Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Kishan Etc. on 19 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI PAREWA:
MM-03: (MAHILA COURT): SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR NO. : 252/05
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
PS : LAJPAT NAGAR
A. CIS No. of the Case : 91587/16
B. Date of Institution : 14.08.2006
C. Date of Commission of Offence : On and after 26.04.1998
D. Name of the complainant : Mrs. Manju Bala
E. Name of the Accused, his : 1. Ram Kishan
Parentage & Address S/o Late Shri Har Kishan
2. Madan Deep
S/o Shri Ram Kishan
3. Smt. Sheelwanti
W/o Shri Ram Kishan
4. Poonam Kumari
D/o Shri Ram Kishan
All R/o Ward No.12, Samta Kutir,
Village & P.O. Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
F. Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Order reserved on : 17.07.2017
I. Final order : Convicted U/S 498A/34 IPC
FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 1 of 12
J. Date of such order : 19.07.2017
Brief Statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. The present FIR under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was registered on a complaint of complainant Smt. Manju Bala (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), against accused Madan Deep (husband), Ram Kishan (father-in-law), Sheelwanti (mother-in-law) & Poonam Kumari (sister-in-law) alleging that complainant got married with accused Madan Deep on 26.04.1998 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Shriniwas Puri, New Delhi. During the subsistence of marriage with the complainant at the matrimonial home, all the accused subjected the complainant to the cruelty in connection with demands of dowry and also the accused and his family members were entrusted with the Stridhan Articles and gifts of the complainant, which all the accused intentionally refused to return on demand of the complainant and misappropriated the same.
2. The charge sheet was filed on 14.08.1998. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance against all the accused, who appeared before the Court and copies of documents under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') were supplied to them.
3. Charge was framed against all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the IPC & against accused Madandeep additionally for the offence punishable under Section FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 2 of 12 406 of the IPC vide order dated 24.04.2012 by my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter, matter was proceeded for Prosecution Evidence.
4. Prosecution has examined 13 witness in support of its case i.e. PW1 complainant Manju Bala, PW2 Tek Chand, PW3 Smt. Kamla, PW4 Ashok Kumar, PW5 Suresh Rakheja, PW6 Mukesh Kumar, PW7 HC Ramesh, PW8 ASI Suresh Kumar, PW9 Dr. Pradeep Dutta, PW10 Rajbir Singh, PW11 Ct. Heera Lal, PW12 Dharampal & PW13 Deepak Kumar Jain.
5. In this case, Prosecution has examined 13 witness in support of its case i.e.
(a) PW1 Manju Bala, complainant, who in a nutshell testified that she got married with accused on 26.04.1998 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. During the subsistence of marriage, at the matrimonial home, accused and his family members subjected her to the cruelty in connection with demands of dowry and also the accused and his family members misappropriated her Stridhan Articles, which were entrusted with by the complainant and the accused and his family members intentionally refused to return on demand of the complainant and misappropriated the same. She has further testified that on her marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their capacity. She has further testified that after marriage, her father in law accused Ram Kishan FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 3 of 12 started demanding a motorcycle. After few days of the marriage, the accused and his family members used to beat her on demand of money for going her husband abroad. It was further testified that when she showed her incapability to bring the said amount, she was badly beaten by all the accused and her husband took her to her father's home at Delhi and left there. It was further testified that her husband told her that she should not return to her matrimonial home unless she arrange Rs. 6 lacs from her father for giving the same to her father in law. It was further testified that a Panchayat was held at Sonepat, where, her husband assured that he would take her to her matrimonial home and insure her well being in future. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home. On 11.08.1999, she gave birth to a child and all the expenses were born by the parents of the complainant. The complainant has further testified that her husband used to beat her on the demand of dowry of Rs. 6 lacs. On 31.10.1999, she was badly beaten up by accused Mandeep on the demand of Rs. 6 lacs and in that beatings, she received injuries and she was treated at Eden Hospital by her father. Copy of Treatment is Ex.
PW1/A. On 13.01.2001, she gave birth to second child and all the expenses were born by the parents of the complainant. The complainant has further testified that on 09.11.2004, her parents came to her matrimonial home for giving her gift on the occasion of Diwali. The complainant has further testified that her husband and his family members again gave beatings to her and due to the said beatings, torture & harassment, she FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 4 of 12 left her matrimonial house and since then, she is residing at her parental house. She filed the complaint in PP Garhi, which is Ex. PW1/C. She had also filed the complaint in CAW Cell, which is Ex. PW1/D. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
(b) PW2 Tek Chand is father of complainant, who reiterated that on 26.04.1998, his daughter got married with accused. After some time told him that accused persons used to beat her on demand of Rs. 6 lacs. According to his daughter, accused persons used to demand a motorcycle. His daughter was thrown out of her matrimonial house and since then, she was living with him. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
(c) PW3 Smt. Kamla is mother of complainant, who has also deposed on the line of deposition of PW1 & PW2. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
(d) PW4 Ashok Kumar is brother of father of complainant, who has deposed on the line of deposition of PW1, PW2 & 3. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
(e) PW5 Suresh Rakheja is neighbour of the father of complainant, who has deposed as was told by father of complainant. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 5 of 12
(f) PW6 Mukesh Kumar is an employee of the father of complainant, who has deposed as was told by father of complainant. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(g) PW7 is Retd. HC Ramesh Pal Singh, who is official witness and formal in nature. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(h) PW8 is ASI Suresh Kumar, who was posted Duty Officer on 20.03.2005. He made endorsement on the rukka and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A. He has recorded the FIR and proved the same as Ex. PW8/B.
