Delhi District Court
State vs . Julfi Singh & Ors. on 5 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM (MAHILA COURTS) :
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO. 280/99
P.S. SARAI ROHILLA
U/S. 498A/406 /34 IPC
02401R: 0236882001
STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS.
1. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : DURING SUBSISTENCE
OF MARRIAGE SINCE 03.06.1996
2. NAME OF COMPLAINANT : SMT. MANJU
D/O SH. NANAK CHAND
3. NAME OF ACCUSED PERSONS,
THEIR PARENTAGE & ADDRESS 1. SH. JULFI SINGH
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
S/O SH. SHYAM LAL
2. SMT. CHAMELI DEVI
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
W/O SH. JULFI SINGH
3. SH. DHRAMPAL
S/O SH. JULFI SINGH
4. SH. PARDEEP KUMAR
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
S/O SH. JULFI SINGH
5. SH. BHAGAT
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
S/O SH. JULFI SIGH
ALL R/O V&PO SHRANPUR,KHURJA,
DISTT. BULANDSEHAR, U.P.
FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 1/ 22
6. SMT. SUKHBIRI
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
W/O SH. VED RAM,
R/O H.NO. 12/2,
JHUGGI SAROJNI NAGAR,DELHI.
7. SMT. VEENA
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
W/O SH. SURAJ PAL
R/O E3/476, SULTAN PURI, DELHI
8. SMT. GUDDI
(SINCE DISCHARGED)
W/O SH. CHANDER PAL,
R/O RZK59 EAST, SAGAR PUR,
DABRIDELHI
4. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : 498A/406 /34 IPC
5. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS : PLEADED NOT GUILTY
6. FINAL ORDER : ACQUITTED
7. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 05.01.2015
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
FOR THE STATE : MS. SARITA RANI
FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS : SH. R.C. CHOPRA
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of complainant Smt. Manju Rani D/o Sh. Nanak Chand R/o H. No. M98/7, Shastri Nagar, Delhi against her husband and in laws. Accused Dharampal is the husband, Chameli Devi is mother in law, Julfi Singh is father in law, Pradeep and Bhagat are brother in laws, accused Sukhbiri, Guddi and Beena are sister in laws of the complainant. The brief FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 2/ 22 facts of the case as have been disclosed in the statement made by the complainant, wherein it is stated that the marriage between complainant and accused Dharam Pal was solemnized on 03.06.1996 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and father of complainant had given dowry articles beyond his capacity. It is further stated that after marriage, when the complainant reached her matrimonial house at Sarangpur, her in laws showed their dissatisfaction over the dowry articles given. They started harassing her in furtherance of more dowry and also tried to kill her twice. It is further stated that prior to the marriage, accused Dharmpal was working as a teacher at Rohini and used to live alone and his parents and other family members in the village. Before marriage, accused Dharmpal informed about the same to the complainant and told that after marriage, he along with complainant would be residing at Delhi.
2. It is further stated that after marriage, when the complainant reached the village , her husband, parentsinlaw and sister in laws complained of giving less dowry and told to bring Rs. 3 Lacs and one gold set of five tolas for the marriage of her sisterinlaw. It is further stated that the sister in law of complainant took all her expensive Sarees and brothers in law took all the money lying in the purse. When the complainant objected to the same, all accused persons beaten her and told ''this is village if we kill you then nobody will come to know as to what happened and they will get the accused Dharmpal remarried", to hear all these, complainant remained silent. It is further stated that when the complainant was going for "fera rasam" to her parental home then accused Bhagat told to bring a cycle and accused Pradeep demanded a music system.
3. It is further stated that complainant neither brought anything nor told about the demand to her parents and came back to matrimonial house without any article. When accused Chameli Devi, Dharmapal and Bhagat came to know about it , all of them beaten her by gaging the mouth to prevent her screams. Accused Julfi Singh gave an axe blow but complainant somehow got saved and accused Dharmpal received injuries on the left hand. The complainant was let off due to injured FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 3/ 22 condition of Dharampal. The complainant pleaded for mercy and assured them that she would bring all the demanded articles on her next visit to parental house. It is further stated that after passing of some days, she along with accused Bhagat was taken to Delhi. It is further stated that accused Bhagat used to level false allegations by stating that she used to see the boys and remained outside the house despite the fact she was not allowed to talk even to a lady or her landlady. It is also stated that accused Bhagat used to beat her and also instigate his brother to beat the complainant on some false pretext.
