Delhi District Court
Fir No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar Etc. on 7 October, 2015
FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No.223/02
PS- Sarita Vihar
UID No: 02406R0253792002
STATE
Versus
MOHD. AKHTAR
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Date of Institution of case : 18.10.2002
b) Date of Judgment : 07.10.2015
c) Offence complained of : 498-A /406/34 IPC
d) Name of accused, : (1) Mohd. Akhtar
Sh. Mohd. Anwar
R/o Plot No. 50, Hazrat
Apartment, Yakutpura, Baroda
Gujrat.
(2) Khurshid Begum
W/o Mohd. Anwar
R/o Plot No. 50, Hazrat
Apartment, Yakutpura, Baroda
Gujarat.
Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 1 of 9
FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc.
(3) Bablu @ Ballu S/o Mohd.
Anwar
R/o Plot No. 50, Hazrat
Aptt., Yakutpara,
Baroda, Gujarat
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mohd. Akhtar, Smt. Khurshid Begum, Mohd. Anwar Mansoori and Mohd. Ballu have been sent to face trial on the allegations that they had subjected the complainant to cruelty in-connection with demand of dowry and stridhan articles of the complainant Smt. Shaheen Mansoori with their common intention & refused to return the same when demanded and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC. A complaint was filed in this respect by complainant Smt. Shaheen Mansoori on the basis of which FIR was registered. Accused were apprehended and later on they were released on bail. Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 2 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court by the IO upon which cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court.
2. Charge for offence punishable U/s-
498A/34 IPC and U/s-406/34 IPC was framed against all the accused vide order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Court of Ld. Predecessor which was explained to the accused persons in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. During trial, accused Mohd. Anwar Mansoori was expired and proceedings against him were abated.
3. Prosecution has produced four witnesses. Sh.
Usmaan Bhai had expired on 04.01.2008 and constable Pale Ram had also expired and were accordingly dropped from list of witnesses. Smt. Chaman, Sh. Nazeer Mohd. and Iqbal Patangwala were also dropped Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 3 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc. from list of witnesses as they remain unserved through office of DCP (Legal Cell). Accordingly, the witnesses namely PHC Veera Singh, PS City Vadodra and PC Deenu Bhai, PS City Vadodra were dropped from list of witnesses on the statement of Ld. APP as they were merely formal witnesses. PW Shaheen Mansoori/ Complainant was the only material witness. The matter was amicably compromised between the parties in the Mediation Center during the pendency of the case. However, parties failed to act upon the terms of the settlement and thus, the trial was conducted. The statements of all accused were recorded U/s 313 CrPC. The accused did not want to lead any independent evidence in defence and thus, the matter was listed for final arguments.
4. Final arguments heard on behalf of all the parties. Carefully perused the record. Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 4 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc.
5. Section 498A IPC is reproduced here for ready reference:
"Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Cruelty means--
a] any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health [whether mental or physical] of the woman; or b] harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
6. A bare perusal of section 498 A IPC shows that, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated U/s. 498 A are of much higher Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 5 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc. and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage. In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by section 498 A IPC , the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful' that is intentional. So to invoke provisions of section 498 A IPC, the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much graver nature than that causing grave injury or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic, persistent and willful acts perpetrated with a view to make the life of the woman Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 6 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc. so burdensome or in-supportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life.
7. The complainant got married to the accused Mohd. Akhtar on 02.02.2001 as per Muslim rites and customs at Mathura, U.P. She had in her compliant, alleged that all the accused used to taunt her on petty issues and also raised demand of dowry. The accused Mohd. Akhar used to beat complainant. They used to demand one refrigerator, washing machine and Almirah from her parents. They would restrain her from going out and lock her inside the room. When She made complained about this to her mother in law and father in law, they did not listen to her but would beat complainant herself. She would not be given proper food and care in the matrimonial house. When she informed about this to her parents, they filed a case against the accused person at PS Sarita Vihar. There Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 7 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc. are several other allegations of dowry demand and cruelty, however, no specific date or time of such incident has been mentioned by the complainant. The compliant is already silent, qua the specific role of each accused in the alleged incidents.
8. When the complainant deposed before the Court, she did not narrate the alleged incidents of the cruelty. Ld. APP sought permission to cross- examine this witness and put contents of the complaint as suggestions to the witness Smt. Shaheen. However, there is no independence material on record to corroborate the testimony of Smt. Shaheen. Other witnesses are merely formal in nature. In these circumstances, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove any allegations of cruelty, dowry demand and criminal breach of trust against any of the accused. Accordingly, the accused Mohd. Akhtar, Khurshid Begum and Ballu are acquitted for offence U/s 498A/34 Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 8 of 9 FIR No.223/02 State vs Mohd. Akhtar etc. IPC.
9. Qua offence U/s 406/34 IPC, the prosecution has failed to establish the entrustment of Stridhan articles to any of the accused, its demand by the complainant or refusal of the accused to return such article after demand. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of this offence. Accordingly, the accused Mohd. Akhtar, Khurshid Begum and Ballu are acquitted for offence U/s 406/34 IPC.
10. Now to come up for compliance of S. 437A CrPC.
Announced in the open (Shivani Chauhan) court on 07.10.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court,SED/Saket New Delhi/07.10.2015 Pronounced in open court on 07.10.2015 Page no 9 of 9