Delhi District Court
Cr No.88/08 (State vs . Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) on 5 March, 2011
CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 (SOUTH) :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CR No.88/08
Unique Case ID No.: 02403R0976342008
State
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Ramji Lal Gupta
S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar @ Munna Lal
2. Sh. Pramod Kumar @ Munna Lal
S/o Sh. Bhoj Ram
3. Smt. Angoori
W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
4. Sh. Mohan Dass
S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
5. Ms. Prabha
D/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
.... Respondents
Appeal u/Ss.397/402 Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of Ld. MM dated 31.07.2008
Page 1 of 8
CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.)
Date of Institution : 06.11.2008
Arguments Heard on: 28.02.2011
Date of Decision: 05.03.2011
O R D E R
1.0 Vide this order, I propose to dispose of the revision filed by the State against the impugned order dated 31.07.2008, whereby Ld. MM discharged the accused persons / respondents for the offence u/Ss. 406/498A/506/34 IPC.
2.0 The impugned order has primarily been challenged on the ground that Ld. MM has wrongly ignored the statements of the complainant where there are specific allegations / dowry demand of Rs.50,000/ against the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to take into account the fact that at the stage of charge, no roving enquiry is required and only prima facie involvement of the accused persons has to be seen.
2.2 Upon filing of the revision petition, notice was issued to the respondents and trial Court record (TCR) was called and received. 3.0 Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on Page 2 of 8 CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) 13.9.2001, complainant Sangeeta W/o of respondent no.1 Ramji Lal made a complaint to Commissioner of Police, CAW Cell, Nanak Pura to the effect that she was married to Ramji Gupta on 02.07.95 and her father gave dowry of Rs.2 lakhs . Thereafter, complainant was told to bring Rs.50,000/ more and on non fulfillment of the demand her husband and brotherinlaw (devar) used to beat her and her motherinlaw used to threaten her to set her ablaze. Complainant alleged that once her motherinlaw and sisterin law poured kerosene oil on her. She stated that whenever she asked her husband to drop her to her father's house, he used to tell her that she can come only when she will bring scooter. Complainant also alleged that her husband used to beat her under the influence of liquor. On this complaint, a case FIR No.139/2002 was registered and after completing investigation, charge sheet u/Ss.498A/406/506/34 IPC was filed in the court for trial.
Ld. Trial Court vide detailed order dated 31.07.2008, discharged all the accused persons, at the stage of charge, inter alia holding that "in the present case, even if the complainant proves all her vague allegations, no conviction is possible as there is no specific incident or allegation that she would be able to prove."
3.1 Sh. M.Z. Khan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the fact that complainant has made specific Page 3 of 8 CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the accused persons and prima facie case is made out against them. It has been submitted that previous MLC is not mandatory to prove the cruelty. 4.0 I have heard the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record carefully.
5.0 Before proceeding further, the law regarding section 498A IPC is very well settled. In Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1990(2) RCR 18, the Bombay High court had observed that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands. Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) RCR 53, wherein it was observed that offence under Section 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. While interpreting the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324 IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 219, the Supreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under Page 4 of 8 CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498A IPC.
It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498A IPC and aforenoted judicial pronouncements that precondition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddy, AIR 1998 SC 121. In the said case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5.1 In the present case, Ld. Trial court has inter alia held as under :
"There are no specific allegations in the present case in respect of either the demand for illegal valuable securities, harassment meted out to the complainant to compel the fulfillment of such demands, entrustment of the complainant's articles nor the demand for the return of the same and the consequent refusal."
It is correct that the jurisdiction of the court at the stage of Page 5 of 8 CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) charge is very limited. At the stage of charge, the court is not required to meticulously judge the truth, veracity and effect of evidence. Nor at this stage any weight is attached to the probable defence of the accused. The court is only required to see that whether strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. However, at the same time, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution.
5.2 It is also pertinent to mention here that in Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 564, it was inter alia held that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the Judge will be within his right to discharge the accused.
Further, in L.K. Advani Vs C.B.I., 1997 Cri.L.J. 2559, it has been inter alia held as under :
"The charges can be framed against an accused person only in those discerning few cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has shown a prima facie case against the accused and there is evidence before the Court which is capable of being converted into legal evidence later on during the subsequent proceedings after the framing of the Page 6 of 8 CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) charges. If the evidence before the Court is of such type which if unrebutted and unchallenged by way of crossexamination would not be sufficient enough to convict the accused ultimately than the Court would not be justified in framing the charge against the accused. The Court at that stage is under no obligation to make an elaborate enquiry by sifting and weighing the material to find out against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt which it is required to do at the time of the final hearing. The charge can be framed by the Court against an accused if the material placed before it raises a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence."
Even if we go through the facts on the record, all the allegations made in the complaint are general in nature and no specific date has been mentioned in the complaint. Complainant though has alleged that she has been beaten severely by the accused persons but there is no medical evidence on the record.
6.0 Framing of charge is an important step. I consider that the court is required to consider the fact that whether even if the entire material remains unrebuted, the conviction is possible or not. Charge cannot be framed mechanically. I consider that the Ld. Trial court has appreciated the facts correctly and I do not see any reason to differ with the view of the Ld. Page 7 of 8 CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.) Trial court. Hence, the revision is dismissed.
7.1 A copy of this judgment along with TCR be sent back to the trial court.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma)
Today on 05.03.2011 ASJ02(South) / Saket Courts/ ND
Page 8 of 8
CR No.88/08 (State Vs. Ramji Lal Gupta & Ors.)
CR No.88/08
05.03.2011
Present : Ld. Addl. PP for State
Respondents in person.
Vide separately announced order in the open court, revision petition is dismissed.
A copy of this order along with Trial court record be returned to the Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma) ASJ02(South)/05.03.2011 Page 9 of 8