Delhi District Court
State vs . Dalbir Singh on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
STATE VS. Dalbir Singh
FIR NO: 66/2010
P. S. CWC Nanakpura
Case ID No.: 02405R0143802012
Date of institution of case :15.03.2012
Date on which case reserved for judgment :27.02.2015
Date of judgment :31.03.2015
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Ms. Vandna Chauhan, Ld. APP for State.
Sh. Atul Ahlawat, Ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 18.02.1999
b) Offence complained of : U/S 498-A/406 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Raj Bala
d/o Sh. Kanwar Sain
r/o H. No. 295, village
Devli, New Delhi-110062.
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : Dalbir Singh
local & permanent residence s/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
r/o H. No. 63, village
Hamidpur, P.S. Alipur,
New Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : Accused is falsely
implicated.
f) Final order : Accused is convicted for
the offence u/s 498-A IPC
but acquitted from the
offence u/s 406 IPC.
FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 1/46
St vs. Dalbir Singh
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Dalbir Singh has been charged for the offences u/s 498-A/406 IPC on the ground that from the date of marriage of accused Dalbir Singh with complainant Smt. Rajbala, he subjected the complainant to cruelty in-connection- with demand of dowry and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of stridhan articles of complainant.
2. The prosecution has examined six witnesses on its behalf to prove its case.
3. Pw1 is complainant Rajbala who stated in her examination-in-
chief dated 28.06.2013 that she was married to accused Dalbir Singh on 18.02.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and sufficient dowry articles were given by her parents in the marriage and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial house at Hamidpur, P.S. Alipur, New Delhi, where her two brothers-in-law (Jeths) namely Jagbir and Satbir, their wives Devki and Archna, their children and her mother-in-law were residing alongwith her husband in a joint family. She further stated that her father had spent about Rs. 8-9 lacs in her marriage and had given all the istridhan articles like motorcycle, fridge, T.V., washing machine etc. and jewelery articles.
4. Pw1 alleged that her husband and Jeths Jagbir and Satbir FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 2/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh and her Jethanis(sisters-in-law) used to beat her as they were not satisfied with the articles and they used to demand Rs. Two lacs and a car and used to taunt her that she belonged to a poor family. She alleged that they had started beating her from the very next day of the marriage but she kept on tolerating their atrocities in order to save her marriage. She further deposed that her husband used to give her electric shocks by compelling her to catch hold of live electric wires in front of the family members.
5. Pw1 alleged that in August 1999, her husband had beaten her badly for demand of Rs. Two lacs and took her to her parental home and left her there but after few months, he came with his brothers to their house on the call of her father and took her to matrimonial house after her father gave Rs. 20,000/- to her husband. She further alleged that the behaviour of her husband and in-laws did not change and they started committing more atrocities upon her and she was not allowed to meet her father and other family members for three years.
6. PW1 further stated that her father came to her matrimonial house in the year 2002 to meet her but her in-laws kept her locked in a room and did not allow her to meet her father and told him that his daughter is dead for him. She alleged that her father went back to his house and suffered heart attack and was admitted in G.B. Pant hospital and when she came to know about this fact, she FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 3/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh requested her mother-in-law to take her to meet her father and her mother-in-law was very helpful who took her to G.B. Pant hospital but as soon as she returned from the hospital to her matrimonial house, her husband started beating her badly in presence of her both Jeths and Jethanis on the ground that why she had gone to meet her father in the hospital.
7. Pw1 alleged that her husband used to drink liquor daily and used to beat her with shoes, fist and thapki (wooden bat used for washing clothes) and also used to give her electric shock. She further stated that on 21.05.2003, she delivered a baby girl but her husband and other family members were not happy with the birth of the female child and she was cursed for delivery of the girl child and her husband started committing more cruelties upon her and tried to kill her by giving electric shock. She further deposed that she was not allowed to talk to her parents on telephone and when her brothers used to come to meet her, she was tortured by her husband on that account also.
8. Pw1 also alleged that once in year 2003, she was kept confined in a single room in the house for about 8-10 days and she used to cook food in the same room and her husband used to eat the food and used to go to work after locking the room from outside and he used to throw remaining food in the water and did not allow her to eat food.
FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 4/46
St vs. Dalbir Singh
9. Pw1 further deposed that on 01.11.2005, she gave birth to her second daughter namely Radhika and her husband started torturing her more on the ground that she had given birth to two daughters and he also used to beat her daughters and nobody used to take care of her daughters in the matrimonial house.
10. Pw1 further alleged in her examination-in-chief that her husband used to beat her on petty issues like giving him cold Chapatis or clothes were not washed properly. She stated that in year 2007, once she was feeding her younger daughter and her husband asked her to serve him food and then, he went outside and thereafter the child slept and she went to bathroom to take bath and in the meantime, her husband returned and when she came out of the bathroom, he started beating her on the ground that she had not kept food in the thali(plate) for him. She further stated that he beat her black and blue and threw her out of the house on the same day alongwith her both daughters and when she tried to make call to the police from PCO, the villagers did not allow her to call the police and thereafter, she called her brother Bijender from PCO and requested him to save her and her children and thereafter she returned back to the matrimonial house and saw that police had arrived at the house but she did not know who had called the police and it might be that her father had called the police by telephone. She stated that she narrated the entire FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 5/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh facts to the police and police talked to her Jeth and husband and went away stating that other police from police station will arrive and take action.
11. PW1 further stated that on the same day in the evening, her both brothers Bijender and Ram Ashre came to her matrimonial house and quarrel took place between her husband and brothers but she pacified them and asked them to go back and after they went back, she was again locked in the room by her husband and was not allowed to meet her daughters. She alleged that she was kept locked in the room for about 8-10 days.
12. PW1 further deposed that when her father was unable to contact her, he arrived at her matrimonial house alongwith 4-5 villagers including Sarpanch Sh. Rai Singh from his village Devli but her in-laws did not allow her father and other villagers to meet her and threatened her that if she speaks against them, they will kill her and her daughters. She further stated that her father and other persons insisted that they wanted to meet her due to which she was taken out of room by her in-laws but they threatened her not to speak anything against them or they will kill her or her daughters but as soon as she met her father, she told entire facts to him and requested him to take her alongwith him to police since her life was in danger. Therefore, her father took her and her children alongwith him to P.S. Alipur and after informing the police FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 6/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh about the atrocities being committed upon her by her in-laws, he took her to parental house and thereafter she remained in her parental house till the lodging of her complaint dated 04.01.2008.
