meeting the demands of accused person but their all demands could not be fulfilled due to loss in business . It is further stated that when their demands were not met then her in laws tried to kill her brother Avinash Kumar@ Bablu , who remained in coma for quite some time and later on expired. All the accused committed severe cruelties and atrocities upon the complainant during her stay at matrimonial house and spoiled her marital life. Finding no other ways, the complainant reported the matter to police, which was referred for reconciliation at CAW Cell but reconciliation efforts got failed. On the basis of statement of the complainant, a case under section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against accused persons.
7. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after its completion, chargesheet same was filed in the court. Accused persons were FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
6summoned by my Ld. Predecessor, copies of chargesheet was supplied to them. Accused were heard on the point of charge and vide order dated 10.06.2004, charge under section 498A/34 was directed to be framed against all accused except Sunil Kumar, Sneh Lata, Hariom and Rajender Prasad whereas charge under section 406/34 IPC was framed against accused Ram Avtar, Kailash Chand and Premwati. Other accused namely Sunil Kumar, Sneh Lata, Hariom and Rajender Prasad were discharged.
8. Subsequent thereto the matter was kept for prosecution evidence. The Prosecution produced following 16 witnesses in support of its case : (I) SI Rajender Singh, Duty Officer, appeared as PW1 and proved FIR Ex PW1/A, (II) Ct. Jaiveer appeared as PW2, (III) HC Shashi appeared as PW3 and proved personal search memo of accused Urmila, which is Ex PW3/A, (IV) HC Rani appeared as PW4 and proved arrest memo Ex PW4/A and personal search memo Ex PW4/B of accused Premwati, (V) HC Rajender Singh appeared as PW5 , (VI) Ct Kiran Pal appeared as PW6, (VII) HC Laxmi Dutt appeared as PW7 and proved his report Ex PW7/A, (VIII) Ct. Ved Prakash appeared as PW8, (IX) Complainant Smt. Sudha Sharma appeared as PW9 and proved her complaint Ex PW9/B, arrest memo Ex PW9/CD and seizure memo Ex PW9/E, (X) Ct. Devkaran appeared as PW10 and proved arrest memo Ex PW10/A and personal search memo Ex PW10/ B of accused Hari Om, (XI) Ct. Anil appeared as PW11 and proved disclosure statement of accused Ram Avtar Ex PW11/A & his arrest memo Ex PW11/B, (XII) Ct. Rajender appeared as PW12, (XIII) Ct. Chaseen Khan appeared as PW13, (XIV)W/ASI Doratiya appeared as PW14 and proved her endorsement on complaint FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
7vide Ex PW14/A, arrest memo Ex PW14/B and disclosure statement Ex PW14/CD, (XV) SI Raj Kumar appeared as PW15 and proved arrest memo Ex PW15/A, personal search memo Ex PW15/B and recovery memo Ex 15/C, (XVI) Sh. Sudhir Sharma, brother of the complainant appeared as PW16.
9. After closure of prosecution Evidence , the matter was kept for recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr PC. The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC. was recorded wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to them, to which they denied as false and incorrect and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case but did not prefer to lead evidence in their defence. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for Final arguments.
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defense counsel. It was submitted by Ld. APP that prosecution has proved the present case beyond reasonable doubts. However, I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the prosecution. In their written arguments, accused submitted that there has been no other complaint since marriage i.e. more than seven years despite having so much grievance against accused persons. It was also submitted that the brother of complainant was married to her sister in law and if there was any dispute then accused persons would not have allowed their girl to marry with the brother of the complainant. It was also submitted that essential ingredients of section 498A and 406 IPC are not attracted. It was also submitted that police has not conducted fair investigation in this case being under the influence of complainant. It was also submitted that testimonies of prosecution witnesses can not be relied upon being contradictory and improved.
11. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through entire record including testimonies of witnesses. Before appreciating evidence on record, lets first discuss the relevant legal provisions given U/s 498 A/406/34 IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.8
(I) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life,limb or health,whether mental or physical or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or(2) on account of failure by such woman or any person or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand Section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust. For offence under this section the prosecution must prove :
(i) that the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it,
(ii) that he (a) misappropriated it or(b) converted it to his own use or used it or
(d) disposed of it
12. In the light of aforesaid legal provision, I would now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain if alleged acts of accused persons amount to cruelty in terms of provision given U/s 498 A IPC and they are guilty of criminal breach of trust u/s 406 IPC. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly the complainant has built her case on explanation(b) to section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J page 3019, the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of 498A IPC, observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must have the nexus with the demand of FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
9dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation(b) of section 498A IPC
13. Now adverting to facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has claimed that it has proved the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt however the court is not in agreement with the prosecution. It is well settled that testimony of sole witness or interested witnesses can also be relied upon to secure the conviction of accused if the same is found credible and trustworthy. In the present case, testimonies of the complainant and other material witnesses disclose major contradictions and material improvements, which have shaken the credibility of prosecution story. In her examination in chief the complainant has mentioned about various articles stated to be given at the time of marriage but on the basis of which it can not be said that said articles were demanded by the accused as such gift articles are given at ceremonies being customary in nature. She has further stated that after she was brought at matrimonial house, on the very first day, she was kept in one small room till 04.00 pm without food, tea etc. and only after 04.00 pm, she was provided water.
