Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Govind Ram S/O Sh. Ballabh, on 1 September, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No.10/07
Date of Institution : 07.11.06
Date on which reserved for order : 29.08.07
Date of Delivery of Judgement : 29.08.07
State Vs. 1. Govind Ram S/o Sh. Ballabh,
R/o Mani Ram Park, 400 Ki Bagichi, Bayana
Road, Hindon, Rajasthan.
2. Mungi Bai W/o Sh. Ballabh,
R/o Mani Ram Park, 400 Ki Bagichi, Bayana
Road, Hindon, Rajasthan.
3. Ballabh S/o Sh. Karai,
R/o Mani Ram Park, 400 Ki Bagichi, Bayana
Road, Hindon, Rajasthan.
4. Nemi Chand S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
R/o 5/436, Khichripur, Delhi.
5. Smt. Tara Devi W/o Sh. Nemi Chand,
R/o 5/436, Khichripur, Delhi.
FIR No. 469/06
PS Kalyanpuri
U/S 498A/344/323/307 IPC.
J U D G E M E N T : Matrimonial ties were tied between Kamlesh and Govind Ram on 01.05.01. Kamlesh went to her matrimonial home at Charson Ka Kuan, Bayana Road, Hindon, Distt. Bharat Pur, Rajasthan. One male child was born out of this wedlock. In August, 2006, parents of 2 Kamlesh got an information that she was illtreated at her matrimonial home by her husband and inlaws. Mishri Lal, Roop chand, Bhagwati Devi and Prem went to matrimonial home of Kamlesh on 20.08.06 and found her detained in a room meant for tethering goats. There was a wound over her head, wherein puss had developed and maggots were crawling in it. Kamlesh was in a very bad shape and foul smell was emanating from her body. She was taken to a local hospital. After first aid, she was brought to Delhi on 21.08.06 and got admitted in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi, for treatment.
2. On 24.08.06, Roop Chand, brother of Kamlesh, lodged a report with police of police station, Kalyanpuri, detailing therein that his sister was illtreated at her matrimonial home by her husband and inlaws for bringing insufficient dowry. As and when, he used to visit matrimonial home of his sister, he used to advise his sister to live in a cordial atmosphere. Once she told him that it was second marriage of Govind Ram. She further told that Govind Ram used to criminally intimidate her of her instant death. Babu Lal and his wife were also involved in harassment of his sister. Her brotherinlaw, Nemi Chand, fatherinlaw, Ballabh and her sistersinlaw (Nanad), namely, Pushpa and Kamla used to harass her. Nemi Chand and 3 his wife Tara Devi used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. He detailed that when he reached her matrimonial home on 20.08.06, he found Kamlesh confined in a room. When that room was opened, he found Kamlesh lying in a corner of the room with goats. Foul smell was coming out of that room. When Kamlesh was taken out of that room, he found a wound over her head, wherein maggots were crawling. He unfolds that an attempt was made on the life of Kamlesh by her husband and inlaws.
3. Case for offences punishable under sections 498A, 342, 506 and 307 read with section 34 of the Penal Code was registered and investigation was taken up by Manoj Kumar SI. Govind Ram was arrested on 26.08.06. His parents, namely, Ballabh and Mungi Bai were arrested on 30.08.06. Nemi Chand was also arrested on 30.08.06. Tara Devi was arrested on 03.09.06. Investigation culminated into a chargesheet against the accused persons.
4. Charge for offences punishable under sections 498A, 344 and 323 of the Penal Code was framed against all the accused persons, besides a separate charge framed against accused Govind Ram for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Penal Code, to which charges, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed 4 trial.
5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined Smt. Kamlesh (PW1), Tej Bahadur, Constable (PW2), Mishri Lal (PW3), Roop Chand (PW4) and Manoj Kumar SI (PW5) in the case.