4. It is further stated that once her husband sent all her gold and silver jewellery comprising of two gold bangles, one gold ring, one gold Hansli, one gold earring, one gold Tika, one pair of silver, one silver Tagdi etc. to the matrimonial house. When she enquired as to why he did so, he answered" Jinki thi unko de aaya hu". It is further stated that whenever she used to request to make phone calls at parental house, her husband used to tell " wahan par tera koi yaar baitha hai, jo tum waha par phone karne ko kehti ho". Despite all these, she used to remain silent to hear such filthy words. It is further stated that in March 1997, she went to her parental home to celebrate the first Holi after the marriage, her husband reiterated the demands of his family members and told in case, said articles were not arranged then there was no need to return the matrimonial house.
5. It is further stated that even after passing of three months, no one from the matrimonial house came to take her back. Thereafter, she told her parents about the demands of her in laws. Then her father and brother approached the father in law of complainant's sisterinlaw and requested him to intervene into the matter. The in laws of complainant got angry on seeking intervention into the matter. The complainant's husband also got angry and refused to take the complainant back and took her back only after her father gave Rs. 10,000/. Thereafter, they started residing at a rented premises. After some days, complainant's elder sisterinlaw came and told her to bring deficient money of Rs.10,000/ from the parental house for the purchase of a house. The complainant refused to the said demand,due to which, FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 4/ 22 accused Bhagat and Dharmpal beaten her mercilessly. The father in law Julfi Singh told that accused Bhagat had merely beaten her but in their case, they used to remove the bottom of their sister in law. Despite all these, the complainant remained silent.
6. It is further stated that that her husband had taken one room set on rent. Accused Bhagat was made to sleep on the same bed by her husband. When she objected to it, her husband told that he would make her sleep with 10 men and this way, both her husband and brother in law used to beat her on some pretext or the other. It is further stated that on 08.01.1998, the husband of complainant was away to village leaving behind complainant and brother in law Bhagat. When the complainant's husband did not return even by 10.00 pm, accused Bhagat tried to molest her. She disapproved his advances, pushed him aside and was forced to wait for her husband at the doorstep. At about 11.00 pm, her husband returned, she narrated the entire incident to him but instead of confronting his brother, he started scolding the complainant and lit her Saree but complainant somehow managed to douse the fire by pouring water kept in the bucket.
7. It is further stated that on 01.02.1998 the marriage of complainant's sisterin law and on 07.02.1998 the marriage of complainant's brother was to be solemnized. Her husband refused to send her for attending her brother's marriage. On learning about the same, complainant's brother came to meet them. Thereafter, on 28.01.1998, complainant's younger brother, father and other relatives also came to the matrimonial house for the invite but complainant's husband refused to let the complainant go for her brother's wedding despite their repeated request. In such a situation, the complainant decided to go her brother's wedding along with her father and other relatives. It is stated that the complainant was not allowed to take her jewelleries and Saree.
8. It is further stated that in September, 1978, the brother of complainant went to the accused's house, who was not found there. On inquiry from the landlord, he learned that her husband had vacated the room and left for unknown destination. It FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 5/ 22 is further stated that the complainant as well as her family members were not told about vacating the rented room. After much inquiry, it was learnt through tempo driver that belongings have been shifted at Dilshad Garden. On further inquiry, the school address of accused was traced and from there, it was learnt that the accused was transferred to some other school at Dilshad Garden. It is further stated that in December, 1998, complainant and her brother went to the house of accused at Dilshad Garden for talks. The complainant inquired as to what he wanted then accused told her that his family members were getting him remarried and he was getting Rs. 2 Lacs as dowry. The complainant inquired about her dowry articles, then accused informed that said articles have been gifted to his sister in her marriage. The accused refused to return her 10th12th marksheets and told her to do whatever she wanted to do. Thereafter, the complainant returned to the parental house and has been living there since 28.01.1998. Later on, a complaint was lodged before the police. On the basis of statement of complainant, a case under section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
9. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and they were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under section 208 Cr.PC. Arguments on the point of charge heard, vide order dated 14.01.2003, charge under section 498A/34 IPC against all accused persons and under section 406/34 IPC against accused Julfi Singh, Chameli Devi and Dharampal was directed to be framed. The charge was framed on 07.07.2003, to which accused persons individually pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred on behalf of accused persons, which was partially allowed. The accused Dharampal was sent up for the trial whereas other accused persons were discharged.
10. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In order to FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 6/ 22 prove its case, the Prosecution produced following six witnesses :
(i) ASI Anwar Ahmad, Duty Officer, appeared as PW1 and proved copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A,
(ii) Smt. Manju, Complainant, appeared as PW2 and proved the complaint Ex. PW2/A, list of produced articles Ex. PW2/B, list of remaining articles Ex. PW2/C and her statement Ex. PW2/D,
(iii) Ct. Randhir Singh appeared as PW 3,
(iv) Sh. Nanak Chand, father of complainant, appeared as PW 4 and proved seizure memo of marriage photographs vide Ex. PW4/A, photographs marked A1 to A8(colly) and bills Ex PW4/B(colly),
(v) Sh. Devender Kumar, brother of complainant, appeared as PW 5,
(vi) Sh. Raj Kumar, brother of complainant, appeared as PW 6.
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused under section 313 Cr.PC. The statement of accused was recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to him, to which he denied as false and incorrect and claimed to have been falsely implicated. He pleaded that complainant has filed a false case against him just to pressurize for the divorce. It was submitted that the complainant had left the matrimonial house with her gold jewelleries and costly clothes to attend her brother's marriage and never came back. Thereafter, he had filed a divorce petition and on 26.07.2007, the divorce petition was decreed in his favour. The accused preferred to lead evidence in his defence and examined himself as DW1 after seeking due permission on the application under section 315 CrPC. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for Final Arguments.
12. During the course of final arguments, following arguments were made on behalf of the accused :
(i) that the accused has been granted decree of divorce, which falsifies the claims of complainant in respect to cruelties being committed upon her. The said order has attained finality being unchallenged, FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 7/ 22
(ii) that the allegations of demand are against the accused persons, who have already been discharged and no allegation of demand has made against accused Dharmpal,
(iii) that no medical evidence in respect to alleged beatings and other physical cruelties has been placed on record,
(iv) that no complaint was made to police or any other authority despite serious allegations of continuous torture and harassment,
(v) that testimonies of PWs can not be relied upon being exaggerated, improved and contradictory,
(vi) that allegations are general and vague in nature,
(vii)that during crossexamination, it has been admitted that complainant was brought to her parental house by her father and other relatives and not turned out of the matrimonial house in furtherance of dowry demand,
(viii)that the complainant has already received her dowry articles, hence, no question of criminal breach of trust arises,
(ix) that through defence evidence accused has been able to prove his plea of defence.
13. The arguments of the prosecution are mentioned below:
(a) that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt with the testimonies of PWs and other evidence,
(b) that the allegations against the accused are specific,
(c) that the testimonies of PWs are consistent and they have supported each other on material particulars.
14. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through the entire record with their assistance. Before appreciating the evidence on record, let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions given U/s 498 A /406 IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 8/ 22 woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life,limb or health,whether mental or physical or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or(2) on account of failure by such woman or any person or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand Section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust. For offence under this section the prosecution must prove :
(i) that the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it,
(ii) that he (a) misappropriated it or(b) converted it to his own use or
(c) used it or (d) disposed of it
15. In the light of aforesaid legal provisions, the court would now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain if the alleged acts of accused amount to cruelty in terms of provision given U/s 498 A IPC and if he is guilty of criminal breach of trust. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly, the complainant has built her case on explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J page 3019 , the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498A IPC observed that harassment FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 9/ 22 to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must have the nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation(b). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed that cruelty under section 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
16. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of aforesaid legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. The testimony of complainant Smt. Manju/PW2 is reproduced and appreciated as below: (16.1) She has deposed that after marriage, she was taken to her matrimonial house in Shranpur, where her in laws taunted by saying as to why all the dowry articles were left at the rented house, Rohini. It be observed that mere taunting does not amount to cruelty in terms of explanation attached to section 498A IPC. She has further deposed that her father in law gave her a blow with Kulhari but she was saved and it caused injuries to her husband on his left arm. When he started bleeding, the father in law let off her on the assurance of bringing said articles from the rented accommodation. It be observed that despite such serious allegations, the matter was not reported to the police.
