Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Raj Singh on 3 February, 2017
FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 58318/16 State Vs. 1. Raj Singh S/o Late Sh. Kapoor Singh R/o F3/66, 67 Sultan Puri, Delhi. 2. Santosh Devi W/o Sh. Raj Singh R/o F3/66, 67 Sultan Puri, Delhi. 3. Kusum Lata W/o Sh.Sanjay Kumar R/o F3/66, 67 Sultan Puri, Delhi. 4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Singh R/o F3/66, 67 Sultan Puri, Delhi. 5. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Singh R/o F3/66, 67 Sultan Puri, Delhi. 6. Sachin Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Singh R/o F3/66, 67 Sultan Puri, Delhi. State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 FIR No. : 222/07 Police Station : Sultan Puri Under Sections : 498A/307/380/487/452/506/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 09.06.2009 Date on which judgment was reserved: 25.01.2017 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 03.02.2017 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the chargesheet is as under:
(i). FIR in question came to be registered in pursuance of directions issued U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 12.02.2007 passed by the Court of Magistrate in complaint case U/s 200 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW2/A) alongwith supporting affidavit Ex.PW2/B and list of witnesses (Ex.PW2/C) filed by complainant Sumitra Devi (PW2), wherein she made allegations of harassment and cruelty committed by accused persons being her inlaws, after death of her husband Anil Kumar. She alleged that the accused persons used to cut electricity connection and were not allowing her to fetch water from neighbourhood and they were also pressurizing her to marry accused Sachin or Ashok, who were her brothersinlaw (Devars). They also wanted her to give in writing that her Devar should get job on compassionate ground after death of her husband Anil Kumar, who State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 was in government job. She further alleged that accused persons also raised suspicion over her character by alleging that she was having illicit relations with her father. They also wanted to take dues of her husband, which were receivable from the employer after his death;
(ii). It is also the case of prosecution that on 12.11.2006 at about 4/5 pm, accused Santosh Devi visited house of complainant situated opposite the house of accused persons and abused the complainant when her father Ramphal (PW24) had visited there to return back sum of Rs. 2,50,000/. On the same day at about 89 pm, while she was keeping the money in safe, all accused except accused Raj Singh and Kusum Lata, came there and gave beatings to her with weapons. During said incident, accused Sanjay also pressed her neck and she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness and came back from the hospital, she found sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ and her jewellery items missing. On telephonically being informed, her sister and brother visited her matrimonial house on 15.11.2006 and tried to took her with them to her parental house, but accused persons did not allow them to do so. On 16.11.2006, she went to her parental house at Nizampur alongwith her father, sister and brother. The accused persons alongwith huge gathering of people visited her parental house at Nizampur, abused her family members and extended threat to kill if she would return back to H. No. F3/98, Sultanpuri, Delhi. The accused persons were having State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 all her istridhan articles and were not returning back the same to her;
(iii). It is further the case of prosecution that after registration of FIR U/s 498A/452/387/380/506/34 IPC against all the accused persons, the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Deen Dayal (PW28). During investigation, IO collected result on MLC dated 13.11.2006 (Ex.PW4/A) which was opined to be simple in nature. He also obtained opinion (Ex.PW11A) from Dr. V.K. Jha of SGM Hospital with regard to the injuries. He also recorded statement of Ms. Ishwanti Devi (PW3) and of Ramphal (PW24), who were sister and father respectively of complainant. He also recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of public witnesses during investigation. Accused persons were granted anticipatory bail and consequent thereupon, they were formally arrested in this case; and
(iv). Further investigation was entrusted to Inspector Samarjit Singh (PW9) who collected PCR forms, copies of relevant DD entries and wedding cards of accused Sanjay as also that of complainant. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of Ld. M.M.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 32FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld predecessor of this Court framed the charge in respect of offence punishable U/s 506 IPC against accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar and Ashok Kumar, separate charge in respect of offence punishable U/s 498A/34 against all the six accused persons namely Raj Singh, Santosh Devi, Kusum Lata, Sanjay Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Sachin Kumar and separate charge in respect of offences punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC against accused persons namely Kusum Lata, Sanjay Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Sachin Kumar, vide order dated 04.02.2012, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twenty eight witnesses namely PW1 Smt. Pushp Lata, PW2 Smt. Sumitra Devi, PW3 Smt. Ishwanti Devi, PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW5 Smt. Chanchal, PW6 Sh. Deep Chand, PW7 Sh. Kartar Singh, PW8 Smt. Tarawati, PW9 Inspector Samarjeet Singh, PW10 Sh. Dinesh Prasad Gupta, PW11 Dr. V.K. Jha, PW12 W/Ct. Kanta, PW13 Ct. Rama Kant, PW14 ASI (Retd.) Rajender, PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW16 Ct. Sunil Ikka, PW17 ASI Bijender Singh, PW18 ASI Mahender, PW19 Sh. Kewal Singh, PW20 HC Ram Singh, PW21 ASI Pushpender Pal Singh, PW22 Sh. Raj Singh, PW23 SI (Retd.) Rajender Singh, PW24 Sh. Ramphal, PW25 ASI Khushi Ram, PW26 Ct. Dharambir, PW27 Sh. Hari Chand and PW28 Inspector Din Dayal, during trial.
