Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Bala And Ors. on 14 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Raj Bala and ors.
FIR No.340/01
P.S. : Sarojini Nagar
U/S 406/498A/34 IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 28.01.2003
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 436/2
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 18.05.1997 (date of
marriage)
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :Mrs. Sunita
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS :1. Raj Bala w/o Sh.
Surender R/o Qtr. No.
L47A, Railway Colony,
Dehradun, Uttranchal
2. Surender Singh s/o Sh.
Late Sh. Bansi Ram, Qtr.
No. L47A, Railway
Colony, Dehradun,
Uttranchal
3. Ajay Kumar s/o Sh.
St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 2 Sant Ram R/o T13C Railway Colony, Kotdwar, Uttranchal
4. Shashi Bala w/o Sh.
Mukesh R/o Upper Nehru Gram, P.S. Raipur, Distt. Dehradun.
5. Mukesh Kumar s/o Har Swaroop R/o Upper Nehru Gram, P.S. Raipur, Distt. Dehradun.
6. Sant Ram s/o Late Sh.
Rasita Singh T13C Railway Colony, Kotdwar, Uttranchal
7. Jaso Devi w/o Sh. Sant Ram T13C Railway Colony, Kotdwar, Uttranchal
8. Purshotam s/o Sant Ram R/o House no.
K404, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi.
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 406/498A/34 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 19.01.2012 St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 3
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquitted.
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 14.02.2012 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that accused Purshottam Singh (husband) along with his other relatives namely Raj Bala (sister in law), Ajay Kumar (brother in law), Shashi Bala (sister in law), Mukesh Kumar (husband of Shashi Bala), Surender (husband of Raj Bala), Sant Ram (father in law) and Jaso Devi (mother in law) during the subsistence of marriage between the complainant Mrs. Sunita and Purshottam Singh, subjected the complainant to cruelty. Further the accused persons were entrusted with the dowry articles as mentioned in the list Mark A and accused persons converted the same to their own use and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said entrusted dowry articles/stridhan. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant against the accused persons and investigation was carried out.
2. Charge sheet under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was filed in the court, accused persons were supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 4 Vide order dated 21.12.2006, charge was framed against the all accused persons for offence u/s 498A IPC, and a separate charge for offence u/s 406 IPC was framed against accused Purshottam, husband of complainant, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 07.06.2010.
4. PW1 complainant Smt. Sunita deposed that her marriage was performed on 18.05.1997 with the accused Purshottam in Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage she was taken to village Bhanera, Distt. Bijnor, U.P. At the time of filing of the complaint she was having a daughter named Pallvai aged two years and who is now 10 years. Just after 6 days of her marriage, accused Raj Bala, Shashi Bala, Ajay, her mother in law Jaso Devi and her father in law, Sh. Sant Ram and her Nandoi Surender started harassing her and told her to bring cash from her parents so that her husband can start some business. Her father was a retired government servant and her mother was a house wife. They were not in a position to give any amount to my in laws. The accused persons including her husband gave her St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 5 beatings for her inability to bring money from her parents. She was ousted from the house by her husband. She is a burden on his brothers who are doing private jobs. Her husband kept her at Bhogal in a rented accommodation on the assurance that he will keep her well but despite his assurance, he did not keep her properly. Her husband physically assaulted her when she was residing with him at Bhogal in a rented accommodation. When she was residing at Bhogal, she also used to visit to Kotdwar, Uttrakhand where her father in law was posted. Her sister in law Smt. Rajbala used to reach Kotdwar where other family members used to reside. Her father in law and mother in law used to say that she should be so much tortured so that she herself leave them. The accused persons particularly her mother in law used to demand a sum of Rs. 1 lacs as her father was retired then. When she could not fulfill their demand, she was physically and mentally tortured. They wanted to remarry her husband for the sake of more dowry. They wanted to leave her after keeping her just for three months. When she gave birth to a female child in Safdarjung Hospital she was pushed back by her mother in law and all the expenses of her delivery were borne by her father. Her all the dowry articles are in possession of her mother in law at Kotdwar. She had demanded her dowry articles back from her in laws and they had produced some articles in the court but she had not taken the same St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 