(16.2) She has further deposed that her brother in law ( devar) Bhagat used to level false allegations against her that she used to see the boys and roam outside the house and got her beaten on the basis of said allegations. She has further deposed that she was not allowed to talk to any lady or even landlady but she tolerated all the cruelties made by her husband. It be observed that allegations are against accused Bhagat FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 10/ 22 Singh, who has already been discharged. The other allegation is general in nature without any specific detail. During crossexamination, she has admitted that these facts are not mentioned in her statement Ex PW2/D. (16.3)She has further deposed that whenever she used to request to allow her to make call to the parents, accused used to taunt by saying " waha par tera koi yaar baitha hai, jo tum waha par phone karne ko kehti ho". In this regard, it is noticeable that allegations are general in nature without specific details. The allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. During crossexamination, she has admitted that these facts are not mentioned in Ex PW2/D. (16.4) She has further deposed that in march 1997, she was to come to the parental home to celebrate first Holi after the marriage, the accused told her bring all the articles as demanded by his family members. Her father in law told her to bring Rs. 3 lacs and gold set having weight of 3 tolas, in case she wanted to come back. She was also told that they would kill her and her husband shall be remarried if the articles were not brought . In this regard, it be observed that allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. The allegation pertains to father in law of the complainant, who has been discharged. During crossexamination, she has admitted that these facts are not mentioned in Ex PW2/D. (16.5) She has further deposed that her husband did not come to take her back then she disclosed to her parents that accused persons had asked her to return only with cash of Rs. 3 lacs and 5 tola gold. On learning this, her father called her father in law to take her back. The father in law came, whom her father gave Rs. 10,000/ and requested to take her back to the matrimonial house. She was taken back to the matrimonial house but, after reaching there, her father in law, husband and his brothers again started beating and torturing her on account of nonfulfillment of their demand. Her husband threatened to leave her in the village alone and told that no one would come to know about her whereabouts. In this respect, it is notable that these allegations are general in nature without there being specific details and are not supported by corroborative evidence. It be observed that contradictory facts FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 11/ 22 with regard payment of Rs. 10,000/ are mentioned.
(16.6) She has further deposed that on the occasion of engagement of her brother, she was not permitted to attend the engagement ceremony. She again said initially her husband was not permitting but on her request, he and herself went to attend the engagement ceremony. Accused persons deliberately fixed the date of marriage of their sister Guddi (sister in law) prior to the date fixed for the marriage of her brother so that she could not attend the marriage of her brother. She has further deposed that her father and in laws of her sister in law talked to her husband and her father also requested to send her to attend the marriage. But her husband told that he would send her sarangpur and it would be decided later on as to whether she would attend the marriage of her brother or not. Thereafter she alongwith her father and brother returned to her parents house and at that time she did not bring any of her articles. It be observed that in complaint Ex PW2/D, many of these facts are not found mentioned. PW2/complainant has improved while recording her examination in chief.
(16.7) She has further deposed that she was informed about the shifting of accused from Rohini to Dilshad Garden. This fact was revealed when they went to have talk with the accused at the rented accommodation. They came to know that accused had shifted to Dilshad Garden, where the complainant went to talk to accused along with her brother and uncle. She inquired from the accused as to what he wanted then accused informed that his family was getting him remarried and was getting dowry of 3 lacs. The complainant inquired about her dowry articles then accused informed that the same were given in the marriage of her sisterinlaw. It be observed that the allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence.