14. In the night, her husband did not behave with her properly and left the room. It be observed that all these facts are not mentioned in her complaint Ex PW9/A and do not come within the purview of cruelty as given in explanation (b) of section 498 A IPC. The complainant has further stated that on third day, her husband in the presence of other accused asked her to telephone to her parental house for Rs 50,000/ and on receiving information, his brothers and other relatives reached her matrimonial house, they showed their inability to fulfill their demands but accused persons were adamant then her brothers assured to make some arrangements. But in complaint Ex PW9/A, she has not mentioned the fact that her brothers came at FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
10matrimonial house and then such demands were made and they assured accused persons to make some arrangements. Rather in Ex PW9/A at para no.04, it is mentioned that after 04 days, her brothers along with relatives came to her matrimonial house and accused did not hesitate to raise their demand of Rs 50,000/ and when expressed their inability then accused abused her brothers and relatives and asked to take her back. The matter was pacified only after intervention of relatives and thereafter she came back to her parental house with them without her belongings. She has further stated therein that accused allowed to stay at matrimonial house and have food only after assurance of her brothers but this fact is not mentioned in examination in chief. It be observed that complainant in chief has stated that her husband compelled her to telephone at parental house and convey their demands to her family but in Ex PW9/A, she has stated that all accused compelled her to do so.
15. The complainant has further stated that on reaching matrimonial house after six months, she was again tortured by the accused persons, who stated that the complainant was a golden goose and her late father left lot of assets behind him and as much as they torture her, she would bring more and more money from her brothers and they would become rich people and till their demand is met, the complainant would not be allowed to have food and she would have to work like a slave and would be allowed to live at matrimonial house. When the complainant asked the reason for such behaviour then her sister in law caught hold her hair and started beating her by leg blows, when the complainant requested her not to do so, other accused joined her sister in law and they all started beating her collectively. The complainant did not report the matter to police in order to save her matrimonial life and hoped that their behaviour would change with the passage of time. It be observed that all these facts are not mentioned in her examination in chief.
16. The complainant has stated in Ex PW9/A that after she was tortured, she telephoned her brother Sudhir Sharma and explained the situation then his brothers FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
11arranged Rs 50,000/ in the denomination of Rs 500/ and gave it accused Kailash in the presence of complainant but in her examination in chief she has improved and stated that her brothers were not treated properly and money was given in the presence of all accused and her relatives to her father in law. The complainant in her examination in chief has stated that after Rs 50000/ was given, she was kept properly for few days but after some days, she was beaten by her husband over the issue of preparing food on the complaint of her sister in law Sita. All accused entered her room, grabbed her and took her to courtyard, her sister in law cought held her by hair and her husband beat with leg and fist blows. Whereas in Ex PW9/A she has stated said incident occurred before money was given and in pursuance to said incident, her brothers agreed to give money to accused persons. It be observed that in Ex PW9/A, the complainant has stated at para no.08 that accused used to pick up fight at slightest pretext, they would beat her, throw food while she used to prepare food but the complainant used to tolerate all the tortures being a devout Hindu wife and never approached police or court of law. Whereas all these facts are not mentioned in her examination in chief.
17. The complainant has further stated in her examination in chief that on the birth of her first child, her husband demanded Rs 50,000/ for Chochak ceremony and her brother gave the same when ceremony was held in the presence of all accused. But this fact does not find mention in the testimony of her brother. She has further stated that in her complaint Ex PW13/A at para 14 that when she became pregnant for second time then accused again started demanding money and they all committed torture upon her and compelled her to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter on 15.06.2001, she finally came to her parental house in wearing clothes. Whereas in her examination in chief she has stated differently that when she became pregnant, all accused gathered and made clear that they would not keep her at matrimonial house. She has not stated as to why the accused decided that she would not be kept at matrimonial house on being pregnant. She has further stated that her FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
12husband left her at parental house on the pretext that he would take her back after two days but he never came. It be observed that this fact is in contradiction with that of fact as mentioned in Ex PW13/B and all these above mentioned facts do not find mention in the testimony of her brother. The complainant has further stated in examination in chief that her family members tried to settle the matter but no response was received from the accused. Once her younger brother Babloo was called by the accused on the pretext of settlement but given severe beatings that he slipped into coma and finally died on 25.01.2005. It be observed that there is no evidence on record that brother of complainant was killed in pursuant to dowry demands, rather it is on record that accused were annoyed with the fact that her brother had secretly married with sister in law of complainant namely Seeta @ Ritu.