(i) PW9 is Dr. Pradeep Dutta, who has deposed that he was running a clinic and on 25.11.1999 complainant came to her clinic and got her x-ray done. The X-ray Repor is Mark X. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(j) PW10 is Rajbir Singh, who has proved the certificate, which is Ex. PW10/A. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(k) PW11 is Ct. Heera Lal, who was posted at PP Garhi, PS Lajpat Nagar on 09.11.2004. He made DD entry No. 26 about the incident and has proved the same as Ex. PW11/A. He FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 6 of 12 also made DD entry No. 6 and has proved the same as Ex. PW11/B. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(l) PW12 Dharampal is Shopkeeper. He has testified that he was running a shop of furniture and complainant and his father had purchased furniture from his shop. He had issued the bill in this regard, which is Ex. P-17. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(m)PW13 Deepak Kumar Jain is owner of jewellary shop. He has testified that his father was running the shop of jewellery and he had issued the Estimate, which are Ex. P9 - 16. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed vide order dated 05.12.2015.
7. Statement of all accused under section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded and matter was proceeded for Defence Evidence.
8. Accused persons have examined DW1 Dr. Neera Chaudhary in their defence, who proved the prescription Mark D1.
9. Thereafter, Defence Evidence was closed vide order dated 01.06.2017.
FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 7 of 12
10. Arguments have been heard on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
11. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced.
12. In the present case, accused Madan Deep has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC, which is defined u/s 405 IPC.
13. To establish the guilt of accused under Section 406 of the Code, the Prosecution was required to prove the following essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:-
(a) That the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it.
(b) That he-
(i) misappropriated it, or
(ii) converted it to his own use, or
(iii) used it, or
(iv) disposed of it.
(c) That he did so dishonestly.
(d) That he did so in violation of -
(i) any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharge, or
(ii) any legal contract express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or
(e) That he willfully suffered any person to do as in (2), (3) and (4) (i) or 4(ii).
FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 8 of 12
14. In the present case, the Prosecution has relied upon the Bill estimates, which have been proved by PW12 & PW 13. The Prosecution has failed to prove that there was any property, which was dishonestly used or disposed off or misappropriated or converted by accused Madandeep, therefore, he stands acquitted for the said offence.
15. Now coming to the proposition of law laid down u/s 498A IPC.
Under Section 498-A IPC, cruelty can be of two types.
16. Firstly, willful conduct of a nature which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Willful conduct can be both mental and physical but it must relate to a woman. Secondly, cruelty can also mean harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on account of her failure or of any person related to her to meet such demand. The second aspect is related to property, and should be with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security. Further, the harassment should be on account of her failure or failure of any other person related to her to meet the said demand.
17. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1, both parents of complainant as PW2 & PW3, uncle (chacha) of complainant as PW4, neighbour of FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 9 of 12 complainant as PW5 & family friend of complainant as PW6.
18. The complainant PW1 has alleged that she has suffered physical & mental cruelty at the hands of the accused persons during her stay in the matrimonial home. In the original Tehrir/ complaint and oral testimony before the Court, there is consistent statement of complainant PW1 that in December, 1998, 31.10.1999, June, 2003 and on 09.11.2004, she suffered physical injuries and torture at the hands of these accused persons for not fulfilling the demand of Rs. 6 lacs, raised by them for the accused/ husband to go abroad. She has also relied upon the Medical Prescription Dated 01.11.1999 Ex. PW1/A and X-ray Report of 25.11.1999 Ex. PW1/B, which pertains to a day after she was physically abused at the hands of the accused persons. Complainant PW1 has testified that her father got her medically treated for her injuries. Although the said medical prescription and X-ray report have not been proved by calling the executant of the same in the witness box but the accused persons have not cross examined the complainant PW1 as to the very factum of receiving injuries / her treatment. In the absence of any cross examination, the genuiness of the said documents cannot be challenged. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the nature of injuries, suffered by the complainant PW1. It would suffice that she had suffered some injuries for not fulfilling the unlawful demands of her husband and his relatives, which compelled her to go to a doctor for her treatment and the same is sufficient to prove physical cruelty at the hands of accused persons for a charge u/s 498A FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 10 of 12 IPC.
19. Further, the testimony of other Prosecution Witnesses i.e. PW2 father of the complainant & PW3 mother of complainant also corroborates the testimony of the complainant PW1 materially.
20. Further more, in the cross examination of PW1 to PW4, there is no defence, that their testimony is wrong or there is any motive for the complainant PW1 so as to falsely implicate the accused persons. A line of defence taken by the accused persons is that allegations have been leveled by the complainant PW1 due to a psychological disorder. However, they failed to substantiate this defence by eliciting any admission of the complainant PW1 or her family members or by leading any positive evidence that she was receiving any treatment for the alleged disorder.
21. Further, from the evidence on record, it is cleared that the said criminal act was done by all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention i.e. for coercing the complainant and her family members to meet an unlawful demand of Rs. 6 lacs.
22. In light of the above said discussions, this Court is of the view that all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC qua all the accused have been proved by the Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Ram Kishan, Madandeep, Sheelwanti and Poonam Kumari stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 11 of 12 498A/34 IPC.
23. Let the convicts be heard on the quantum of sentence on 22.07.2017 at 2 pm.
24. Copy of Judgment be given dasti to the accused persons.
Announced in the open
Court on 19th July, 2017 (PREETI PAREWA)
MM-03 (Mahila Court)
SED, New Delhi
FIR No. 252/16 State Vs. Ram Kishan etc. PS: Lajpat Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPC Pages 12 of 12