17. During cross examination, the claims of complainant turned out to be false and incorrect. She has testified that after marriage she stayed at matrimonial house at Sarang Pur Disst. Bulandshehar for two days only thereafter, she lived at Rohini, Delhi. She has further testified that she cannot tell the dates when they stayed at Sarangpur. These admissions on behalf of complainant go on to prove that no such FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 12/ 22 events as mentioned in her complaint had actually taken place. She has further testified that at the time of lodging the complaint, it was read over to her. She has admitted that allegations levelled against accused Bhagat are not mentioned in complaint Ex PW2/D. She has admitted that when they came back to Delhi, she used to visit her parental house but she did not tell either to her mother or father that she was maltreated or beaten by her husband and Dever. The claims of complainant are further falsified during further crossexamination, where she has admitted that accused used to go to school in the evening shift. She has testified that accused used to keep her under lock and key and this fact was told to the police but in fact, this fact does not find mention in Ex PW2/D.
18. It be observed that the complainant has testified that she was beaten by the accused 20/30 times during the period of her stay but admitted that she did not get herself medically examined or she went to any doctor despite receiving injuries. She has also testified that accused used to give her beating with Dandas and her hands used to swollen with injury. She has further testified that she cannot give the date of any incident when she was beaten. The claims of complainant in this regard appear to be impracticable. PW4/father of complainant has also testified that he did not get his daughter medically examined and no medical documents were produced before the IO by him.
19. The falsity of allegations is further proved during further crossexamination. She has testified that she does not know that any case was filed by the accused for divorce before District and Sessions Judge II Bulandsehar or the decree for divorce was passed against her. She has denied that she was telling lie and that decree of divorce was passed against her on 26.7.2007. She has further denied that she filed an affidavit before that Hon'ble Court and appeared in the proceedings however she has admitted that affidavit, certified copy of the affidavit is Ex. PW 2/DA, bearing her signatures at portion A. She has further admitted that she came back to her parent's house at the time of marriage of her brother and never went back to her matrimonial house after that. She has denied that accused came back to take her but she refused FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 13/ 22 to go with him.
20. The testimony of complainant's father Sh. Nanak Chand/PW4 is reproduced and appreciated as below: (20.1) He has deposed that his daughter was not looking happy when she came back to parental house for the first time after the marriage. He has further deposed that when she came back next time, she told that her in laws were harassing and demanding Rs. 3 Lacs and five Tola gold and and other articles. Thereafter, he called accused Dhrampal at his house and gave Rs. 10,000/ in cash after taking loan and sent the complainant to the matrimonial house. He has further deposed that complainant told that if their demands were she shall not be allowed to live at the matrimonial house and shall be killed. It be observed that the allegation levelled are based on hearsay information. The court has already discussed above that the allegations are not supported by the evidence.
(20.2) He has further deposed that before 07.02.1998 when he alongwith his younger son Devender Kumar went to Rohini at rented accommodation of the accused to invite for his son's marriage. His daughter told him that she might not be allowed to visit her brother's marriage by her in laws. He has further deposed that since he had no money to comply with the demands of in laws of his daughter as they wanted Rs. 3 Lacs at that time, he called accused Dharam Pal and tried to convince him and after much persuasion, he got ready to accept Rs. 10,000/. It be observed that these allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence and there is contradictory statement in respect to payment of Rs. 10,000/.
(20.3) He has further deposed that after the marriage of his son, he made search for the accused Dharampal as he did not attend the marriage of his son, he also came to know that accused had left his resident at Rohini. During his search, he came to know that accused had started residing at Dilshad Garden. Since the accused had never come at his house to take his daughter, who herself alongwith her younger brother Devender Kumar went at residence of the accused at Dilshad Garden. His daughter tried hard to convince the accused that she wanted to live with him but FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 14/ 22 accused abruptly refused to listen her and instead told that he did not want to live with her anymore and he would like to remarry. The court has already discussed above that these allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. (20.4) He has further deposed that thereafter, he tried to mediate between the accused and his daughter with the help of one person known to the accused but the said person informed them that accused has already got married, therefore, no fruitful result would come. Thereafter, the present complaint was lodged. It be observed that these facts do not find mention in the statement of complainant.
