Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Singh & Ors on 20 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANKITA LAL: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01:
MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS.
FIR NO. : 512/2004
U/S : 498A/323 OF IPC
PS : R.K.PURAM
CASE ID : 02403R0713892005
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 194/2
b) Date of commission of offence : Since 21.02.1996 till 31.07.14.
c) Date of institution of the case : 08.11.2005
d) Name of the Complainant : Smt. Rajesh D/o Sh. Brij Lal.
e) Name & address of the
accused persons. : (i). Jai Singh S/o Sh. Hem Raj
(ii). Hem Ram S/o Sh. Net Ram
(iii).Chotta Devi W/o Sh. Hem
Raj
(iv) Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Hem
Raj
(v). Maya W/o Sh. Krishan Kr.
(vi) Vijay Singh S/o sh. Hem Raj
(vii) Sunita W/o SH. Late Raj
Singh.
All Resident of
H. No.222, Satya Niketan,
New Delhi
f) Offence complained of : 498A/323 of IPC
g) Offence charged for : 498A/323 of IPC
h) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
i) Arguments heard on : 24.01.2015
j) Date of Judgment : 20.02.2015
k) Final Order : Acquitted u/s 498A/323 IPC
FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 1 OF 17
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. Present charge sheet was filed on the basis of an FIR No.512/2004 dated 31/07/2014 lodged by complainant Smt. Rajesh against her husband Jai Singh, Hem Raj (fatherinlaw), Chota Devi (motherinlaw), Krishan Kumar (brotherinlaw), Maya W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar (bhabhi), Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Hem Raj (brotherinlaw) and Sunita W/o Late Sh. Raj Singh (bhabhi).
2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant, namely, Rajesh was married to the accused Jai Singh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 21.02.1996 and her parents spent in marriage beyond their capacity. Dowry articles mentioned as per list Ex. PW 2/A was given to accused by the parents of the complainant. She further alleged that initially behaviour of the accused persons was normal towards her. She further alleged that in the year 2000, accused Jai Singh started demanding one motorcycle and cash rupees from her and her parents and her motherinlaw accused Chotta Devi used to instigate accused Jai Singh. Complainant further alleged that when the complainant and her parents could not fulfil the said demands, accused persons started beating and doing cruel behaviour towards her and gave brutal beatings to the complainant by kicking and punching her and also by using danda. She further alleged that after 23 years of her marriage, that is, since the year 2000, accused persons started giving beatings to her for not bringing motorcycle and cash and used to harass her and also used to FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 2 OF 17 tell her to leave the matrimonial house and reside with her parents. Complainant further stated that despite intervention of her parents and Panchayat, accused did not mend his ways and continued harassing and torturing complainant in order to drive her to commit suicide. She further alleged due to the said behaviour of accused Jai Singh, her parents filed a complaint against him at PP Nanak Pura, but as he apologized before complainant and promised her that he would behave properly with her, she compromised the matter with the accused. Thereafter, complainant was taken to her matrimonial house but the behaviour of the accused Jai Singh continued to be same. She further alleged that after some time accused Jai Singh alongwith complainant, started living at a rented accommodation at Palam, as parents of the accused had thrown out the complainant from her matrimonial home. But, the cruel behaviour of accused Jai Singh towards complainant continued even there. She further alleged that on 26.07.2004, her husband reached the house after consuming liquor and gave brutal beatings to complainant with leg, fists and danda. Thereafter, complainant reported the matter at PS R.K. Puram. Complainant was also medically examined and her statement was recorded, and accused persons were arrested. Police carried out investigation.
3. After completion of the investigation, IO filed the challan in the court u/s 498A/323 of IPC against all the accused persons.
4. The court took cognizance of the offence on the same day and accused FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 3 OF 17 persons were consequently summoned. On appearance of the accused persons, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. Primafacie an offence u/s 498A/323 of IPC was made out only against accused Jai Singh and thus, vide order dated 26.02.2008, charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A/323 of IPC was framed upon accused Jai Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, other accused persons, namely, Hem Raj (fatherinlaw), Chota Devi (motherinlaw), Krishan Kumar (brotherinlaw), Maya W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar (bhabhi), Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Hem Raj (brotherinlaw) and Sunita W/o Late Sh. Raj Singh (bhabhi) were discharged for offence u/s 498A/323 of IPC.
6. In order to prove its case, 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of 6 witnesses, 4 are the public witnesses and remaining 2 are police officials. A gist of their testimony is discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs.
Public Witnesses
7. The public witnesses examined by the prosecution is PW2 Rajesh (complainant herself), PW3 Santra Devi (mother of the complainant), PW5 Sh. Hayat Singh and PW6 Dr. Paramjeet Kaur, both formal witnesses.