6 as they were not her dowry articles. Her dowry articles are in the possession of her in laws and nothing is returned to her. She is still demanding her dowry articles back. The list of her dowry articles is Ex. PW1/A. As per her knowledge her husband remarried with one Farha @ Rani without taking any divorce from her. Her complaint is Ex. PW1/B, bearing her signatures at point A, the list of admitted articles is Ex. PW1/C. In her crossexamination, she admitted as correct that accused Raj Bala, Shashi Bala and Nandoi Surender are permanent resident of Dehradun. She also admitted as correct that husband of both her sister in laws are government servants working in Dehradun. She also admitted as correct that marriage of accused Raj Bala had taken place about five years before her marriage. She further admitted as correct that at the time of her marriage, the accused Ajay, Jasu Devi and Sh. Sant Ram were living in Kotdwar as Sant Ram was posted at Kotdwar with Indian Railway. She admitted as correct that accused Ajay used to study in the college at that time in Kotdwar. It is further correct that accused Purshottam used to work in Dubai prior to the marriage. She voluntarily added that he had come for three months after taking leave from Dubai. After marriage Purshottam left for Dubai. She voluntarily stated that he left without telling her on 18.08.1997. Her father was not retired from service at the time of her marriage. She had stated in her complaint that all the accused persons St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 7 including her husband started to give beatings to her as she could not bring money from her parents. Thereafter she was confronted with statement Ex. PW1/B where the allegations are only against the husband. She stayed in the villgae Bhanera and Kotdwar for the period of three months after her marriage. Thereafter, she came and stayed at her parents house. She admitted as correct that when she had come to her parental house after three months of the marriage, in July 1997, her father was still not retired. Her father was working as a Waiter in Hotel Janpath, New Delhi. She admitted as correct that accused Purshottam has also been working as a waiter. She know only of Oberoi Hotel where he had worked. Her father was receiving a fixed salary. She admitted as correct that the income of waiter is limited. They stayed in Bhogal for 23 months after accused came back. She voluntarily stated that accused left her at her mother's house and again he went to Kotdwar as the accused had developed a problem in his arm pit. She admitted as correct that she had not got any medical check up from the doctor after the alleged beatings given to her. She admitted as correct that she had not stated in her complaint Ex. PW1/B that her sister in law Smt. Rajbala used to reach Kotdwar where other family members used to reside there. She admitted as correct that her complaint Ex. PW1/B had not stated that her father in law also used to say that she should be so much tortured St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 8 that she herself leave them. She does not know how much money her father had got after his retirement. She admitted as correct that she has two brothers and the elder brother used to reside with her parents in a one room set. After the accused had come back from Dubai, they had stayed at Kotdwar. When accused Pushottam was in Dubai, they had stayed at Kotdwar. When the accused Pushottam was in Dubai she was living with her parents. The accused Purshottam left for Dubai in August 1997 and returned back in November 1997. At the time of her marriage, accused Raj Bala had only one son. She does not know whether Shashi Bala was not well from the period 1997 till 1998 and was undergoing regular treatment in Dehradun. She denied the suggestion that the expenses of her delivery were borne by accused Purushottam. She voluntarily added that accused is responsible for the payment of Rs. 1800. She has not brought the original bills of the medical expenses which were borne at the time of her delivery. She admitted as correct that on 23.05.2001 she had stated to the Insp. CAW Cell that she wants action only against her husband for not keeping her happily. She replied the same with regard to her statement on 02.05.2001. She admitted as correct that she had stated to Insp. CAW Cell that legal action action be taken as her husband was not keeping her happily. Her mother in law had not come to see her at the time of her delivery. She voluntarily added that St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 9 she had gone to Dehradun for the delivery of her daughter Shashi Bala. She had not visited even subsequent to that. She does not have the bills of the articles mentioned in the list of dowry articles. She admitted as correct that she had not stated in her statement before the police that the accused persons wanted to leave her after keeping her just for three months. She admitted as correct that she had not given any date or time with regard to the allegations made by her against the accused persons in her statement. She admitted as correct that she had not stated to the police or CAW Cell that the accused had remarried with one Farha @ Rani without taking any divorce from her. She denied the suggestion that her husband did not refuse to return her articles or that he volunteered to give the articles but she refused the same. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