6. Tej Bahadur, Constable, joined investigation of the case, in whose presence accused Govind Ram was arrested on 26.08.06. He details that Govind Ram was taken to LBS Hospital for medical examination, from where he was referred to Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahdara, Delhi. He presents those facts in his testimony. Manoj Kumar SI had conducted investigation of the case and detailed investigative steps, which were taken by him in the case. He unfolds that Govind Ram was brought to Delhi and got medically examined. He was arrested by him in the case. Kamlesh was got medically examined by him. Accused Ballabh and Mungi Bai were arrested by him on 30.08.06. Accused Nemi Chand was also arrested on that very date, while Tara Devi was arrested on 03.09.06.
7. Kamlesh is the star witness of the prosecution. She was brought in the witness box to prove facts of the case. She unfolds that her husband used to illtreat her. Once he gave a danda blow 5 over her head and confined her in a room meant for goats, for four days. He was demanding clothes in dowry. His brother along with his wife and other family members reached there and brought her back to Delhi. Injury was caused over her head by Govind Ram, wherein puss developed and maggots were crawling. She was taken to a hospital for treatment. Mishri Lal, father of Kamlesh, unfolds that Govind Ram and his family members used to demand dowry. When he could not fulfill their demands, Kamlesh was treated with cruelty. He unfolds that on receipt of information, they went to her matrimonial home, where she was found confined a room. There was an injury over her head, wherein puss had developed and maggots were crawling in it. Roop Chand also gave confirmation to facts testified by his father Mishri Lal and sister Kamlesh.
8. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against him, accused Govind Ram was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He admits that Kamlesh was married to him and thereafter she was residing with him in their matrimonial home. He further admits that a male child was born to Kamlesh out of this wedlock. He denied that Kamlesh was treated 6 with cruelty. He further denied that he gave danda blow over her head as a result of which she sustained injury over her head, wherein puss developed and maggots were crawling. He denied that parents of Kamlesh reached there and got her rescued from confinement. However, he admits that Kamlesh was brought to Delhi. He denied that she was treated here in a hospital. He claimed himself to be innocent. He has not led any evidence in his defence.
9. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh. R.K. Pandey, ld. Prosecutor, had presented facts on behalf of the State. Sh. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate, had advanced arguments on behalf of the defence. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
10. Only contention advanced by Sh. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate, is that the offences were alleged to have been committed at Hindon, Distt. Bharatpur, Rajasthan. In such a situation, this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case, argued ld. defence counsel. Contentions advanced by Sh. Vipin Chaudhary are untenable. Mishri Lal testified before the Court that Govind Ram and his family members 7 demanded dowry articles from him. Tone and tenor of his testimony make it clear that witness intends to depose that dowry demands were raised by Govind Ram and his family members here in Delhi. That fact bring it over the record that prosecution projects a case that Govind Ram and his family members raised dowry demands from Mishri Lal in Delhi. Since cruelty is alleged to have been perpetrated here in Delhi too, this Court has jurisdiction to try this case. Law to this effect was laid by Hon'ble High Court in Sushil Kumar Gahlot & Ors. (2007 I AD (Cr.) (DHC) 421). In view of these facts, submissions advanced by the defence are discarded.
11. Smt. Kamlesh makes it clear that her fatherinlaw and mother inlaw had not committed any wrong against her person. Her sistersinlaw, namely, Pushpa and Kamla used to say that she should go to her parental home leaving her matrimonial home forever. Nemi Chand had acted as a mediator in her marriage, who used to say that her father had not given clothes in marriage, besides other dowry articles. She further makes it clear that Tara Devi had not committed any offence against her person. During the course of her crossexamination, she admits that Nemi Chand is not related to her. However, she hastens to add that Nemi Chand is 8 fatherinlaw of Govind Ram. She gives twist to facts and deposed that Nemi Chand had never harassed her nor demanded any dowry from her. She concludes that there is no complaint against Nemi Chand at all. Therefore, out of facts testified by Smt. Kamlesh, it stands crystallize that she was never illtreated or harassed by Smt. Mungi Bai, Ballabh, Nemi Chand and Tara Devi.