21. During cross examination, he has admitted that in the divorce petition of accused, his daughter had filed written statement but due to non appearance, ex parte divorce decree on the ground of desertion was passed in favour of the accused, which they did not challenge. He has further deposed that he did not contact any neighbour of the accused and inquired about the cruelty committed by the accused on his daughter. These admissions on the part of PW4 go on to suggest that complainant was not subjected to harassment in furtherance of dowry demand. He did not tell the date of any of the incident which happened with his daughter in furtherance of demand of dowry. He has denied that the accused returned all the articles of dowry but Ex PW2/B clearly shows the return of dowry articles before CAW cell by the accused. He has further denied that no such incident as mentioned by him in his statement had happened with his daughter.
22. The testimony of complainant's brother Sh. Devender Kumar/PW5 is reproduced and appreciated as below: He has deposed that complainant told him that the accused used to demand dowry from her and committed cruelty on her. The accused also demanded Rs. 3 Lacs and 50 gms gold and in case of nonfulfillment of the demand, he threatened to remarry. He has further testified that his father requested the accused and gave him Rs. 10,000/ in cash. He also testified that accused and his relatives tortured his sister Manju regarding the demand of dowry.
23. During cross examination, claims made by him become doubtful when he FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 15/ 22 deposed that he cannot tell the date on which the accused demanded Rs. 3 Lacs and 50 gms gold and whether his sister told them about the date when this demand was made. He has testified that his sister did not tell any date of cruelty or threat of re marriage. He also testified that he did not remember whether he told the IO about the dates in question. He has stated that complainant was got medically examined but this fact is in contradiction with those mentioned by the complainant and their father, who have admitted that no medical examination was done. He has admitted that no complaint was lodged with the police. He denied that he was deposing falsely and no such incident had happened with his sister as narrated by him.
24. It is pertinent to mention that the other brother of the complainant has not deposed anything against the accused. He rather denied giving any statement to the police. Even during crossexamination by Ld. APP, nothing substantial could be elicited to disprove his claims. He has denied that some days after marriage, his sister called on to his home regarding the beating and ill treatment by her in laws and husband. He has further denied that the accused had demanded gold articles as dowry and giving of Rs. 10,000/ was given to the accused by his father in his presence. He has denied that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the accused in order to save them from prosecution.
25. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the complainant was made to CAW Cell on 21.04.1999 more than 09 months after the alleged incident of being turned out from the matrimonial home and about three years of marriage despite claiming that cruelties were being committed soon after the marriage for the reasons of nonfulfillment demand of dowry Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of the coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result or deliberations and consultations, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 16/ 22 it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 577) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao). In the present case also, no explanation worth the name for delay in filing the Complaint with the police has come on record. Rather, it is established on the record that no complaint was filed with the police despite serious allegations of cruelties and harassment. No independent witnesses have been examined to prove the allegations of beatings. It seems impracticable that the complainant would continue to live with the accused despite threats to her life.
26. In defence evidence, accused has examined himself as DW1 and testified that he never committed cruelty upon the complainant rather she was cruel to him for his family members. He was working as a teacher therefore never demanded any dowry articles before or after marriage nor he demanded any gold and Rs. 3,00,000/from the complainant and her father. He has further testified that complainant was having incurable disease and she never told him about that. He has further testified that on 18.01.98 complainant went to her parents house with her brother and father for the marriage of her brother and took away along with her ornaments and sarees etc. He has further testified that he told her to come back the house for the marriage of his sister but she refused and got a false case registered against him and his family. He has further testified that they have already given back all the dowry articles. He also testified that he filed a divorce petition Ex CW1/A against the complainant in Bulandshehar District court and decree of divorce was granted in his favour .
27. It be observed that during cross examination, except giving suggestions nothing substantial could be elicited in order to disprove the version of accused. He has denied that complainant was not cruel to him and his family members. He has further denied that he and his family members were cruel to complainant and demand of dowry used to be made from the complainant by him and his family members. He has further denied that Rs. 3 lacs cash and gold were demanded from the complainant.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 17/ 22 charge u/s 498A IPC is not established against the accused .
28. It be observed that accused has also been charged under section 406 IPC for having misappropriated the istridhan articles of the complainant to his own wish. In order to to establish the charge of Section 406 IPC, the prosecution was under the obligation to establish the ingredients of section 405 IPC thus, it was required to be established that an entrustment was made in favour of the accused and he was having dominion over the articles of the complainant and with dishonest intentions the articles entrusted to him, have been misappropriated.