5. PW2 Insp. Achala Rampal deposed that on 29.11.2000 she had received the case file of the present case for further enquiry. During the enquiry, complainant Smt. Sunita Devi started residing with her husband, accused Purushottam. On 15.05.2001 the accused produced the admitted list of articles. On 21.05.2001, complainant had produced the different list of articles. Accused Purushottam was ready to give the articles as per the admitted list only. However, the complainant wanted to take her complete St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 10 dowry articles. Hence both the parties were produced before ACP, CAW Cell and thereafter the case was recommended for the registration of FIR. On 08.06.2001 enquiry report prepared by her is Ex. PW2/A which bears her signatures at point A. Application given by complainant dated 06.06.2001 in respect of not returning her dowry articles as per the list is Ex. PW2/B which bears her signatures at point A. In her crossexamination, she admitted as correct that she was not investigating officer of the case after the registration of the case. IO did not make any enquiry from her after the registration of FIR. She does not remember if her statement was recorded by the IO or not. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
6. PW3 Shanti deposed that her daughter Sunita got married on 18.05.1997 with Purshotam s/o Sant Ram R/o Vill. Bhanera Distt. Bijnaur, U.P. Her daughter gave birth to a girl child at SJ hospital thereafter Purshotam demanded money from her and said that he will take back her daughter at her matrimonial home only if money is paid to him. She further deposed that after marriage of her daughter with accused, she was in great trouble. She and her husband have given to their daughter at the time of her marriage many articles beyond their capacity. After marriage the in laws of her daughter demanded dowry articles and money from her daughter and St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 11 physically and mentally harassed her for the same. When her daughter was pregnant the accused took her to her house and she gave birth to a female child at her house. Nobody from her in laws house came to fetch her daughter from her house. They flatly refused to take back her daughter to her matrimonial house. Her husband retired when her grand daughter was studying in 4th class. They had no money to fulfill the demand of the accused at that time. She further stated that at present her daughter and her daughter Palvi are residing with her. The accused had never given any money for expenses of her daughter and her daughter Palvi. She voluntarily added that accused send Rs. 1800/ per month for the maintenance of his daughter for the last one year. In her crossexamination she admitted as correct that the parents of accused Purshotam and his brother used to live in Kotdwar at the time of marriage. She further admitted as correct that after the marriage her daughter lived at Kotdwar and village Banera. She also stated that she has seven children, among them four are daughters and three are sons. Before the marriage of her daughter Sunita she had already married her five children. Her husband was working as a Waiter in Hotel Janpath. She denied the suggestion that all the expenses of deliver of daughter was borne by accused. Sunita had never lived with Purshotam after the birth of child. She had never lodged any complaint against the accused persons St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 12 before the filing of the complaint at CAW Cell , Nanak Pura. Police has recorded her statement. She admitted as correct that her statement was recorded by the police on 2432002 after seven months of registration of FIR on 2382001. She denied the suggestion that the in laws of her daughter never demanded any dowry articles or money from my daughter or that they did not physically or mentally harassed her for the same. She admitted as correct that at the time of birth of child of her daughter Sunita and accused Purshotam had come to the hospital alone. Nobody else had come with him. She had never visited the house of the accused at Kotdwar or Banera Village. She denied the suggestion that the accused Purshotam had been asking to take her daughter and the child with him or that they have refused for the same. Her daughter is not working. They had not taken any loan at the time of marriage of her daughter. She voluntarily stated that they had taken money from Hotel Janpath where her husband was working. She admitted as correct that accused had been giving the maintenance to her daughter and grand daughter @1800/ p.m since the year 2003. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely or that accused persons had never physically or mentally harassed her daughter or demanded dowry articles or money from her daughter. She denied the suggestion that accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.