12. Mishri Lal deposed that Govind Ram and his family members started harassing his daughter. He projects that Govind Ram and his family members used to demand dowry and household articles from him. When he could not fulfill their demands, they used to beat Kamlesh. Adequate food was not provided to her. Her inlaws used to say that she should leave her matrimonial home for good. Roop Chand had also narrated same story as detailed by his father. He presents that after three or four years of her marriage, Kamlesh was treated with cruelty by her husband and inlaws for dowry. Facts testified by Mishri Lal and Roop Chand are in contradiction to events unfolded by Smt. Kamlesh. Kamlesh makes it clear that she was never illtreated by her inlaws, Tara Devi and Nemi Chand. Mishri Lal nowhere clarifies as to when dowry was demanded by Govind Ram and his parents from him. Roop Chand had also not specified 9 any date, when Govind Ram and his parents demanded dowry from her. When the lady was not at all harassed for dowry by her husband and inlaws, besides Nemi Chand and Tara Devi, facts unfolded by Mishri Lal and Roop Chand fall within the arena of doubt and distrust. Since no specific instances are detailed by these two witnesses, nor they specified as to what was demanded from them, it is evident that facts projected by these two witnesses are not true. When, they found Kamlesh in a bad shape, confined in a room, in her matrimonial home on 20.08.06, they were filled with feeling of psychological hatred against her husband and inlaws. Persuaded by feeling of hatred, they deposed that dowry was demanded by husband and inlaws from Kamlesh. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that facts testified by Mishri Lal and Roop Chand are not at all creditable on the count that dowry was demanded from them by Govind Ram and his parents. Consequently, those facts are brushed aside from adjudication of guilt of the accused persons. When those facts go off the record, nothing remains there to adjudge accountability of the accused persons for treating Kamlesh with cruelty for dowry. No evidence is there to establish guilt of Mungi Bai, Ballabh, Nemi 10 Chand and Tara Devi, hence they are entitled for an acquittal.
13. Kamlesh unfolds that once she was assaulted with a danda by her husband. She sustained injuries over her head and body. Her husband had confined her in a room meant for goats for a period of four days. Govind Ram had not provided any medicine to her. He used to give leftout food to her for her consumption. Her parents reached there and she was taken out of the room, in which goats were tethered. Injury, which was caused over her head, developed puss and maggots were crawling in it. She was taken to a hospital for treatment. From there, she was brought to Delhi and taken to LBS Hospital for treatment.
14. Facts projected by Smt. Kamlesh are reaffirmed by Mishri Lal and Roop Chand. Mishri Lal details that an information was received that Kamlesh was beaten by Govind Ram and his family members. He along with Roop Chand, Bhagwati Devi and Prem visited matrimonial home of Kamlesh and found her confined in a room. Her legs were tied with a rope. She was having head injury, wherein maggots were crawling. She was removed to a hospital. She was brought to Delhi and treated in LBS Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi. Roop Chand details those very facts when he presents that 11 on 20.08.06, an information was received that Kamlesh was confined in a room at her matrimonial home. They reached there and Kamlesh was found confined in a room. Her legs were tied with rope. Foul smell was coming out of that room. There was an injury over her head, where maggots were crawling. She was taken to hospital for treatment.
15. Evidence of Kamlesh, Mishri Lal and Roop Chand highlight that Govind Ram wielded a danda blow over head of the lady, as a result of which she sustained injury over her head. She was confined in a room for a period of four days. No medicine was given to her. Her wound became sore and puss developed in it. When the lady was taken out of the room, by that time maggots were crawling in her wound. Question for consideration comes as to whether injury caused on the person of the lady was such, which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause her death, or the offender knew that it was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities cause her death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. As testified by the lady, a danda blow was wield over her head, which resulted into an injury. The danda which was used as a weapon of offence has not been produced before the Court. Only one blow 12 was given over head of the lady, as testified by her. Injury which was caused over her head was not opined to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities cause death of the lady. It has also not been shown that Govind Ram caused that injury on the person of the lady with such an intention of causing such bodily injury as may prove sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause her death.