18. It be observed that the complainant in her entire testimony as well as Ex PW9/A has leveled very general and vague allegations against the accused persons. She has not specified the role of each accused in alleged incidents of torture mentioned by her and where ever she has specified, contradictions can be noticed in her examination in chief , complaint Ex PW9/A and also in the testimony of her brother Sh. Sudhir Kumar, who has testified as PW16. It is also observed that accused Snehlata, Hariom, Sunil Kumar and Rajender Prasad had been charge sheeted but they were discharged at the stage of charge by Ld. Predecessor , who while discharging them observed that allegations of complainant are vague in nature. The complainant had preferred revision petition against order on charge, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Sessions Court with similar observations, which in its order dated 15.01.2005 at para no.5 has observed that "........ also keeping in view the nature of the allegations as coming in the complaint which are vague in nature, I do not find any error or infirmity or irregularity in the order of Ld. Trial Court and thereby discharging these accused".
19. PW16/ Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Brother of the complainant has also not mentioned specific date, time and place of incidents as narrated by the complainant.
FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
13He has also vaguely and generally stated that after some time of marriage, the husband and in laws of the complainant started beating and harassing her for demand of dowry and he gave Rs 50,000/ to fulfill their demands. He has not stated anything about giving of additional Rs 20,000/ each thrice to accused, which the complainant has stated in her examination in chief to have been given by her brother to accused person. PW16 has stated that Rs 20,000/ was given in Chochak ceremony of the child of the complainant, the court is of the view that this does not come within the purview of cruelty as explained in section 498A IPC. Giving money and other gift articles in some ceremonies can not be termed as demand of dowry being customary in nature.
20. It be observed that complainant has mentioned about many incidents of alleged cruelty as discussed above, when she informed her brothers, who then came to her matrimonial house in her rescue and tried to sort out the matter either individually or with the help of their relatives but all these are not mentioned in his both statement given to police or before the court, which create a shadow of doubt over truthfulness of complainant's story. This witness has further stated that he gave money to accused out of agricultural produce but he has failed to prove the same. He has admitted during cross examination that he can not produce the Fard of said agricultural land.
21. It be further observed that there is delay in filing the case and no explanation worth name has come on record as to why the complaint was filed at highly belated stage. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of the coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result or deliberations and consultations, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
14delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC)
577) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao). In the present case, it be observed that the date of separation is 15.06.2001 whereas the case was filed by the complainant only on 10.09.2003.
22. It is clear from the above that there was no complaint of grievance since the marriage ie. More than seven years. During cross examination PW9/complainant has admitted that she did not file any complaint since 1996 till the filing of the present case, which was filed by her in the year 2003. Though she has stated that she was trying to adjust in matrimonial life but it does not appear believable and practicable that a lady, who is having so much grievance against her in laws would sit quiet but the complainant preferred not to file any case against the accused persons even after death of her brother, which stated to have caused on account of alleged attack by the accused persons. The complainant has further admitted that she did not file any complaint since the date when she left the matrimonial house on 15.06.2001 till the quarrel of her brother with her in laws. She has also admitted that quarrel between them had occurred on 17.09.2001 and she filed the present case in the year 2003.
23. Now dealing with charge under section 406 IPC, it be observed that in the entire testimony, none of the prosecution witness have mentioned the month, time and year when the entrustment was made and specifically to whom it was made. The list of dowry articles is not witnessed by any of the family members. No bill, invoice etc. of the articles and or of the conveyance through which the articles reached the matrimonial home of complainant is revealed. In such circumstances being guided by the judgment of Neera Singh vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 138 (2007) DLI 152 , I am of the opinion that entrustment in favour of the accused persons is not established. In view of the fact that none of the ingredients of section 405 IPC is established, I am of the view that no case u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused persons.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that no material FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
15evidence has been produced in order to secure conviction. Accused persons are accordingly acquitted from the charge framed under section 498A/406/34 IPC.
25. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (MONA TARDI KERKETTA)
ON 30.05.2014 MM02 / MAHILA COURTS
TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.
16
FIR NO. 431/03
P.S. Kashmere Gate
U/s . 498A/406/34 IPC
ST. VS. Ramavtar & Ors.
30.05.2014
Present : Ld. APP for the State.
All accused on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. Ravinder Sharma Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, all accused persons are acquitted from the charge framed u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
Bail bonds accused persons are canceled, their sureties are discharged, Documents if any, be returned, endorsement on documents, if any, be canceled.
Fresh bail bonds in compliance of provision given under section 437A CrPc have been furnished, same are attested and accepted. Bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 30.05.2014 FIR NO. 431/03 P.S. Kashmere Gate State Vs. Ram Avtar & Ors.