29. It be also observed that in the present case, there is no investigation regarding source of dowry articles. In the judgment of Narender Kumar & Anr.Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) I (2008) DMC 337, it has been held by the Hon'ble court that the court must be very cautious during trial of offences under section 498A/406 IPC as in all such cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by the police. Police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about claims made by the complainant. This all results into gross misuse of provision of law and investigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial and other evidence in respect of claims made by complainant. The courts should always be careful in considering credibility and truthfulness of statement of complainant and relatives.
30. In the present case also, no investigation regarding source of dowry articles has been con ducted. During crossexamination, PW4 has deposed that he had spent 45 Lacs in the marriage, which includes the cost of ornaments and other goods but he again said that he did not purchase the ornaments. He has testified that he did not remember whether he informed the department about the purchase of these articles and also about spending money on the marriage of his daughter. He denied that accused had already returned all the articles and he inflated the list of dowry articles. He denied that the complainant had already brought with her all the ornaments and costly clothes for her brother's marriage. DW1 has also testified that FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 18/ 22 he had already returned all the articles but this stand remained unrebutted there being no crossexamination.
31. It be observed that complainant has deposed that at the time of marriage, dowry articles such as jewellery, clothes, furniture, utensils, fridge, T.V. Scooter, washing machine, dinner set, crockery set and valuable clothes, consisting of 21 Sarees of herself. The jewellery consisted of one gold chain with pendent, one pair of gold jhumki, one gold ring, one pair of silver pajeb, one silver key ring given by the parents and two gold kangan, one gold hasli, one pair of gold earrings, one gold tika, one gold ring, One silver pair pajeb, one silver taghri gifted by her in laws side. She has further deposed that her father also gave two gold ring, one gold chain and one wrist watch to her husband and all the dowry articles were entrusted to her husband Dhrampal and kept in his possession in rented accommodation in Delhi. It be observed that no evidence has been brought on record to prove the source of said dowry articles. It further observed that the description of these articles are not mentioned in her complaint Ex PW2/A. She has further deposed that her husband handed over all her jewelleries to his family members at Sharanpur. It be observed that no evidence is found on the record to substantiate this allegation. PW2,4 & 5 have testified that a sum of Rs.10,000/ was given to the accused but there in no corroborative evidence to substantiate this allegation.
32. It be observed that the list of dowry articles Ex PW2/B &C are not witnessed by either family members of the parties. The said fact casts a serious doubt over the genuineness of the list. A bare perusal of Ex PW2/B discloses that the accused had handed over dowry articles to the complainant before CAW cell against receiving in the presence of four witnesses, which is duly acknowledged by the complainant hence no misappropriation is found on the part of accused. In view of the fact that essential ingredients of section 405 IPC are not established and therefore no case u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused.
33. In view of aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced on record to secure the conviction of accused .
FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 19/ 22 Accordingly, accused is acquitted from the charges framed against under section 498A/ 406 IPC .
34. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05.01.2015 (MONA TARDI KERKETTA) MM02 , MAHILA COURTS TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 20/ 22 FIR No. 102/08 P.S. Timarpur U/s. 498A/34/406 IPC State Vs. Julfi Singh & ors.
05.01.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State
Accused Dharmpal on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. R.C. Chopra Other accused persons have been discharged Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, accused is acquitted from the charge framed u/s 498A/406 IPC.
Put up for furnishing of bail bond under section 437A Cr.PC. on 09.01.2015 (Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 21/ 22 FIR No. 280/99 P.S.Sarai Rohilla U/s. 498A/406 IPC State Vs. Julfi Singh & Ors.
09.01.2015 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Dharmpal on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. R.C. Chopra. Other accused persons have been discharged.
Previous bail bonds are cancelled, sureties are discharged. Documents if any, be returned against receiving and endorsement if any, be cancelled.
In compliance of provision given under section 437A Cr.PC., fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/ with one surety has been filed, attested and accepted. The bail bond shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 22/ 22 FIR NO. 280/99 PS: SARAI ROHILLA STATE VS. JULFI SINGH & ORS. 23/ 22