13. Pw1 exhibited her complaint written to CAW Cell, Nanakpura dated 04.01.2008 as Ex. Pw1/A and stated that her husband gave undertaking in writing in CAW Cell in March 2008 that he will not commit any cruelty upon her and he will maintain her and her children in the matrimonial house properly, due to which the said complaint was compromised and temporarily closed and she again joined her matrimonial house and police told her to apprise them every fortnight regarding the behaviour of her husband and a date was fixed every week or fortnight till 02.07.2008 and till that time, her husband kept her properly in the matrimonial house due to which the police closed the file on 02.07.2008.
14. The complainant alleged that after closure of file, her husband again started committing atrocities upon her and started beating her on petty issues and by this time, his demand for money had been raised from Rs. 2 lacs to Rs. 3 lacs and he alleged that he had spent a lot of money in CAW Cell, Nanakpura due to which he had raised his demand of money and car.
15. In her further examination-in-chief dated 29.06.2013, Pw1 stated that her husband did not maintain her properly and used to tell her to bring money from her father for daily necessities and for FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 7/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh school fees of her elder daughter and he used to beat her and used to give her electric shocks. She stated that whenever her father or brother used to visit her, they used to give her money like Rs. 1,000/- or Rs. 2,000/- and whenever she used to visit her parents, she used to take Rs. 5,000-10,000/- from them but still she was not treated properly at her matrimonial house. She stated that her husband used to take excessive liquor day and night and used to beat her daily.
16. Pw1 further alleged that on 21.12.2009, her husband beat her severely and she sustained internal injuries on his knees and legs and got swelling over her face, fingers and entire body and on 22.12.2009, her brother Ram Ashre came to meet her at her matrimonial house and she narrated all the incidents to him and he also clicked the photographs as Ex. Pw1/1 to Ex. Pw1/9 and further stated that her brother asked her husband and Jeth to allow her to go with him to parental house but they refused .
17. Pw1 further deposed that in the 12th month of year 2009, she made call to her father to save her and her daughters and to take her back to her parental house and when her father came with 3-4 persons on 27.12.2009 to meet her, she was confined in a room and on insistence of her father, the door was opened and she was allowed to meet her father but when her father asked her husband to allow him to take her back to parental house, her husband FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 8/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh interfered, due to which altercation took place and her father instantly called the police at 100 number and the PCR arrived and her father requested the police to get her MLC recorded regarding injuries but police declined the request on the ground that injuries were old and MLC could not be recorded at that time. She further stated that at the time of locking her in her room on 27.12.2009, her jethanis namely Devki and Archna had snatched her jewelery. She further deposed that she returned to her parental home with her father in presence of police officials and wrote a note that she was leaving the matrimonial house alongwith her children in wearing clothes without any articles. She stated that police officials accompanied her and her father to Raja Harishchandra hospital for her medical examination but the Doctor refused to conduct the medical examination without giving any reason for his refusal, so she went to her parental home alongwith her father.
18. Pw1 further stated that on 29.12.2009, she was admitted to Arpan Hospital since she was still suffering pain from the injuries and she was discharged from the hospital on 01.01.2010 and thereafter she again moved complaint before CAW Cell on 04.01.2010 which was exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. PW1 exhibited list of istridhan articles as Ex. PW1/C(running into three pages). She stated that police called her and her husband in CAW Cell and tried to compromise the matter but her husband refused to take FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 9/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh her back to the matrimonial house, due to which police asked him to return the istridhan articles but he brought very few articles in CAW Cell which did not belong to her, and she refused to take back the articles and thereafter present FIR was lodged on 10.05.2010.
19. Ld. APP asked one question to the complainant with permission of the court since complainant had missed out details of an incident. The Ld. APP asked PW1 that whether her husband had also assisted her Jethanis in snatching the jewelery articles from her on 27.12.2009. PW1 affirmed that her husband had also assisted her Jethanis and he had snatched the key of almirah from her in which jewelery articles were lying and those articles were removed from the almirah and thereafter, the jewelery articles that she was wearing were also removed from her person and at that time, her Jeths were also present.
20. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel dated 29.06.2013, PW1 stated that her Jeths namely Jagbir and Satbir were living in a joint family in the same house and her Jeth Satbir has four children and her second Jeth Jagbir is having three children and all were residing in the same house. She stated that she does not know whether any of her Jeths is residing in Singhu village. She admitted that at the time of delivery of her first child, some expenses were borne by her and some expenses were FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 10/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh borne by her husband and her first delivery was done in a private hospital in Narela. She stated that her brother Ram Ashre and his wife came to see her in hospital but none from her matrimonial house came to meet her in the hospital but voluntarily stated that her mother-in-law was present with her on the date of delivery. She further admitted that her younger Nanad Babli came to her matrimonial house on the occasion of birth of her first child and remained there to take her care for 15 days and she had gifted one gold set to her Nanad Babli for her services, as Shagun/ritual.
21. PW1 further stated that her second child was born in hospital in Narela but she does not remember the name of the hospital. She admitted that she had gone to the hospital alongwith her husband in his car and her husband took her back to the matrimonial house from the hospital after her delivery on 01.11.2005. She stated that some of the money was paid by her and some of the money was paid by her husband for delivery of the second child but she does not remember the amount paid by her. She stated that expenses of second delivery were around Rs. 5,000-7,000/-.
22. In her further cross-examination dated 11.12.2013, PW1 stated that she has four more siblings. She stated that her husband and Jeths used to reside together in the matrimonial house and they jointly own agricultural land measuring about 30 FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 11/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh acres in village Hamidpur and her husband also owns some plots in lal dora in village Hamidpur alongwith his brothers and is also running a school by the name of Amar Public School, Sher Shah Village.