5. It may be noted that Ld. Additional PP dropped PW ASI State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 Kalyan Singh from the list of witnesses on 28.01.2015 as he had nothing to do with the investigation of the present case. He also dropped PW HC Hathu from the list of witnesses on 11.05.2015 as he was formal witness and had nothing to do with the investigation of the present case.
6. Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons were recorded, during which all the incriminating evidence were put to them. However, they denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They all claimed that there was absolutely no trouble in the matrimonial life of Anil Kumar and complainant Sumitra till the time, Anil Kumar was alive. After death of Anil Kumar, complainant Sumitra (PW2) had developed illicit relationship with one Arif and when she was caught with by public persons, she got them falsely implicated in the present case. However, the accused persons opted not to lead evidence towards their defence.
7. I have already heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Pradeep Rana, Adv. on behalf of accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record as well as the written arguments filed on record.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 PUBLIC WITNESSES
9. PW2 Smt. Sumitra Devi: She is the complainant/victim as per the case of prosecution. She deposed that she got married with Anil Kumar on 01.11.1998. Anil Kumar expired on 24.05.2005. She had started residing separately from her inlaws during life time of Anil Kumar at H.No. F3/98, Sultan Puri, Delhi, which was situated just opposite to the house of accused persons. After death of her husband Anil Kumar, accused persons started harassing her. Her fatherinlaw i.e. accused Raj Singh had an evil eye over her and the accused persons were pressurizing her to marry with accused Sachin who was handicapped or with accused Ashok but she did not accept their demand. They did not allow her to enjoy basic facilities of electricity and water connection and also wanted her to give in writing that job of her husband, who was working as LDC in Cooperative Society, may be given to her brotherinlaw (Devar) on compassionate ground and they also wanted to receive the financial benefits due towards her husband after his death.
She further deposed that on 03.10.2005, when she had gone to Nangloi for withdrawing money from her account, her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw had quarreled with her at Nangloi Phatak and also levelled allegations that she was having illicit relationship with her father. Thereafter, all the accused also visited her house and not only quarreled with her but also used vulgar language against her. On 12.11.06 at about 4.00/5.00 pm, when her father had visited her house to return Rs. 2,50,000/ State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 which was taken by him on interest, her motherinlaw visited her house and abused her. On the same day at about 8.00/9.00 pm, when she was keeping money in safe custody, the accused persons visited there and gave merciless beatings to her. Accused Sanjay Kumar had also pressed her neck at that time and she became unconscious. She regained consciousness in SGM hospital on 13.11.2006. On enquiry made by concerned doctor, she had told that her inlaws had caused injuries to her. Her fatherinlaw got her discharged from hospital without getting sufficient medical treatment and took her to matrimonial house no. F3/6667, Sultan Puri and obtained her signatures/thumb impressions on some papers. After regaining complete consciousness, she found her gold chain having locket, gold ear rings, gold rings and gold bangles to be missing. The cash amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ and jewellery articles kept in almirah of her house, were also found missing from there. On enquiry made by her, her motherinlaw extended threat to kill her. She telephonically informed her father, who sent her sister Yashwanti Devi and brother Surender on 15.11.2006 to bring her back to at the parental house. When her sister and brother came to her house and they were about to leave, the accused persons again created a scene and did not allow them to go. Her father made PCR call at 100 number, on which police took them to PS on 16.11.2006, she went to her parental house at Nangloi, where accused persons namely Sanjay, Ashok, Sachin, Raj Singh and her motherinlaw alongwith 4050 men and around 30 ladies came and not only abused her family members but also threatened to kill State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 her if she ever visited H.No. F3/98, Sultan Puri, Delhi. PCR call at 100 number was made by her father. Even thereafter, accused persons kept on extending threats to her on telephone. Her istridhan was in the custody of accused persons who failed to return the same and also took forcible possession of H.No. F3/98, Sultan Puri after breaking open its locks. When police failed to take any action, she had filed complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC (Ex. PW2/A) alongwith supporting affidavit (Ex. PW2/B) and list of witnesses (Ex. PW2/C) before the Court of law. She also marked the copies of police complaints dt. 21.12.2005, 09.12.2005, 10.12.2005, 21.01.2006 as Mark A1 to Mark A4 and copies of complaints dated 10.11.06, 13.10.06,15.11.06, 27.12.06 etc. made to other authorities as Mark A5 to Mark A10.