8. PW2 Rajesh, who is complainant herself in the present case, reiterated the contents of her complaint Ex.PW2/B on oath during her examination FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 4 OF 17 in chief.
9. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness deposed that police did not meet her during the course of the investigation other than when she had made the complaint Ex.PW2/B. Witness further deposed that prior to the year 2000, there was no complaint with regard to behaviour of her husband, however, she again said that her husband used to harass her even prior to 2000 and used to demand dowry. She deposed that in the year 2000, she made complaint against her husband for the first time and, thereafter, she had made complaint only in the year 2004. She further mentioned that she had suffered serious injuries at the hands of her husband when he had beaten her on 26.07.2004, and thereafter, on 30.07.2004, she had made a complaint to P.S. R.K. Puram. She further deposed that she had filed a case for maintenance before the Rewari Court and admitted that vide order dated 04.09.2010, a settlement was recorded between her and her husband before Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, vide Ex.PW2/DX. Thereafter, she had gone back to her matrimonial home, but stated that the accused again started harassing her after she started living with him in her matrimonial house at Satya Niketan. Witness denied the suggestion that accused Jai Singh was residing at A6, ABlock, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi at the time of settlement. Witness further denied that she never stayed at Satya Niketan after the settlement and stated that she resided with her husband from September, 2010 after the settlement was recorded and stayed with him FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 5 OF 17 till 31.03.2011. She once again deposed that she had made a call at 100 number when she was turned out of the house on 01.04.2011. But the police did not record her complaint. Witness further deposed that prior to 01.04.2011, she had not reported any harassment by her husband and mother in law to the police. Witness further denied the suggestion that her husband has been paying money for herself and her children's expenses while they were residing together. Witness further deposed that bills for the utilities such as electricity and water were separate for every floor, besides the room where she was residing at ground floor. Witness further admitted that she has not filed any other criminal case against her husband and other family members arising out of the alleged harassment to her.
10. PW3 Santra Devi, who is mother of the complainant in the present case, deposed that from the year 2000, accused started giving beatings to PW 2 for not bringing motorcycle and cash and used to harass her. Witness further stated that despite her interference and the interference of the Panchayat, he did not mend his ways and continued harassing and torturing the complainant. Witness further deposed that accused continued his cruel behaviour towards complainant even when she started living with accused at Palam and one day accused sent the complainant to her parental home on false pretext. PW 3 has corroborated the evidence of complainant regarding the beatings given by the accused on 26.07.2004.
FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 6 OF 17
11. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, she deposed that the father of the accused did not demand anything at the time of marriage and from her own free will, they had given lots within their capacity. Witness further deposed that for initial two years of marriage there was no complaint of dowry demand and harassment from the in laws of her daughter. She further deposed that she had given Rs.11,000/ each on three occasions to the family of the accused, once on lagan ceremony, once at the time of Saptpadi and once at the time of Vidai and accused had never demanded the same. She stated that accused Jai Singh had demanded motorcycle and cash from her husband. She also stated that her daughter i.e. the complainant used to tell her husband about the incidents of beatings given by accused Jai Singh. Witness further deposed that her husband also made efforts by taking Panchayat to the house of the accused, even though she did not participate in the same. She further stated that she had never visited her daughter when she was residing at Palam and had never seen accused Jai Singh taking liquor. Witness further deposed that she had never visited her daughter to see the nature of injuries suffered by her due to the beatings given by accused Jai Singh, however, her husband used to visit her daughter's home and he used to inform her about the incidents which had taken place with her daughter. Witness denied all other formal suggestions given to her.
12. PW5 Hayat Singh deposed that he was working s LDC at S.J. Hospital FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 7 OF 17 and had brought the MLC register containing copy of MLC bearing No. 128795 of Smt. Rajesh and he can identify the signature of Dr. Paramjeet Kaur at point A on MLC MarkX.
13. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that whereabouts of Dr. Paramjeet Kaur would be available in the record of S.J. Hospital. He also deposed that he cannot depose about particulars of the MLC as he was not a doctor and Dr. Paramjeet Kaur only can answer about the contents of the MLC.
14. PW6 Dr. Paramjeet Kaur deposed that on 30.07.2004, she was posted as JR at S.J. Hospital and examined Smt. Rajesh and prepared her MLC Ex. PW 6/A and OPD card Ex. PW 6/B.
15. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, Witness deposed that Smt. Rajesh was not brought by the police when her OPD card Ex.PW6/B was prepared. She admitted that MLC number and the time written at point B on MLC of Smt. Rajesh was in her handwriting. She further admitted that on the MLC Ex.PW6/A and OPD Card Ex.PW6/B of Smt. Rajesh alleged history of assault is mentioned, but by whom such assault was given is not mentioned.