23. PW1 admitted that she knew that her husband belongs to a very well known and affluent family and her father-in-law was the Sarpanch of the village although he had died before her marriage. She further stated that her elder daughter was admitted to Vishwa Public School and she does not know why her husband did not send her daughter to Amar Public School which was being run by his elder brother Jagbir. She admitted that her mother-in-law used to treat her properly and she was better than rest of the family members. She also admitted that her mother-in-law took her to G.B. Pant Hospital when her father was admitted there. She denied the suggestion that her Jeths and Jethani reside in separate household and have been falsely implicated in the case.
24. In her further cross-examination dated 25.03.2014, PW1 admitted that she had not mentioned the fact in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that her father had spent a sum of Rs. 8-9 lacs in her wedding. She further admitted that she had not mentioned in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and in the FIR about the demand of Rs. 3 lacs by her husband. She stated that she is not having any burn marks of electric shocks on her body at present but voluntarily FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 12/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh stated that burn marks have vanished after four years. She stated that she is not aware whether permanent scars occur on the skin after electric shocks. She stated that she had told to the police about her burn marks but police had not got recorded any MLC and she had got treatment for the same in Arpan Hospital, Tigri Village, New Delhi where she was admitted for four days after she had received injuries due to electric shock. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely regarding the electric shocks or treatment. She denied the suggestion that she was ill treated after the birth of her second child and not before that.
25. She further stated that when she was confined in the room for 8-10 days, accused used to give very little food or no food to her and she used to attend the call of nature in the room itself. She admitted that there were neighbours' houses on all sides of their house and the matrimonial house consisted of two storied building. She admitted that neighbours could have seen whatever was happening in the house and further admitted that if there is any noise in the house, it will go outside and neighbours may also hear it. She stated that sometimes, neighbours used to come to her rescue and sometimes they did not come.
26. In her further cross-examination conducted on the same date, PW1 stated that police did not register any separate FIR of the incident of her confinement in the room for a period of 8-10 days. FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 13/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh She admitted that the said incident has not been mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C but stated that she had mentioned about the said incident in her complaint Ex. PW1/A. She denied the suggestion that she was never beaten up by her husband. She stated that she used to make call to police at 100 number on the same day when she was beaten up. She stated that she does not remember whether any neighbours had intervened in the quarrel which took place between her brothers Vijender and Ram Ashrey and her husband. She further stated that her husband had turned her away from her matrimonial house in the year 2007 and she had made call to her brother Vijender at her father's mobile phone from PCO but she does not remember the mobile number of her father. She stated that police had arrived at her matrimonial house but they did not take any action. She stated that she does not remember the exact date or month of incident. She was confronted with one DD No. 37 B dated 21.09.2007 mark PW1/D1 by Ld. Defence counsel in which it was stated that she had left the matrimonial house alongwith her father and daughters by her own sweet will.
27. In her further cross-examination recorded after lunch on 25.03.2014, she stated that she had told in her examination-in- chief that she received injuries on her legs and knees on 21.12.2009. She admitted that there is no date, month or year FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 14/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh mentioned on the photographs Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/9. She stated that she does not know whether there were any negatives of the photographs or not. She stated that her brother had not taken her to any hospital for treatment since her in-laws refused. She stated that she does not know whether her brother had approached the police or whether police had taken any action or not. She denied the suggestion that she had inflicted injuries upon her person on her own after she left the matrimonial house. She further denied the suggestion that the injuries were self inflicted in order to create false evidence against her in-laws.
28. She stated that when her father reached at the matrimonial house, she was confined in the room and he got released her from the room. The medical report of Arpan Hospital was marked as mark PW1/D2. The witness was also confronted with DD No. 15A dated 27.12.2009, P.S. Alipur vide which call at 100 number was made by her father Kanwar Sain from his mobile phone and the DD was marked as mark PW1/D3 and another DD no. 33 B in this regard was marked as PW1/D4 and the PCR call record of the same date was marked as mark PW1/D5. She denied the suggestion that her father had made call at 100 number before arriving at her matrimonial house as is mentioned in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
29. PW1 further stated that she can write Hindi and English but FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 15/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh stated that she was forced to sign the suicide notes by force. She admitted that said suicide notes were in her own handwriting. She denied the suggestion that she had written suicide notes to pressurize her husband to sell his land or to falsely implicate the accused persons in false criminal case. She denied the suggestion that accused persons never demanded any dowry from her or her parents and she further denied the suggestion that accused persons never harassed her for demand of dowry. She denied the suggestion that she was not given any electric shocks by accused. She further denied the suggestion that her istridhan articles were not snatched by her in-laws. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
30. PW2 is Sh. Prem Singh who is resident of same village where parents of complainant reside. He stated in his examination-in- chief dated 25.04.2014 that he is the resident of same village and he had attended marriage of Rajbala who is daughter of Kanwar Sain. He correctly identified the accused Dalbir as husband of complainant and stated that marriage was solemnized in year 1999. He further stated that he came to know from Kanwar Sain that his daughter was not being treated properly at her matrimonial house, therefore, in year 2007, he alongwith Kanwar Sain and some 10-12 persons of the village, went to the matrimonial house of Rajbala where she was confined in a room and she was got FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 16/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh released by them. He stated that complainant was very much scared and anxious at that time and they called the brothers and relatives of accused Dalbir who assured them that Rajbala would not be ill treated in future. He stated that Rajbala was taken to her parental home at that time.
31. PW2 further stated that in the year 2008, accused Dalbir alongwith his brothers visited parental house of Rajbala and took her back but Rajbala was again ill treated and harassed in the matrimonial house on account of dowry i.e. cash amount of Rs. 2 lacs and Rajbala was again sent to her parental house after beating.
32. In his cross-examination dated 29.04.2014, PW2 stated that he met accused Dalbir and his family members for the first time when he visited their village Hamidpur in year 2007 but he does not remember the exact date and month. He stated that he had gone with Kanwar Sain, Om Prakash and other young boys of the family in 2-3 vehicles owned by Kanwar Sain and they had called Sarpanch of village Hamidpur and other family members of accused Dalbir upon reaching there. He stated that the room in which Rajbala was confined was not locked from outside but it was only latched and when he entered the room, he found that Rajbala was sitting on the floor and was looking very disturbed and scared but her daughters were not present in the room. FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 17/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh
33. PW2 further stated that they did not call the police after getting Rajbala released but they had taken Rajbala to police station after two hours of getting her released and told the police officials of P.S. Alipur that there was dispute between husband and wife and they were taking Rajbala alongwith them to their village. He stated that he does not know whether anything was given in writing or not. He stated that Sarpanch of village or any other person did not come with them to police station. He denied the suggestion that he or any other person did not visit house of accused Dalbir on the said date and he further denied the suggestion that there was no dispute between Dalbir and Rajbala. He denied the suggestion that they had not got released Rajbala from confinement and they had not called Sarpanch of village Hamidpur. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
34. PW3 is Sh. Kanwar Sain who is father of complainant. He deposed in his examination-in-chief dated 25.04.2014 that he got married his daughter Rajbala to accused Dalbir on 18.02.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and spent around Rs. 8 lacs in marriage and thereafter his daughter was taken to her matrimonial house at village Hamidpur. He stated that after 2-3 days, when his daughter came to his house for pag phera, she told him that she was being ill treated at her matrimonial house and taunted for not giving sufficient articles in marriage. He further FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 18/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh stated that after 4-5 months of marriage, accused Dalbir came to his house alongwith Rajbala and told to keep her at home and also demanded Rs. 2 lacs and a car but he could give only Rs. 20,000/- to accused and he requested accused to take Rajbala back to her matrimonial house and she was taken back by accused.
35. PW3 further stated that he again came to know that his daughter was beaten up at her matrimonial house and was subjected to electric shocks by accused Dalbir and his family members and accused persons were adamant on their demand of car and cash. He stated that he visited the house of accused Dalbir with 2-3 relatives from both sides and requested accused not to harass his daughter but during all his visits for around three years, he was not allowed to see his daughter at the matrimonial house due to which he felt sick and had to be admitted in G.B. Pant hospital.
36. PW3 further deposed that in the year 2007, his son Ram Ashrey informed him that Rajbala was beaten up and driven out of matrimonial house. He again said that he does not remember whether his son Ram Ashrey or Vijender had informed him about the same. He stated that he made call at 100 number to the police but he could not go to the matrimonial house of his daughter and his son went there but he does not remember which of his sons went there. He stated that his son informed that Rajbala was FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 19/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh severely beaten up due to which he requested some villagers to accompany him to matrimonial house of his daughter and after reaching there, they spoke to accused Dalbir and his family members but accused were adamant on their dowry demand. He further stated that his daughter was confined in a room in the matrimonial house and his co-villager Rai Singh opened the latch of the room and released his daughter and his daughter told him that she would be killed by her in-laws if she is left there, so he took his daughter alongwith other villagers to P.S. Alipur and informed the police regarding condition of his daughter and thereafter took his daughter to his house.
37. PW3 further stated that he called the relatives of accused Dalbir to his home and requested them to take his daughter back but they stated that they would reply after some days but even after many days, no reply came from side of the accused, due to which his daughter moved complaint before CAW Cell in year 2008. He further stated that in the inquiry proceedings, the matter was compromised on the assurance of accused Dalbir that he would not harass the complainant and he took back the complainant to the matrimonial house and she was kept properly for some months but lateron, she was again subjected to cruelty and harassment after the closure of case in CAW Cell.
38. PW3 further deposed that during December 2009, he FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 20/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh alongwith some relatives visited the matrimonial house of his daughter to speak to her in-laws but her in-laws were still adamant on their demand and they also manhandled him and his daughter was also assaulted due to which they called the police at 100 number and police arrived and in the presence of police, he took his daughter to parental house since he had apprehension of risk to the life of his daughter. He stated that photographs of his daughter in injured condition were also given to the police.
39. In his further examination-in-chief dated 29.04.2014, PW3 brought the original bills of istridhan articles and copies of the same were exhibited as Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/13(OSR) and exhibition of original bills was objected by the Ld. Defence counsel on the question of mode of proof.
40. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW3 stated that at the time of marriage of his daughter Rajbala, he had arranged about Rs. 2 lacs from Sh. Bhim Singh but there was no documentation regarding the same. He stated that his elder son Ram Ashrey is in private job but he does not know where he works. He stated that he does not remember how much money, his son Ram Ashrey contributed in the wedding and whether his son Vijender gave any money at the time of wedding or not. He stated that he is a farmer having about 8 acres of land in village Kheri, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 21/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh
41. PW3 further stated that he used to earn Rs. 20,000-30,000/-
per annum and sometimes upto Rs. 50,000/- per annum. He stated that he did not use to keep any money in the bank and always used to keep the money at his house. He admitted that he had not given any income proof of himself or his son on record or any documentary proof regarding the source of amount of Rs. 8 lacs which were spent in the marriage of his daughter. He denied the suggestion that he did not spend the said amount in the marriage. He denied the suggestion that marriage was very simple ceremony and he had not spent much money in the marriage. He admitted that accused Dalbir and his family members had not raised any demand of dowry prior to marriage but stated that on the very second day after marriage i.e. on 19.02.1999, he had raised demand of Rs. Two lacs and a car. He denied the suggestion that no demand of Rs. 2 lacs was made by accused from him or from his daughter.
42. PW3 further sated that in August 1999, he gave Rs. 20,000/-
to accused Dalbir from his own pocket but he does not have any documentary proof of the same. He stated that he was not allowed to meet his daughter from year 2001 to 2004 but he did not complain to the police regarding this fact. He voluntarily stated that during this period, he used to go to the house of accused with respectable persons of the society many times. He admitted that FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 22/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh he was allowed to meet his daughter during his visits but stated that accused persons were always present around near his daughter. He stated that his daughter had not come to meet him in G.B. Pant hospital at the time of his heart attack in the year 2004. He denied the suggestion that he did not meet his daughter for a period of three years because there was no demand for dowry and the accused persons did not harass her.
43. In his further cross-examination recorded after lunch on 29.04.2014, PW3 stated that he did not get his daughter medically examined after electric shocks and he does not know whether there were any burn marks on the body of his daughter. He stated that he had not seen any injury due to electric shocks, caused upon the body of his daughter .
44. He stated that he had made a call at 100 number in the year 2007 regarding the incident of beating of her daughter at the matrimonial house but police did not conduct any inquiry. He stated that he filed complaint to DCP in this regard but he does not know whether any action was taken by DCP. He admitted that there is no such complaint to the DCP on judicial record and he further admitted that he had not filed any complaint in court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C in this regard.
45. PW3 further stated that his daughter had filed complaint before CAW Cell after she was forcibly made to sign on blank FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 23/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh papers and suicide notes. He admitted that he had given supplementary statement on 29.12.2011 i.e. after 17 months of his initial statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C but he denied the suggestion that he had given statement after such a long period only to cover the case u/s 406 IPC. He further admitted that photographs Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/9 were given to the IO on 29.12.2011 i.e. about two years after the incident. He stated that he does not remember the nursing home where his grand daughters were born. He admitted that his daughter Rajbala was in the matrimonial house when her daughters were born and he did not go to meet his grand daughters. He admitted that the expenses of pregnancy and delivery of the grand daughters were borne by the family of the accused. He denied that he is deposing falsely.
46. PW4 is Sh. Ram Ashre i.e. brother of the complainant Rajbala. He stated in his examination-in-chief dated 13.05.2014 that his sister Rajbala got married on 18.02.1999 to Dalbir and sufficient articles were given in her marriage but after 5-6 months of marriage, his sister informed his father that she was being harassed at her matrimonial home on account of dowry. He further stated that a number of Panchayats were held to sort out the issue but Dalbir and his family members did not mend their ways. He further stated that in year 2007 during summer season, he alongwith his brother Vijender went to the matrimonial house of his FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 24/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh sister on receiving information that she was being beaten up and they both requested her in-laws not to harass her for dowry but Dalbir and his parents remained adamant and they returned by night and narrated all the incidents to their father. He stated that his father went to the matrimonial house of his sister alongwith some Panchayat members and took her back to the parental house and his sister moved complaint before CAW Cell but it was got compromised and she rejoined her matrimonial house in year 2008.
47. PW4 further stated that he used to visit matrimonial house of his sister on festivals and found that there was normalcy at the matrimonial house but during winter of year 2009, when he visited the matrimonial house of his sister, he found injury marks on the eyes of his sister and on his inquiry, his sister initially remained evasive but on his insistence, she broke down and showed all the injuries on her body and he took photographs of the injuries on his mobile phone which are already Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/9. He stated that he returned to home and narrated the incident to her father and after 5-6 days, his father went to the matrimonial house of his sister alongwith Panchayat members and took her back to the parental house. He further stated that his sister told him that Dalbir was demanding extra amount of Rs. 3 lacs on the ground that they had incurred expenses in CAW Cell inquiry in year 2007, FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 25/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh therefore, his sister again moved complaint before CAW Cell.
48. In his cross-examination dated 13.05.2014, PW4 stated that at the time of marriage of his sister Rajbala, he was working as Computer Operator in private company but he does not remember name of the company. He stated that before 1998, he was not gainfully employed but he used to impart tuitions for class 10 th and 12th at his home and used to teach small group of students. He further stated that he used to charge Rs. 600/- per student and he had started taking tuition of the students when he was 18 years old. He stated that at the time of marriage of his sister, he was 23-24 years old. He further deposed that he used to give the money collected from the tuitions, to his mother but he does not have any documentary proof of his earnings of that time. He stated that he might have given Rs. 40,000-50,000/- to his father in the marriage of his sister Rajbala in cash but he does not have any documentary proof of the same.
49. PW4 further deposed in his cross-examination that after about 5-6 months of marriage, his sister Rajbala came to her parental home and narrated to him that her husband and in-laws were harassing her for dowry since the date of marriage. He stated that his sister used to come to parental home prior to that but she never confided in him about the said fact till 5-6 months after her marriage. He admitted that neither his father nor other FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 26/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh family members ever complained to the police regarding ill treatment of his sister at the hands of the accused persons.
50. PW4 further stated that in year 2007, his brother Vijender told him that Rajbala had informed him that she had been beaten up by her in-laws and was standing outside her matrimonial house but he did not receive call of his sister personally on his phone. He stated that he does not remember the date or month of the incident and it might have been somewhere in summer season. He stated that he and his brother Vijender might have reached the matrimonial house of his sister at around 3.30-4 p.m and they found her inside the house and entire family of accused Dalbir was present there and he stayed there till late night uptil 2-3 a.m. He categorically stated that he or his younger brother Vijender were not beaten up or manhandled by accused or his family but stated that there were heated arguments. He stated that elder brother of accused Dalbir namely Jagbir gave assurance that Rajbala would not be subjected to such behaviour in future and then he informed his father on mobile phone regarding the assurance given by the brother of accused and his father told him to come back home, so he returned back.
51. Pw4 further deposed in his cross-examination that his both nieces Khushi and Radhika were born at a private hospital in Narela and he had visited his sister at the hospital at the time of FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 27/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh birth of his nieces but he does not remember the name of that hospital. He stated that he was not present at the hospital when his sister was discharged from hospital after both her deliveries and he does not know who had paid the hospital bills.
52. PW4 further stated that in year 2009, during winter, he visited the matrimonial house of his sister on his own and saw his sister working in the kitchen and noticed that she had a black eye and asked her what had happened to her and initially she tried to dodge the question but when he pressed for the reply, she told him that she was beaten up 2-3 days ago. He stated that he did not take his sister to the hospital for treatment and did not inform police or his father on phone but he clicked the photographs of injuries on the person of his sister in his mobile phone. He stated that he does not remember the make or model number of his mobile phone. He stated that he had taken the photographs of his sister in verandah when nobody from accused's family was there. He admitted that there is no date or time mentioned on the photographs. He further stated that he does not remember the name of the shop from where he had got developed the photographs.
53. PW4 stated that police had recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C where the fact of handing over of photographs to the police was not recorded and then he admitted that he had given the FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 28/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh photographs to the police on 29.12.2011 i.e. after 15 months from his first statement. He denied the suggestion that his sister was never subjected to cruelty for dowry demand.