16. The evidence put forward is suggestive that after causing injury over her head, she was confined in a room. No medicine was provided to her. On account of those lapses, her wound became sore and puss developed in it. Wound deteriorated and maggots started crawling in it. Development of puss and presence of maggots in the wound are suggestive that for want of medicine and care, condition of the lady deteriorated. But it cannot be said that it was so done by Gavind Ram with intent to cause her death. At the cost of repetition, it is said that no medical evidence has been produced to establish that injuries sustained by the lady was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities cause her death. Consequently, it is clear that there is vacuum in evidence and prosecution has not been able to establish all ingredients for an 13 offence punishable under section 307 of the Penal Code.
17. Testimony of Kamlesh bring it over the record that a club blow was given over her head by accused Govind Ram. She sustained injuries. No medicine was provided to her. Maggots were crawling in the wound, when she was taken out of the room by her brother and father. These facts gets confirmation from events unfolded by Mishri Lal and Roop Chand. These events are suggestive that accused Govind Ram knew that by that act of causing injury over the head of his wife and by not providing medicine and not allowing her to take her care, he caused such injury, which was likely to result into her death. Therefore, facts deposed by Kamlesh, Mishri Lal and Roop Chand are accepted and it is concluded that ingredients for an offence of attempt to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, have been established against the accused Govind Ram to the hilt.
18. Smt. Kamlesh testified that she was confined in a room by Govind Ram for a period of four days. Mishri Lal and Roop Chand project that when they reached matrimonial home of Kamlesh, they found her confined in a room meant for goats. Her legs were tied with a rope. Testimony of these witnesses remained aboveboard, 14 when they faced ordeal of crossexamination. Consequently, it is evident that Smt. Kamlesh was confined in a room for a period of four days and an offence punishable under section 343 of the Penal Code stands established against accused Govind Ram. Accused Govind Ram failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution. Evidence brought over the record is convincing and overwhelming to establish his guilt for offences punishable under sections 343 and 308 of the Penal Code. In view of these observations, accused Mungi Bai, Ballabh, Nemi Chand and Tara Devi are acquitted of the charges. Accused Govind Ram is also acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under section 498A and 307 of the Penal Code. However, he is held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under sections 343 and 308 of the Penal Code, since offence punishable under section 308 of the Penal Code is lesser offence than offence punishable under section 307 of the Penal Code, for which he was charged.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav)
th
On this 29 day of August, 2007. Additional Sessions Judge:
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 15 IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No.10/07
State Vs. Govind Ram S/o Sh. Ballabh,
R/o Mani Ram Park, 400 Ki Bagichi, Bayana
Road, Hindon, Rajasthan.
FIR No. 469/06
PS Kalyanpuri
U/S 308/342 IPC.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :
I have heard convict on the point of sentence. Sh. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate, submits that convict was arrested on 26.08.06 and remanded to judicial custody on the next day. He further presents that he was detained in judicial custody till 11.04.07. According to him, convict Govind Ram remained in custody for seven and half months. He further argued that Govind Ram has compounded the matter with his wife, Smt. Kamlesh, and she had joined her matrimonial home on 22.08.07. Roop Chand, brother of Kamlesh, is present before the Court and confirms those facts. Leniency in sentence has been claimed by Sh. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate.
2. Govind Ram assaulted Smt. Kamlesh with a danda over her head and confined her in a room meant for goats. Parents of Smt. Kamlesh received information on 20.08.06 and went to her matrimonial home on 21.08.06. They found her confined in a room along with goats. Foul smell was emanating from her body. There was a wound, wherein puss 16 developed and maggots were crawling, present over her head. She was taken to a local hospital and thereafter brought to Delhi for treatment.
Kamlesh unfolded that her husband had assaulted her and had not provided medicine to her. These facts make out that the lady was assaulted by the convict and thereafter she was confined in a room for a period of four days. Offence committed by the convict is of alarming complexion. However, facts that Govind Ram had taken the lady to her matrimonial home, where they want to live life afresh, are mitigating circumstances, which surrounds the convict. In case, he is sentenced to custodial sentence, then his matrimonial life would shatter. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that imprisonment already undergone would meet ends of justice. Consequently, Govind Ram is awarded sentence already undergone by him and he is released. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to him free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav)
st
On this 1 day of September,2007. Additional Sessions Judge:
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi