Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramnath Etc Sc No. 83/13 Page No. 1/6 on 21 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE(03) NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS:;DELHI
Case I.D. No. 02404R0045232013
SC No. 83/2013
State
Vs
1.Ram Nath S/o Sh Dhani Shah R/o H. No. 332, Gali No. 5/14, Samta Vihar, Mukundpur, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2. Govind S/o Sh. Ram Nath.
R/o H. No. 332, Gali No. 5/14, Samta Vihar, Mukundpur, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
3. Maya Devi W/o Sh. Raju R/o B-1135, Ghadoli Dairy Farm, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, Delhi.
4. Smt. Rita Devi W/o Sh. Santosh Gupta R/o Gali No. 5/14, Rama Garden, Samta Vihar, Delhi.
5. Smt. Devanti Devi W/o Sh. Ram Nath.
R/o H. NO. 332, Gali No. 5/14, Samta Vihar, Mukundpur, Delhi.
FIR No. 124/12 P.S. Bhalswa Dairy.
U/s 498-A/307/34 IPC Date of Institution : 07.03.2013 Arguments heard on : 21.09.2013 Order pronounced on : 21.09.2013 State Vs. Ramnath Etc SC No. 83/13 Page No. 1/6 J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Ramnath, Govind, Maya Devi, Rita Devi and Devanti Devi were sent to face trial for the commission of offence punishable U/s 498-A/307/34 IPC by the police of P.S. Bhalswa Dairy. The Charge framed against the accused reads as under:
That in the year 2006 and thereafter, you accused Ram Nath being father in law and Devanti Devi being mother in law, you accued Govind being dewar, Maya Devi and Rita Devi being Nanad of Dharamshila, in furtherance of your common intention, harassed, coerced and subjected Dharamshila to cruelty with a view to meet your unlawful demand of dowry and coerced her and her parents to meet such demand and thereby you all committed an offence punishable U/s 498-A/34 IPC and within my cognizance.
That on 29.07.2012, at about 5.00 pm, at H. No. 332, Gali No. 5/14, Samta Vihar, Mukundpur, Delhi, you all accused in furtherance of your common intention, caused grievous injuries to Dharamshila by pouring kerosene oil upon her with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if you all, by your said act, had caused the death of above said Dharamshila, you all would have been guilty of committing her murder and you all thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC and within my cognizance.
2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 30.07.2012, ASI Om Prakash got lodged DD No. 25-B through telephone from PS Kalyan Puri that father in law and mother in law of Smt. Dharamshila, W/o Late Amit Kumar, R/o H. No. 332, Gali No. 14, Samta Vihar, Mukundpur, Delhi tried to put her on fire after pouring kerosene upon her on 29.07.2012 at about 10.25 pm and she managed to escape from there and reached her parental house at 11/462, Kalyan Puri, State Vs. Ramnath Etc SC No. 83/13 Page No. 2/6 Delhi and is admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi. In pursuance of DD No. 25B, SI Kundan Lal reached Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichri Pur, where ASI Om Prakash met him and and handed over the MLC of injunred Dharamshila to him and told that complainant Dharamshila W/o Late Amit has been discharged from the hospital. He further told that Dharamshila has gone along with her parents (mother and father) to her parental house at H. No. 11/465, Kalyan Puri, Delhi. Thereafter, SI Kundan Lal relieved ASI Om Prakash and reached at the parental house of victim Dharamshila at Kalyan Puri and inquired from victim Dharamshila and her parents. Considering all the facts, he made a telephonic call to SDM Model Town Sh. Rajender Prasad. On 31.07.2012, victim Dharamshila was produced in the office of SDM along with her parents and her statement was recorded by the SDM. In her statement, victim/complainant Dharamshila got recorded that she was married to Sh. Amit in the year 2006 and on 04.01.11, her husband expired due to ailment of cancer. She further got recorded that after the death of her husband, she used to live in her matrimonial house along with her parents in law. She further got recorded that on 05.01.2011, she gave birth to a female child. She further got recorded that after the death of her husband, her father in law, mother in law, brother in law and sisters in law used to harass her and used to beat her. She further got recorded that on 29.07.2012, at about 5.00 pm, her father in law snatched her mobile and broke the same and thereafter, her mother in law and father in law poured kerosene upon her, however, she managed to escape from there and reached her parents house at Khichri Pur. She further got recorded that due to kerosene she sustained some wounds on her body and she was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital. After recording of the statement, SI Kundal Lal brought the injured and her parents to police station and placed State Vs. Ramnath Etc SC No. 83/13 Page No. 3/6 her statement before the SHO who made his endorsement on the same and gave directions to register a case. On the directions of the SHO, case U/s 498-A/326/34 IPC was registered and investigation of this case was marked to SI Kundan Lal. IO SI Kundan Lal recorded the statements of the witnesses and search for the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested. Accused Ram Nath was arrested on 15.08.2012, accused Dewanti Devi was arrested on 22.01.2013. Accused Rita Devi, Maya Devi and Govind were formally arrested on 29.10.2012 and thereafter they were enlarged on bail by the order of the court.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet U/s 326/307/498-A/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons before the concerned court of Ld. M.M. Since the offence committed by accused was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, Ld. M.M. committed the case to the court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge. Thereafter this case was assigned to this court for trial.