St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 13
7. PW4 Insp. Arvind Verma, deposed that on 18.06.2001 he received the complaint from CAW cell Nanak Pura, New Delhi. On that day complainant Sunita came to police station and told him not to take action as talks of compromise are going on between the parties. On 12.07.2001 she again came to the police station and told that no compromise took place between parties. On 16.08.2001 Sunita again sought time for compromise. Finally on 22.08.2001 she told him that no compromise took place she asked for further action in the matter on her complaint dated 05.06.2001. On 23.08.2001 FIR was lodged against accused persons on the basis of compliant dated 05.06.2001 which is Ex. PW1/B. On 02.09.2001 he arrested the accused persons except husband of complainant and mother in law of the complainant vide memos arrest Ex. PW4/A to PW4/F. He further deposed that that on 1732002 accused Purshotam and Jaso Devi were formally arrested and thereafter they were released on bail as per the order of High Court. Arrest memo of Purshotam is Ex. PW4/G and arrest memo of Jaso Devi is Ex. PW4/H signed by him at point A respectively. He recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared challan and submitted for trial in the court. In his cross examination, he deposed that they had received only the complaint from CAW Cell. He had not tried to take the complete file from CAW Cell with regard to the present complaint. He voluntarily added that he had taken the report from St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 14 them. He had not tried to recover the articles from the house of the accused as the complainant had refused to take the items back of Stridhan. He had interrogated the accused persons prior to arrest but no disclosure statement was recorded. He does not remember as to whether the accused Purshotam and Sunita had resided together at Delhi. He has not furnished any address of accused Purshotam or Sunita as their Delhi matrimonial home. He admitted as correct that the other seven accused persons were not residing in Delhi. He had not made any enquiry from the neighbor of accused Purshotam as there was no address of accused Purshotam in Delhi. He had not gone to either Dehradoon or Kotdwar or Village Banera during the investigation of this case. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely charge sheeted by him. He denied the suggestion that no offence was committed in Delhi. He further denied the suggestion that the accused Surender and Mukesh does not even fall in the definition of relation. He denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the case properly and has charge sheeted the accused at the behest of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
8. PW5 SI Seema Singh, Duty Officer proved the FIR on record as Ex. PW2/A. St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 15
9. The statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and stated that accused Raj Bala, Surender Singh, Shashi Bala and Mukesh Kumar used to live in Dehradun at the time of the marriage of the complainant. They were married much prior to the marriage of the complainant and were leading their settled matrimonial life having nothing to do with the complainant and her husband. The accused Surender Kumar and Mukesh Kumar are both government servant working in the Indian Railway and Indian Ordinance Factory at Dehradoon. The accused Sant Ram, Jaso Devi and Ajay Kumar were living in Kotdwar at the time of marriage as Sant Ram was employed with Indian Railways station at Kodwar. The accused Ajay Kumar was studying in Inter College at Kotdwar at the of marriage. They have never harassed, tortured or given beaten to the complainant nor they have demanded any money from the complainant. The accused Purshottam is still ready and willing to take the complainant back with him. The accused persons examined accused Purshottam in their defence.