Police Witnesses
16. Two Police officials were examined by the prosecution, namely, PW1 ASI Rakesh Kumar and PW4 Inspector Raj Kumar.
17. PW1/ASI Ramesh Kumar has only proved regarding registration of FIR 512/04, P.S. R.K.Puram. Ld. Defence counsel was given opportunity to FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 8 OF 17 cross examine the witness. He was cross examined as nil.
18. PW4 Inspector Raj Kumar deposed that on 31.07.2004 he was posted as SI at PS R. K. Puram. He further deposed that complainant Rajesh came to PS and gave him statement in writing Ex.PW2/B on which he made endorsement Ex.PW4/A and got FIR registered. He further deposed that complainant also handed over to him a list of her dowry articles Ex. PW 2/A, which he had placed on his file. He further deposed that he got complainant medically examined and collected her MLC.
19. During cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness had stated that he had interrogated the neighbours, but nobody came forward and disclosed anything. He further deposed that the complainant had herself stated in her complaint that she remained separate from her inlaws for 15 days. Witness further admitted that the complaint to SHO and DCP concerned with regard to proper investigation not being done by him. He denied all other formal suggestions put to him.
20. After completion of evidence entire incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 01.09.2014. Accused person had denied all the circumstances and evidences, and stated that the complainant and her parents had, in fact, demanded money from him to the tune of around Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs for the marriage of complainant's sister. He had refused to give the said money and had also lodged a complaint to that effect in PS Dabari on 30.07.2004. He also alleged that the father of the complainant had locked his house no. R226B307, Gali FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 9 OF 17 No. 35, Indra Park, New Delhi after taking away certain articles from his house on 30.07.2004 itself. He alleged that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant and her parents as he had refused to give them money, and that he had also given a complaint to SHO PS Dabari on 25.07.2004.
21. No defence evidence was led by any of the accused persons.
22. I have perused the entire material available on record and have heard the arguments of the rival parties.
23. Ld. APP for the state has argued that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated themselves in all material particulars and all the accused persons should be convicted for the alleged offence. He has also submitted that the nature of the offence itself appears to be grave and gruesome to warrant conviction of the accused persons
24. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had argued that prosecution witnesses have failed to corroborate the complaint in all material particulars. It is argued that from the entire deposition of prosecution witnesses no specific incident of any cruelty could be proved against the accused. It is further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statement of public witnesses i.e PW2 complainant and her mother, who was examined as PW3. It is further submitted that as per the deposition of PW2 complainant, herself it is evident that she had mentioned that she was kept well in her matrimonial house for initial 23 years after her marriage and it was only from the year 2000 onwards FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 10 OF 17 that the accused persons had started committing cruelty upon her for demand of a motorcycle and cash. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations or specific date of any incident when such demand were raised or any such alleged cruelty was committed upon the complainant. It is further argued that it is an admitted fact that in a maintenance suit filed by the complainant before Rewari court, a compromise had taken place in the year 2010, and complainant had gone back to her matrimonial home. It is also an admitted fact of the complainant that she had lived in her matrimonial home after the said settlement, only for about six months and there was no specific act of cruelty even during the said six months.
25. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that PW3 has merely reiterated the allegations made by the complainant, who is her daughter. Further, PW3 had admitted in her cross examination that she had never visited the matrimonial home of her daughter and in fact all the allegations of cruelty mentioned by her were told by her daughter to her husband, who is now deceased. It is further submitted that from the MLC of PW2 complainant dated 30.07.2014 also it is clear that no external injuries were found on the person of the complainant. He also argued that the complainant could not explain as to why she had filed the present complaint on 31.07.2004 for the alleged incident of 26.07.2004. He, therefore, argued that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the accused for offence u/s FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 11 OF 17 498A/323 IPC and therefore, the accused Jai Singh should get the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted in the present case.
26. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. Before I proceed to appreciate the evidence on record, I would like to quote the provision of Section 498A IPC, for which the accused persons have been charged.
27. The offence of "cruelty" is defined under section 498A of IPC as follows:
Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--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.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful 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.]
28. Moreover, accused has also been charged for offence under Section 323 of IPC which provides as under:
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. ― Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 12 OF 17
29. There were seven accused mentioned in the charge sheet initially, but all the accused persons, except accused Jai Singh, were discharged vide order dated 26.02.2008. The said order also clearly states that there are no specific allegations against the other accused persons and there are only vague allegations of incident of giving beatings by other accused persons. Further, from the material available on record, it is evident that the two material witnesses examined by the court i.e. PW1 complainant and PW3 mother of the complainant have also not deposed about any specific incident of any cruelty committed upon the complainant in her matrimonial home at the hands of the accused husband. As rightly argued by Ld. Defence counsel, the complainant PW2 and PW3 mother of the complainant both have admitted that for initial few years the complainant was kept well in her matrimonial home and only after year 2000, she was being harassed and given the beatings for demand of motorcycle and cash. Throughout the deposition of PW2 and PW3 they could not specify any specific date of incident when such demand has been raised or when any such harassment or incident of beatings was committed upon PW2 complainant by accused Jai Singh. Further, the allegations made by PW2 and PW3 appears to be categorically vague and generic in nature. They have simply alleged that accused used to harass and torture the complainant, and in fact the torture was of such an extent that the complainant had felt like committing suicide.