4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, a prima-facie charge U/s 498-A/307/34 IPC was served upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in support of its case has examined four witnesses.
6. PW 1 Dharamshila is the victim/complainant who has not supported the case of prosecution. She was declared hostile by Ld. APP and was cross-examined at length but nothing material was brought on record. She has denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that after the death of her husband her parents in law i.e. her dewar Govind, her father-in- law Ram Nath, her mother-in-law Dewanti Devi and her four nanads used to harass her and used to beat her. She also denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that on 29.07.2012, at about 5.00 pm, her father in law accused Ram Nath had broken her mobile or that after that her mother in law and father in law had poured kerosene upon State Vs. Ramnath Etc SC No. 83/13 Page No. 4/6 her. She further denied that pouring of kerosene oil by her father in law and mother in law had caused injuries to her or that she had gone to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital for the treatment of the same. She was confronted with the statement ex. PW 1/A where it was so recorded.
7. PW 2 Sh. Chandrama Shah is the father and PW3 Smt. Usha is the mother of complainant PW1 Dharamshila who have also not supported the case of prosecution despite lengthy cross examination by Ld. APP. They were also declared hostile witnesses. They have denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that on 29.07.2012, in night, their daughter Dharamshila came to their house and started weeping and at that time smell of kerosene was present all over her body. They have further denied that their daughter had told them that her father in law had snatched her mobile when she was talking and broke the same and her mother in law caught hold of her hands and her father in law poured kerosene upon her or that she ran away for saving her life. They were confronted with their statement Mark PW 2/A & Mark PW3/A .
8. PW4 Om Prakash is the brother of victim Dharamshila. He has also not supported the case of prosecution. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP, but nothing material could be brought on record against the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that on 29.07.2012, in the night, his sister Dharamshila came to their house and started weeping and at that time, smell of kerosene was present all over her body. He further denied that his sister told his parents that her mother-in-law caught her hands and her father in law poured kerosene upon her and they snatched her daughter. He was confronted with his statement Mark PW4/A.
9. In this case, PW 1 complainant/victim Dharamshila, PW2 Sh. Chandrama Shah, PW3 Smt. Usha and PW4 Om Prakash were the State Vs. Ramnath Etc SC No. 83/13 Page No. 5/6 principal witnesses of the prosecution who have not supported the case of prosecution despite cross-examination by Ld. APP. Since all the above said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, no fruitful purpose will be served by examining the remaining witnesses who are formal in nature, hence, the request of Ld. APP to examine the remaining witnesses was turned down and prosecution evidence was closed.
10.As there was no incriminating evidence on record against accused persons which could be put to them U/s 313 Cr.P.C. hence the recording of statement of accused persons was dispensed with.
11.As discussed above, PW 1 complainant/victim Dharamshila, PW2 Sh. Chandrama Shah, PW3 Smt. Usha and PW4 Om Prakash who are the principal witness of the prosecution, have not supported the case of prosecution despite lengthy cross-examination by Ld. APP. As there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the alleged commission of offence, I am left with no option except to acquit the accused persons. Consequently, accused persons are acquitted. Their bail bonds & surety bond are extended for a period of six months in compliance of Section 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to R/R. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI) ON 21.09.2013 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE(03) NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI State Vs. Ramnath Etc SC No. 83/13 Page No. 6/6