Delhi District Court
State vs . Joga Singh on 23 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, ( MAHILA COURT - SED )
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Serial No. 124/08
Unique Case Identification No. 02406R0039501999
State Vs. Joga Singh
FIR No. 683/97
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/S U/s 498A/406 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of institution 12.03.1999
2. Date of commission of offence On and after 13.11.1999
3. Name of the complainant Jaswant Kaur D/o sH.
Jogender Singh
4. Name of the accused Joga Singh S/o Bajasingh/ R/o
WZA2/118, Hastaz Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
5. Nature of offence complained of U/s 498A/406 IPC.
6. Plea of the accused persons Accused persons pleaded
not guilty
7. Date reserved for order 13.02.2012.
8. Final Order Convicted u/s 498A IPC
9. Date of such order 23.02.2012.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Briefly, the marriage between the parties are solemnized on FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 1 13.11.1999. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but the accused and his family members were dissatisfied with the same. The accused demanded more dowry in terms of cash of Rs. 10,000/, Rs. 8,000/ etc and started harassing complainant and tortured her both physically and mentally. Due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house and was forced to take refuge in the house of her mother. The entire jewellery articles of the complainant have been kept by the in laws and the husband. On the complaint of the complainant FIR was registered.
2. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C formal charge was framed against the accused on 21.03.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to establish its case relied upon following witnesses.
PW 1 ASI Sunil Yadav who was the duty officer
4. PW2 Smt. Jashwant Kaur is the complainant. She deposed that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. Initially she was kept well in the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the accused started demanding Rs. 10,000/ to start a new business against which her father gave Rs. 8,000/. Her father took loan from a relative to make the payment to the FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 2 accused. The accused did not start the business but spent the money on liquor. He started harassing and assaulting the complainant. He even refused to cohabit with the complainant. He once poured kerosene oil to burn her. Even while she was pregnant, she was not provided proper food and even beat her. Health of the complainant started deteriorating and she was sent to her parental house where a son was born to her. The accused came to meet her only after fifteen days and took her back. Even there she was not provided with food. She lived with the accused for six months and later came back to her parental house. The accused never came to take her back and later filed a complaint at CAW Cell. She demanded her stridhan articles but only few articles were returned in broken condition. Some articles were recovered from his house and some from the house of his maternal grand mother.
In her cross examination she admitted that no dowry was demanded before marriage but later a demand of dowry was raised. She also stated that accused worked only for six months after marriage. She also stated that whenever the accused used to beat her, she was rescued by her mother in law. She does not remember the date, month or year when the demand of Rs. 10,000/ was raised. She gave Rs. 10,000/ after taking the same from her father. She left the matrimonial house while her son was six months old. She tried to reconcile with the accused but he was adamant. She denied that she was not inclined to go back to the matrimonial house as she had solemnized another marriage FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 3
5. PW H.C. Jai Bhagwan joined investigation along with SI Vijay Kumar and ct. Satpal.
6. PW Ct. Udaiveer seized the case property and prepared list of the same and handed over the same in the court as directed by the court.
7. PW3 Smt. Jageer Kaur is the mother of the complainant. She corroborated the testimony of the complainant in all material particulars and reiterated about the demand of Rs. 10,000/ raised by the accused from her daughter.
In her cross examination she stated that they had paid Rs. 10,000/ and Rs. 8,000/ on two occasions to the accused after taking the same from neighbour.
8. PW4 Joginder Singh father of the complainant similarly corroborated the testimony of complainant and her mother and reiterated the demand of Rs. 10,000/ and Rs. 8,000/ being raised by the accused.
9. PW Ct. Satyapal assisted IO in the investigation of the case.
10. PW Inspector Vijay Kumar is the IO who got recovered the dowry articles of the complainant, arrested the accused and after completion of FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 4 investigation filed challan in the court.
11. The prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for statement of accused. The statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated without oath that complainant and her mother were willing that he should reside with them at their house but he refused to live with them and that is why he had been falsely implicated in the case. He pleaded his innocence. He did not want to lead defence evidence.