30. It is also evident from the deposition of PW2 and PW3 that the only FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 13 OF 17 incident quoted by the complainant is of 26.07.2004, wherein she alleged that accused Jai Singh had come to her home in drunk condition and gave brutal beatings to complainant with leg, fists and danda and turned her out of the matrimonial house. It is a matter of record that the complainant neither filed any complaint on the same day itself nor she got herself medically examined on the same alleged day and the FIR was registered on 31.07.2004 and the MLC of the complainant is of 30.07.2004. Even though it cannot be explained by the IO or any other formal witnesses as to why the FIR was recorded after the medical examination of the complainant was done, as the medical examination / MLC is ordinarily part of the investigation, which is initiated only after registration of FIR; nonetheless, the said lapse on the part of IO/SHO is being overlooked in order to decide the case solely on its merits. From bare perusal of MLC dated 30.07.2004, it is clear that no external injuries were found on the person of the complainant. The said fact clearly contradicts the allegations made by the complainant that she was brutally beaten by legs and fist blows and also by a danda on 26.07.2004, by accused Jai Singh.
31. Further, it is also evident from the deposition of PW2 that she had contradicted herself as even though in her examination in chief she alleged that she was kept properly till the year 2000, but in her cross examination, she alleged that she was harassed even prior to year 2000 and demands of dowry were raised. However, admittedly she had not FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 14 OF 17 given any complaint in respect of the same. The said fact disclosed in crossexamination also appears to be an improvement by the complainant. Further, during cross examination of PW2 u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. also, she admitted that after compromise was effected between her and the accused before Rewari court on 04.09.2010, she had lived at her matrimonial home with her husband from September, 2010 until 31.03.2011, that is, for about six months. She also admitted in said cross examination that she alongwith her two children used to live in the ground floor of the matrimonial home and her husband used to live on the second and third floor alongwith his widow mother. She could not state any specific incident of cruelty committed upon her by the accused even during the said six months when she was residing in her matrimonial home pursuant to the compromise dated 04.09.2010.
32. Moreover, from the deposition of PW3 also it is evident, as has also been rightly argued by the Ld. Defence counsel, that she neither visited the matrimonial home of her daughter any time after her marriage and whatever allegations of cruelty which she has deposed about were the allegations which were told by her daughter to her husband i.e. father of PW2 complainant. The said father of the complainant was deceased and, therefore, he was not examined in the present case. As such the evidence of PW3 is primafacie not reliable.
33. Furthermore, PW6 who prepared the MLC of PW2 complainant had proved the fact that no external injuries were found on the complainant FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 15 OF 17 when she was brought for medical examination. All other witnesses are only formal in nature. In the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., he mentioned that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant as the complainant and her parents had in fact demanded money from him to the tune of Rs. 4 to 5 Lakhs for the marriage of complainant's sister. The accused, however, could not bring any witness in his support and had only tendered two documents dated 09.07.2004,that is, a complaint given by father of accused at PS Rewari, as Ex.DW1/1, another complaint given at PS Dabri dated 13.07.2004, by the accused as Ex.DW1/2, and one more complaint dated 30.07.2004 given at P.S. Dabri by the accused Ex.DW1/3. I have perused the said complaints. As per complaint dated 13.07.2004 given by the accused, he had alleged that the complainant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 11.07.2004 after having a quarrel with him. Further, the complaint dated 30.07.2004 is locking the house of the accused after taking away certain articles from there.
34. Thus, from the entire material available on record and in view of the fact that the complainant could not mention any specific incident of cruelty upon her and all the allegations made by her are found to be vague and uncorroborated, I am of the view that prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 498A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Father, in view of the contradictions in the deposition of PW2 complainant and PW3, their testimonies does not inspires any FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 16 OF 17 confidence as the same is fraught with discrepancies. None of the ingredients of offence u/s 323 of IPC are also proved in view of MLC on record and the deposition of PW5. Accused Jai Singh is, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of doubt and, hence, acquitted for offences u/s 498A/323 of IPC.
Pronounced in open court (ANKITA LAL)
on 20th of February, 2015 M.M01/Mahila Court/South District
New Delhi/20.02.2015
FIR NO. 512/2004 STATE V. JAI SINGH & ORS PS R.K.PURAM PAGE 17 OF 17