54. PW5 is IO/ASI Jagmeshwar Dayal who stated in his examination-in-chief dated 13.05.2014 that on 18.06.2011, further investigation of present case was assigned to him and he attended the anticipatory bail matter of accused and by the order of Hon'ble High Court, complainant was given DD No. 004263 for a sum of Rs. 49,000/- which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. PW5 further stated that accused brought the istridhan articles but complainant refused to take the same. Seizure memo of istridhan articles was exhibited as Ex. PW5/B.
55. PW5 stated that he also served a notice to complainant to accompany her to her matrimonial house to search and take her articles, but she declined on the ground that she would take the same through Court. He exhibited the notice as Ex. PW5/C and entry to that effect in DD No. 15B dated 15.09.2011 as Ex. PW5/D. He further stated that he formally arrested accused vide memo Ex. PW5/E and released him on bail.
56. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW5 stated that he did not go to village Hamidpur to recover istridhan and dowry articles. He further stated that he did not verify the photographs given to him and did not visit the photographer who FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 29/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh developed the said photographs and did not record his statement.
57. PW6 is IO/SI Puran Chand Yadav who stated in his examination-in-chief dated 29.05.2014 that on 10.05.2010, present complaint was assigned to him for investigation and he got FIR registered, copy of which was exhibited as Ex. PW6/A. He further stated that complainant handed over documents i.e. medical papers and bills of istridhan articles, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B.
58. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW6 stated that he recorded the statement of HC Raj Singh, Constable Vishal and HC Sunil regarding the verification of bills but they did not record any statement of shopkeepers who verified the bills. He further stated that he did not record the statement of shopkeeper who developed the photographs and also did not personally get the medical bills verified. PW6 stated that he did not record the statement of the Doctor/medical practitioner who treated the complainant.
59. After closure of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he stated that he is innocent and preferred to lead Defence Evidence.
60. Accused brought three witnesses in witness box on his behalf. DW1 and DW2 are formal witnesses who brought the summoned record.
FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 30/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh
61. Dw1 is HC Pratap Singh who brought the summoned record of DD No. 13B dated 16.01.2011, P.S. Saket and the photocopy of the same was exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and original was seen and returned.
62. DW2 is HC Yagdutt, who brought the summoned record of DD No. 37B dated 21.09.2007, DD No. 15A dated 27.12.2009 and DD No. 33B dated 27.12.2009, P.S. Alipur regarding the complaint of previous quarrels between the parties and the photocopies of the same were exhibited as Ex. Dw2/A to Ex. DW2/C and originals were seen and returned. One RDD no. 27Dec091220316 was exhibited as Ex. DW2/2.
63. DW3 is Sh. Charan Singh who stated in his examination-in-
chief dated 22.07.2014 that he is living in village Hamidpur since his birth and he knows the family of the accused Dalbir since his childhood and his house is adjacent to the house of accused Dalbir. He stated that accused Dalbir lives separately and both his brothers have separate houses and separate kitchens. He stated that both the brothers of accused Dalbir have been living separately prior to the marriage of accused Dalbir. He further stated that father of accused Dalbir expired about 11-12 years prior to marriage of Dalbir and his mother expired 5-6 years after his marriage.
64. DW3 further stated that Dalbir got married to Rajbala d/o Sh. FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 31/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh Kanwar Sain in year 1999 and he had attended the marriage but it was a very simple marriage and there was no demand of dowry either before or after the marriage. He stated that accused Dalbir and his wife Rajbala used to reside alongwith mother of accused Dalbir and she had never harassed Rajbala for demand of dowry or otherwise. He further stated that there was no interference from both brothers of accused Dalbir in the family matters of accused Dalbir.
65. DW3 stated that there was no incident of beating or harassment of Rajbala at the hands of Dalbir or his family members. He further deposed that gate of house of accused Dalbir always remained open and if there had been any quarrel, he would have seen or heard of the same. He also stated that at the time of delivery of both the children of Rajbala, accused Dalbir bore the expenses of delivery and elder sister of accused took care of Rajbala.
66. DW3 alleged that quarrel used to happen since Rajbala was not willing to stay in village and she wanted accused Dalbir to sell his land and properties and to buy a kothi(house) in the city to lead a luxurious life there. He stated that in year 2007 and 2009, father of Rajbala came to their village alongwith some people for holding Panchayat and he was present on both occasions but he does not remember the exact dates of those Panchayats. He stated that FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 32/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh family members of Rajbala tried to pressurize accused Dalbir to shift to city.
67. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, DW3 stated that he does not have any family relations with accused Dalbir. He admitted that he did not visit the house of accused Dalbir regularly but stated that he used to visit his house at the time of quarrel. He voluntarily stated that quarrel used to occur whenever brothers and father of Rajbala used to visit the house of accused Dalbir. He stated that accused had not demanded any dowry and had never given any beatings to Rajbala in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save accused Dalbir since he is known to him since childhood.
68. After closure of Defence Evidence, case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on previous date and case was fixed for order.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
69. During final arguments, Ld. APP vehemently argued that complainant/PW1 Rajbala has given very detailed and lengthy evidence and has withstood the test of cross-examination and all the prosecution witnesses have duly corroborated the statement of complainant, hence accused is liable to be convicted for both the offences u/s 498-A/406 IPC.
70. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel vehemently argued FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 33/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh that complainant has just leveled very vague and general allegations against the accused. The counsel argued that due to these vague allegations, the other family members of the accused Dalbir were already kept in column no.12 of the chargesheet by the IO and only accused Dalbir was summoned in this case. The counsel argued that complainant has just mentioned the allegations of demand of Rs. 2 lacs and car which are very vague and general allegations and accused persons are very well off and affluent and there is no reason why they could have demanded such a meagre amount from the complainant.
71. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that complainant has herself admitted in her evidence that at the time of birth of her both children, it was accused Dalbir who took her to the private hospital and after her discharge, took her back to the matrimonial house and this shows that accused was taking due care of the complainant at the time of birth of both children. The counsel further pointed out that complainant has herself admitted that her nanad(sister-in-law) Babli had taken her due care at the time of birth of her daughter due to which she had gifted a gold set to her.
72. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that complainant has herself stated in her examination-in-chief that her mother-in-law behaved properly with her and helped her many times and once she took her to G.B. Pant Hospital to arrange for her meeting with FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 34/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh her father when her father who was admitted there and this incident itself shows that mother-in-law of the complainant was also very supportive and helpful to the complainant and had never raised any demand of dowry and never committed any cruelty upon complainant. Ld. counsel for accused further pointed out that father-in-law of complainant had expired since long time and mother-in-law of the complainant was very helpful towards the complainant, hence there was no substantial ground or reason for demand of dowry or cash amount by the accused alone. Ld. counsel further submitted that the Jeth and Jethanis of the complainant used to reside separately and the allegations leveled by the complainant against them are also frivolous and the real fact was that complainant used to reside in her matrimonial house alongwith accused Dalbir and his mother only and no other member of family of accused used to reside with them, hence there was no question of quarrel by the brothers and Bhabhis of the accused with complainant.
73. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that allegations leveled by the complainant that she was kept confined in a single room for 8-10 days and was not given food are also frivolous and vague and having no basis and the real fact is that accused used to take proper care of the complainant but it was the complainant who always used to quarrel with accused since she used to pressurize FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 35/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh the accused to sell off his land in the native village and to come to the city since she wanted to lead luxurious city life . Ld. counsel for accused further argued that allegations of the complainant that she was given electric shocks by the accused are also vague since she has herself admitted in her cross-examination that there was no scar of injury marks upon her body due to electric shocks.
74. Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that though the complainant has leveled very serious allegations against the accused regarding beatings and she has also stated that she was compelled to leave matrimonial house many times but she has not filed on record any MLC to show that any injuries were caused to her due to alleged beatings and the absence of any MLC or medical documents is itself a proof that no beatings were ever caused by accused and it was the complainant, who used to leave the matrimonial house after quarreling with accused every time.
75. Ld. Defence counsel also pointed out that though the complainant has alleged in her examination-in-chief that her father had given Rs. 20,000/- to the accused once but this fact has not been mentioned in the FIR or in the complaint and it is just an afterthought and improvement in the evidence of the complainant. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that there are various discrepancies in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of other witnesses also. He pointed out to the cross-examination of FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 36/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh PW3 Kanwar Sain i.e. father of the complainant Rajbala and stated that all the facts mentioned by him in his examination-in- chief regarding beatings and electric shocks given to the complainant is just hearsay evidence and he had not witnessed any incident himself.
76. Ld. counsel further submitted that photographs exhibited on record by the complainant regarding alleged injuries have not been exhibited as per proper procedure of evidence and the complainant or Ld. APP did not examine the photographer who developed the photographs and the original device through which photographs were taken was also not produced in court, hence it does not amount to any evidence in the eyes of law and it cannot be of any help to the case of the complainant.
77. Ld. Defence counsel referred to the earlier complaints made by father of the complainant to P.S. Alipur and stated that he nowhere mentioned any fact regarding demand of dowry in those complaints.
78. During arguments in defence of accused for offence u/s 406 IPC, the Ld. counsel for accused argued that perusal of the memo of articles from item no. 1 to 20 dated 15.09.2011 which has been exhibited as Ex. PW5/B itself reflects that accused was ready to return the articles as per his admitted list of articles and he had brought those articles in the police station including one FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 37/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh motorcycle, T.V., fridge, washing machine, cooler, almirah, furniture and clothes etc. but complainant refused to take back the articles alleging that those articles did not belong to her. The counsel states that accused had never refused to return the articles belonging to the complainant, hence ingredients of section 406 IPC are not made out in this case. Ld. counsel further pointed that all the bills of articles exhibited by PW3 Kanwar Sain from Ex. PW3/1 to 13 are mere estimates and not the final bills of purchase of articles and moreover the shopkeepers who might have issued the bills have not been examined on oath in court to prove that they had actually sold the articles to the complainant or her father as per the bills or cash memos exhibited by the complainant. The counsel argued that complainant has not mentioned any date, time or place when she entrusted her istridhan articles to the accused, which he refused to return on demand, therefore, no ingredient of section 406 IPC is made out against the accused.
79. Ld. Counsel also argued that accused has led his defence evidence and on his behalf, his neighbour DW3 Charan Singh has deposed in court on oath that though he used to reside in adjoining house of the accused since his childhood but he had never heard or seen any quarrel between accused and complainant and he had never seen accused ever beating the complainant and he had never heard that accused ever demanded any dowry or cash FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 38/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh amount from complainant. The Counsel stated that if the accused had demanded dowry over a period of time and caused severe beatings to the complainant for a long period of time in connection with demand of dowry, the neighbour would have naturally known about this fact and the very fact that neighbour stated that he had never seen or heard of such things, itself reflects that accused had never demanded any dowry and never committed any cruelty upon complainant in connection with demand of dowry.
80. Arguments on behalf of both the parties were heard at length.
All the contentions raised by both the parties have been duly considered and the entire case file and evidence brought on record by the prosecution has been carefully perused.
81. Perusal of entire examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the main witness ie. complainant PW1 Rajbala, reveals that complainant has leveled various persistent allegations of demand of dowry and cash amount and allegations of cruelty and beatings upon accused Dalbir. The complainant has clearly stated that accused Dalbir earlier used to demand Rs. 2 lacs and a car but when she had filed complaint in CAW Cell which was compromised, he raised his demand to Rs. 3 lacs on the pretext that he had spent a lot of money in CAW Cell. The very fact that complainant has not leveled any allegations upon her mother-in- law or sister-in-law(Nanad) itself proves that the deposition of the FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 39/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh complainant is truthful and inspires confidence. If she had levelled false allegations against the accused, she could also have leveled false allegations against her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Rather to the contrary, she categorically stated that her mother-in- law always cooperated with her and her sister-in-law i.e. nanad also took her care during the birth of her daughter. This very fact shows that the evidence of complainant is reliable and trustworthy and she has not leveled any vague, general and sweeping allegations upon all the family members of the accused and she only leveled allegations against the person who committed cruelty upon her.