12. The case was argued by the Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused. It has been argued by the Ld. APP that complainant had been a victim of physical violence and mental torture for the demand of dowry by the accused and the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is liable to be convicted. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story in all material particulars.
13. On the contrary, it is argued by counsel for the accused that there are no specific allegations against the accused and the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Prosecution witnesses have given contradictory versions. Moreover the accused has already returned the entire articles of the complainant. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the guilt of the accused cannot be proved as no specific date or FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 5 time has been mentioned when the alleged demand was ever raised or was fulfilled. The accused deserves acquittal.
14. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused persons and bestowed my considerable thoughts to the material placed before me. In my considered opinion, the three material witnesses examined by the prosecution are complainant PW2, her mother PW3 and father PW4. The complainant has alleged serious allegations of cruelty coupled with demand of dowry. She has stated that a demand of Rs. 10,000/ was raised on one occasion and thereafter another demand of Rs. 8,000/ was raised which was fulfilled by her father by borrowing the same. Her testimony is corroborated by the testimony of PW3 mother of the complainant and PW4 father of the complainant. All these witnesses have been consistent in their deposition about the said demand. The complainant has also alleged that she has demanded the stridhan articles back from the accused but the same were returned in broken condition. The extent of cruelty committed by the accused is evident from the fact that he did not spare the complainant even at the time of pregnancy. He even neglected his child and has never maintained him. Partial articles of the complainant were recovered from the house of the accused and the remaining articles were recovered from the house of the maternal grand mother of the accused. . This also goes to prove that the accused had the intention of not returning the articles and thereby prevented the FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 6 complainant of the use of her articles as there was otherwise no occasion for him to have kept the articles belonging to complainant in the house of his maternal grand mother. Recovery of articles from the maternal grand mother's house is also proved by the deposition of H.C. Bhagwan as well as that of the PW8 that of the IO. The accused has not specifically denied the allegations levelled against him. The complainant on the contrary has succeeded in proving the case by stating on oath in court as well as by passing the test of cross examination. Therefore, in my considered opinion the offence u/s 498A IPC is made out against the accused.
15. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, the complainant has herself admitted that she has received partial articles. As far as the claim of other articles is concerned, she has neither filed any receipts nor bills to substantiate her claims. Even other witnesses i.e. Father and mother of the complainant have not been able to prove that the alleged articles were ever given in marriage or the same have been misappropriated by the accused. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the offence u/s 406 IPC for which the benefit of doubts goes in favour of the accused. He is accordingly acquitted for the said offence.
Now to come up for arguments on sentence on 24.02.2012 Announced in open court ( POOJA TALWAR ) on 23.02.2012. M.M/MAHILA COURT/SED Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 7 FIR No. 683/97 PS Ambedkar Nagar State Vs. Joga Singh 24.02.2012.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present Ld. APP for State.
Accused/ Convict Joga Singh with counsel
It has been argued by the counsel for the convict/ accused that convict has been facing trial since 1997. He is is a young man of about 40 years of age and is sole bread earner of his family comprising of old and ailing parents and a younger sister of marriageable age. He is a driver by profession and barely earns his livelihood through the same. He has already remained in custody for 40 days. Moreover, the divorce has already been effected between the parties and the complainant has also re-married. The same fact has been admitted by the father of the complainant in his cross examination. A lenient view may be taken against him and he be released on probation On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. APP that convict is the husband of the complainant and there are serious allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry. He does not deserve to be released on probation.
I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. In my view the accused has already undergone the ordeal of trial for 15 long years and has also remained in Jail for 40 days before he was granted bail. Irreparable loss will be caused to his family in case he is sent behind bars and there is no FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 8 other male earning member in the family.
I rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Ram Pratap Vs State of Rajasthan in 2002 Crl.L.J. 502 wherein it was held that where convict faces trial for 17 years, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be given to him.
Even otherwise, the complainant has already remarried whereas the convict has not married again in spite of being of young age of 40 years due to the trial of the present case which has taken considerable time. Therefore, I grant him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The convict is directed to furnish probation bond of good conduct and behaviour in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- for six months. He is further directed to maintain good behaviour throughout the period of six months.
(POOJA TALWAR) Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court/SED/Saket/N.D FIR No. 683/97 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 9