10.DW 1, Purshotam, deposed that he married to Ms. Sunita Devi on 18.05.97. After marriage he had left for Dubai where he was working earlier. He came back from Dubai after four months. He or his family members had never St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 16 harassed, tortured or gave beatings to his wife nor they have ever demanded any money from her. The complainant left her matrimonial home as he had been planning to shift and settle in a native village Banera, UP and she refused to go and live there. His two Sisters Raj Bala and Shashi Bala and their respective husbands namely Surender Singh and Mukesh Kumar have been living in Dehradoon even prior to her marriage and were leading their settled matrimonial life having nothing to do with him or the complainant. Surender Singh and Mukesh Kumar are both Government servants working in Indian Railways and Indian Ordinance factory at Dehradoon respectively. HIs father Sant Ram my mother Jasso Devi and his brother Ajay Kumar were living in Kotdwar at the time of marriage and thereafter, and had nothing to do with their matrimonial life. His father was employed with Indian Railways at Kotdwar at the time of marriage and his brother Ajay Kumar was studying in inter college at Kotdwar at the time of marriage. The complainant has falsely implicated all of them and she has refused to live with him. He is still ready and willing to take the complainant back with him. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he went to Dubai alone and his wife was left at her parental home. He denied the suggestion that as he stayed in Dubai for four months therefore, he cannot say whether his family members harassed, tortured or gave beatings to the complainant. He voluntarily added that she did not St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 17 stayed with his family members so there was no question of harassment, torture or beatings. He stayed in village Banera, UP for about 8 days after marriage and thereafter, never stayed at Banera. He denied the suggestion that he never planned to shift and settle in native village Banera as he never stayed at Banera except for 8 days, or that he is making false allegation that the complainant left the matrimonial house due to said reason. His sisters Raj Bala and Shashi Bala and their husbands Surender Singh and Mukesh Kumar respectively used to come at his parents house located at Kotdwar. He denied the suggestion that his sisters and brother in laws (Behnoi) and his parents used to come at the house where he along with complainant were residing or that they used to harass and beat the complainant for want of dowry. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being the accused in the present case and to save myself and other accused persons.
11.I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the material on record. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that sufficient material is on record to convict the accused persons. On the other hand, counsel for accused has pleaded that there are only vague and general allegation against the accused persons.
St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 18
12.As regards offence u/s 498A IPC, the prosecution has examined two public witnesses, the complainant (PW1) and her mother Smt. Shanti (PW3) to prove the commission of offence u/s 498A IPC by Purshottam, husband of complainant and his other relatives namely Rajbala (sister in law), Surender (husband of Raj Bala), Shashi Bala (sister in law), Mukesh (husband of Shashi Bala), Ajay Kumar (brother in law), Sant Ram (father in law), Jassu Devi (Mother in law). I shall first examine the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in order to see whether their testimonies bring home the guilt of relatives of husband u/s 498A IPC. The complainant, PW1, only made general allegations against the relatives of husband that after six days of her marriage with her husband, they starting harassing her to bring more money from her parents so that her husband can do some work. They also gave her beatings on her failure to bring money from her parents. The complainant in her crossexamination admitted that accused Raj Bala and Shashi Bala and Surender were permanent residents of Dehradun. She also admitted that husband of both her sisters in law were permanent government servant working in Dehradun. She also made admission in his crossexamination that marriage of the accused Raj Bala had taken place 5 years before her marriage. In her crossexamination, she also admitted that at the time of her marriage, the accused Ajay Kumar, Sant Ram and Jasu Devi were living in St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 19 Kotdwar as her father in law (Sant Ram) was posted at Kotdwar in Indian Railways and her brother in law (Ajay) was studying in college. She further admitted that she stayed in the village Banera, Kotdwar only for a period of 3 months after her marriage. Thereafter she went to her parents house. In her evidence she also stated that she was living separately in rented accommodation at Bhogal, Delhi with her husband. Thus, the evidence of complainant clearly reflect that after her marriage, the complainant stayed with her mother in law (Jassu Devi), her father in law (Sant Ram) and her devar (Ajay) only for a brief period of 3 months. Thereafter she shifted to the house of her parents. Later on she shifted to rented house along with her husband. One of his sister in law (Raj Bala) was already married at the time of her marriage and another sister in law (Shashi Bala) got married very next month and her sisters in law were living separately with their families at their own matrimonial houses. The complainant has not given any specific incident or any specific time, place or occasion of harassment and demand of dowry by relatives of her husband. The complainant has also stated in her evidence that she was pushed back by her mother in law when she gave birth to the female child in Safdarjung Hospital and all the expenses of her delivery were borne by her father. The allegations made are again unspecific, general without supported by any medical document or bills of medical expenses.
St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 20 The mother of complainant also made only general and vague allegations against the relatives of husband of the complainant that they used to physically and mentally harass her daughter in relation to demand for dowry. She has not stated the specific role of each accused. The mother of complainant has not given any specific incident or any specific time, place or occasion of harassment and demand of dowry by relatives of her husband.