During cross examination, she deposed that H.No. F3/98, was in the name of grandfather of her husband. Said house was given for their separate residence after the marriage. The expenditure incurred in the medical treatment of her husband, was borne by her fatherinlaw. He admitted that she had already received fund to the tune of Rs. 3/3.50 lacs constituting dues of her husband and she had also got the job on compassionate grounds. She had signed the complaint Ex. PW2/A after duly understanding the contents thereof. She was confronted with relevant portions of chief examination visavis complaint Ex. PW2/A. She admitted that H.No. F3/98 was situated in densely populated area and there were residential houses situated on both sides of the street which was 56 State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 feet in size. She was using mobile phone as on 12.11.2006 but she did not make any PCR call on that day. She could not disclose as to who had taken her to the hospital during the intervening night of 12/131106. She denied to have told the concerned doctor at the time of preparation of her MLC that she had fallen down from the stairs. She, however, admitted that she did not make any police complaint either on 12.11.06 or even on 13.11.06 and first police complaint was made by her only on 15.11.06. She also admitted that herinlaws had returned back all her istridhan as per list during the Mediation Process before CAW Cell and she had withdrawn the complaint filed before CAW Cell. She did not make any PCR call at 100 number even after returning back to her house from the hospital on 13.11.2006.
10. PW3 Smt. Ishwani Devi: She is the elder sister of complainant Sumitra. She deposed that Sumitra used to tell her that herin laws were raising suspicion over character, due to which her parents used to remain under tension. On 15.11.2006, Sumitra had made call at her parental house, during which she told to have been given beatings. She alongwith her younger brother Surender visited the matrimonial house of Sumitra, who was having injuries on her body. On enquiry, she was told by Sumitra that herinlaws had given beatings to her and they were pressurizing her to give the amount received by her on account of death of her husband. On 16.11.2006 at about 2.003.00 pm, inlaws of Sumitra alongwith 3040 persons had visited Village Nizampur and had abused them. They were carrying stones with them. Sumitra had also told her that State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 her fatherinlaw was having an evil eye on her and they were pressurizing her to marry with accused Sachin, which proposal was not agreeable to her.
During cross examination, she was confronted with the relevant portions of chief examination visavis her police statement Ex. PW2/DA. Neither she nor her brother Surender had made any PCR call to the police on 15.11.2006 regarding the condition of Sumitra. No injury was caused during stonepelting by the people who had visited Village Nizampur. She herself did not make any police call in that regard. Her statement was recorded by the police on 24.08.2007. She denied the suggestions that she had become witness at subsequent stage merely at the instance of her sister and father or that she did not have any personal knowledge about the facts of the present case.
11. PW5 Smt. Chanchal Pal: She was residing in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial house of complainant Sumitra. She deposed that one boy was found in the house of Sumitra during late night hours in the year 2006 and he was caught hold by the neighbourers who had given beatings to him. Said boy had tried to run away towards the stairs followed by Sumitra. She denied all the relevant suggestions put to her on the lines of prosecution story as well as the contents of police statement Ex. PW5/A. She has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
12. PW6 Sh. Deep Chand: He completely turned hostile during trial by deposing that he had no knowledge about the facts of the case.
State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 32FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 Despite lengthy cross examination on behalf of State, he denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story and denied to have made statement dt. 08.07.2007 Mark PW6/A before the police. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
13. PW7 Sh. Kartar Singh: He also turned hostile during trial and did not support the case of prosecution at all. Rather, he deposed that father of Sumitra used to instigate her against herinlaws over the issue of property. Nothing could be elicited during her cross examination on behalf of State and the witness denied to have made statement dt. 08.07.2007 Mark X before the police. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
14. PW8 Smt. Tarawati: She also turned hostile during trial and deposed that nothing happened in her presence except the fact that she had seen police taking away accused persons with them on the relevant date. She also denied to have made statement Mark Y before police. During her cross examination, all the relevant suggestions put to her on behalf of State, were denied.