82. The entire evidence of the complainant also reveals that complainant and her parents tried many times for compromise and she joined the matrimonial house many times in order to save her family life and for the future of her children but still, the accused did not maintain her and the children properly in the matrimonial house and rather, he enhanced his demand from Rs. 2 lacs to Rs. 3 lacs. The fact that the accused accompanied the complainant to private hospital at the time of delivery of both the children and brought her back to the matrimonial house after the delivery does not mean that he might not have quarreled with the complainant and might not have committed any cruelty upon her during entire period of their stay together in matrimonial house. FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 40/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh
83. Perusal of original complaint of complainant which is Ex.
PW1/B reveals that complainant has leveled very serious allegations of cruelty, harassment and beating upon accused Dalbir and she has also stated that accused Dalbir was pressurizing her to write suicide note and she had apprehension that he might kill her and give it colour of suicide. The allegations of complainant that she was confined in one room for many days by her husband have also been corroborated by her father PW3 Kanwar Sain and public witness PW2 Prem Singh who had reached the matrimonial house alongwith respected persons of the society and got her released from the room and thereafter taken her back with them after giving information to P.S. Alipur.
84. The allegations leveled by the complainant that her husband had beaten her black and blue and caused injuries on her legs in December 2009, also find due corroboration in the examination-in- chief and cross-examination of PW4 Ram Ashrey i.e. brother of the complainant and who had reached the matrimonial house of the complainant and seen her in injured condition and clicked her photographs on his phone. Even though the photographs of injuries have not been duly exhibited as per law of evidence, however, oral evidence of PW4 itself is sufficient to corroborate the version of the complainant that she was beaten by her husband and injuries on her person had been caused due to the FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 41/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh said beatings.
85. The very fact that complainant and her father had lodged previous complaints to the police against accused Dalbir itself reflect that the marriage between accused and complainant was never a happy marriage and accused used to beat the complainant many times due to which complainant and her father were compelled to file complaints against him and on every occasion, parties used to compromise the case in the interest of marriage but finally, the atrocities of accused increased to such an extent that complainant was unable to bear any further and she finally lodged the complaint in CAW Cell which culminated in present FIR.
86. After due appreciation of evidence of complainant and all the corroborating witnesses, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been substantially able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Dalbir for demand of dowry and cash amount and for cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Moreover, the beatings caused by accused upon complainant were of such nature that it would be sufficient to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave threat or injury to the life or limb of complainant. Hence, ingredients of section 498-A IPC are complete in this case. Therefore, accused Dalbir is found guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 498-A IPC. FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 42/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh
87. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, though the father of the complainant PW3 has exhibited the bills/estimates of istridhan articles from Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW1/13 but the bills have not been exhibited as per proper procedure of the evidence and the persons/shopkeepers who issued those bills have not been brought into witness box to prove that they had actually sold the articles to the complainant or her father qua those bills. Moreover, the complainant has not mentioned in her entire evidence, any date, time or place when and where she had handed over or entrusted her istridhan articles to the accused and when she demanded those articles back which accused refused to return.
88. Rather, the evidence of IO as PW5 ASI Jagmeshwar Dayal clearly reflects that he had served notice upon complainant to accompany to matrimonial house for search of her articles but she declined and refused to take notice and the notice and DD entry to that effect has been exhibited as Ex. PW5/C and D. IO has further exhibited the memo of istridhan articles as Ex. PW5/B which the accused persons had brought in the police station but complainant refused to receive back those articles on the pretext that the articles did not belong to her. Hence, it is clear that all the ingredients of section 405 & 406 IPC for covering the case u/s 406 IPC have not been made out. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused committed any criminal breach of trust in respect of FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 43/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh istridhan articles of the complainant. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, all the ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust. Hence, accused is acquitted from the offence u/s 406 IPC.
89. Fix for arguments on quantum of sentence on 09.04.2015 at 2p.m.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 31st March 2015 . MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 44/46
St vs. Dalbir Singh
State VS. Dalbir 1/2 FIR No. 66/2010
PS: CWC Nanak Pura
U/s 498-A IPC
09.04.2015
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Convict Dalbir Singh in person with counsel Sh. Atul Ahlawat Complainant in person The convict was convicted on 31.03.2015 for offence u/s 498- A IPC and case is fixed for hearing on quantum of sentence for today. The convict has been heard on quantum of sentence. The counsel for the convict has requested that convict is respected citizen of society and aged about 40 years and has aged mother to take care of, hence, he prays for leniency and for release on probation.
On the other hand, complainant has prayed that convict has committed such cruelty and atrocity upon her that no lenient view should be taken in favour of convict.
Heard. The grounds put forth by counsel for convict Dalbir are not satisfactory and it is the convict who has committed atrocities upon complainant for demand of dowry, though, it was his duty as a husband to protect his wife and to maintain her and her both daughters properly. Hence, the application of convict Dalbir is dismissed and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default simple imprisonment of 30 days for offence u/s 498-A IPC.
Contd.../-
FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 45/46
St vs. Dalbir Singh
State VS. Dalbir 2/2 FIR No. 66/2010
PS: CWC Nanak Pura
U/s 498-A IPC
09.04.2015
At this stage, application u/s 389(3) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence has been filed by convict Dalbir praying that he wants to file appeal against the conviction. In view of the fact that appeal is the right of the convict, the application stands allowed and sentence is suspended for a period of 30 days and convict is released on bail for the limited purpose of filing appeal, for a period of 30 days on furnishing bail bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. It is clarified that if the convict fails to file appeal or if he is not granted bail by the Ld. Appellate Court, the convict shall present himself before this court on expiry of period of 30 days, for sufferance of the sentence awarded today. Copy of judgment and order be supplied free of cost to the convict. Previous bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled subject to furnishing fresh bail bond and original documents if any be released to previous surety. Ahlmad is directed to put up the file on expiry of period of 30 days. File be consigned to record room after fulfilling of the above said condition.
( Tyagita Singh ) MM-01/Mahila Court SW/09.04.2015 FIR no.66/10 : PS: CWC Nanakpura Page no. 46/46 St vs. Dalbir Singh