13.It be also been noted that on number of occasions, higher courts have observed that in cases of matrimonial discord, the complainant in order to wrack vengeance enrope all members of family of husband. The complainant also admitted in her crossexamination that in her statements made on 02.05.2001 and 23.05.2001 to Insp. CAW Cell, she made allegations only against her husband that he was not keeping her properly. She also admitted that she stated to Insp., CAW Cell that she wants legal action only against her husband for not keeping her happily. It appears that complainant in the present case has also made allegations against other accused beside husband, only to settle scores with her husband. The unspecific, vague and general allegations made by the complainant do not prove that the relatives of her husband subjected her to any cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A IPC especially when the accused persons were living separately far away from the complainant. In view of above, the prosecution has failed to prove St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 21 the charge against the relatives of husband of complainant u/s 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, all relatives of husband of complainant acquitted.
14.As regards husband of complainant, the complainant made general allegations that he used to give beatings to her and thrown her out from his house after physically assaulting her. Again the allegations are unspecific and are only general. Similarly, the mother of the complainant also made general allegations against husband of the complainant for demanding dowry from her daughter and for physically and mentally harassing her on her failure to meet the said demands. It is settled law that allegations of cruelty should not be vague and general in nature nor should they be wanting in details and substance. In the case of cruelty specific acts of cruelty and the occasions when, and the place where such acts were committed have to be pleaded and vague allegations of cruelty are not sufficient to convict the accused. Therefore, accused Purshottam, husband of complainant is also acquitted for offence u/s 498A IPC.
15. Coming to Section 406 IPC,Section 406 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust. Section 406 IPC reads as under: St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 22 "whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"
Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust. The relevant portion of the definition reads as under: "405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescriting the mode in which such trust is to be charged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or will fully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
16. As regards section 406 IPC, the charge 406 IPC was only framed against the husband of complainant (Pushottam Singh). The complainant in her evidence stated that all her dowry articles are in possession of her mother in law at Kotdwar. She demanded her dowry articles back from in laws and they had produced some articles in the court but she did not take the same as they were not the articles which were given at the time of marriage. Therefore, her dowry articles are in possession of her in laws and nothing is returned to her. She is still demanding her dowry articles back. On the appreciation of evidence, it has not been stated in evidence of complainant as to what articles of dowry were entrusted and to whom.
St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 23 The evidence is also bereft of other necessary details regarding the dates as to when the dowry articles were entrusted, what were the articles, what was their description, how many articles no such details have been mentioned in the evidence of complainant. Only the general allegation is made that the dowry articles are still in the possession of the her in laws and nothing is returned to her. There is no specific allegations that the dowry articles/stridhan were entrusted to her husband which were later on misappropriated by him with any dishonest intention.
17. The evidence of PW2 Insp. Achala Rampal also reflect that accused Purshottam was ready to return the stridhan/dowry articles as per list admitted by him Ex. PW1/C. He also produced the same during the course of investigation but the complainant refused to receive the same as she wanted him to return the dowry articles as per her list Ex. PW1/A.
18. The prosecution has not produced any photograph or receipt/bill to prove the exchange/possession of stridhan and jewellery articles. Even no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage. There is mandate of provision of 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in view of judgment of Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others, 138 (2007), DLT 152 for preparation of list of dowry articles at the time of marriage duly signed St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 24 from bride side as well as from groom side. The complainant also admitted in her evidence that her father was working as a Waiter at Janpath Hotel at the time of her marriage and receiving fixed salary. She also admitted that income of a waiter is limited. The prosecution has also not proved source of income of father of complainant to give so much dowry as reflected in Ex. PW1/A, which is also mandate of law in view of judgment of Neera Singh (Supra). In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 406 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused Purshottam is also acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC. Bail bonds & Surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this th day of 14 February 2012 (PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi St. Vs. Raj Bala and ors. FIR no. 340/01, P.S. Sarojini Nagar