15. PW10 Sh. Dinesh Prasad Gupta: He also deposed contrary to the case of prosecution by testifying that on 12.11.2006 at about 10.30 pm, while he was walking inside gali after taking dinner, he heard noises coming from H.No. F3/98. Accordingly, he went there. He saw that one boy namely Arif was present inside the house of Sumitra. The neighbourers State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 were making enquiry from Sumitra about the said boy but Sumitra failed to give any satisfactory reply. When Sumitra tried to save Arif, the neighbourers apprehended Arif and called the police at the spot and handed over his custody to them. In his presence, accused persons did not give any beatings to anyone. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that Sumitra had sustained injury by slipping from staircase while trying to save Arif from the clutches of public persons.
16. PW19 Sh Kewal Singh:He has also deposed contrary to the prosecution case by testifying that in the year 2007, he had accompanied accused persons namely Santosh Devi and Sachin to the office of CAW Cell, Pitam Pura, where said accused had returned articles of Istridhan to Sumitra. On 12.11.2006, he had come to know that Sumitra was apprehended alongwith one unknown boy by herinlaws and PCR officials were also present at the spot. On 15.11.2006, Sumitra had left the matrimonial house with her father out of her own will. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
17. PW24 Sh. Ramphal: He is the father of complainant Sumitra. He deposed on the similar lines as testified by PW2 Sumitra whose testimony has already been discussed in the preceding paras.
During cross examination, he deposed that his statement was recorded by police only once on 24.08.2007. He was confronted with State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 relevant portions of chief examination visavis his police statement Ex. PW24/DA. He deposed that Sumitra told him about the incident dated 12.11.2006 for the first time on 16.11.2006 when he had brought her back to his house. He did not lodge any complaint with regard to incident dated 16.11.2006 either before police authority or before Court of law. He admitted that on 16.11.2006, the accused persons had complained him about company of Arif with his daughter Sumitra.
18. PW27 Sh. Hari Chand: He was also residing in the neighbourhood of matrimonial house of complainant during the relevant period. He also turned hostile during trial and denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of State as also the contents of statement Mark PW27/A. He testified that one boy namely Arif was apprehended by accused persons from the house of Sumitra in November 2006. The police had reached there and took Arif with them.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that he had come to know from public persons found gathered outside the house of Sumitra that she had sustained injuries due to falling down from the staircase.
POLICE WITNESSES
19. PW1 W/Ct Pushp Lata: She deposed that during the intervening night of 12/13112006, she had taken one lady Sumitra from PS Sultan Puri to SGM hospital for treatment on the direction of ASI Rajender. On asking of concerned doctor, Sumitra had told that she had State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 sustained injuries due to falling down from the staircase. Thereafter, she took her back to PS Sultan Puri, where on enquiry made by concerned SHO, Sumitra again replied that she had received injuries as she had fallen down from staircase and also that she wanted to reside with her inlaws. She did not lodge any complaint at that time and went to the house of her inlaws. She has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
20. PW9 Inspector Samarjeet Singh: He had carried out formal investigation in this case by seizing marriage card of accused Sanjay as well as that of complainant Sumitra vide memo Ex. PW9/A. He deposed that he had also collected PCR Forms and copies of relevant DD entries and had prepared the challan. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
21. PW12 W/Ct. Kanta: She had joined investigation with IO on 28.11.2007, when IO had effected arrest of accused persons namely Santosh Devi and Kusum Lata, vide arrest memos Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B. She deposed that on the instructions of IO, she had conducted personal search of both the said accused persons, vide personal search memos Ex. PW12/C and Ex. PW12/D. She has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
22. PW13 Ct. Rama Kant: He had joined investigation with IO Inspector Deen Dayal on 23.02.2008, when IO had effected the arrest of accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar, Sachin Kumar and Ashok Kumar State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 vide arrest memos Ex. PW13/A to Ex. PW13/C. He also exhibited personal search memos of said accused persons as Ex. PW13/D to Ex. PW13/F. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
23. PW14 ASI (Retd.) Rajender: During intervening night of 1213112006, he had visited house no. F3/98, Sultan Puri on receipt of DD no. 25B regarding apprehension of 34 thieves. He deposed that when he had reached at the spot, he came to know that it was a quarrel and PCR Van had already taken the parties to PS. He came back to PS and found that Sumitra and herinlaws alongwith residents of the locality were present apart from one boy namely Arif. On enquiry made from Sumitra, he was told that she had sustained injuries as she had fallen down from the staircase and she did not want any legal action. On enquiry made from the accused party, he was told that Arif was found in the company of Sumitra. Sumitra was got medically examined from the hospital. She gave in writing (Ex. PW14/A) that she had fallen of her own and did not want any legal action against any person. She did not level allegations of theft against any person. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
24. PW15 Ct. Ashok Kumar:He was working as DD Writer on 19.06.2006. He deposed that on that day at about 10.10 pm, DD No. 84B was recorded by him in PS Sultan Puri, on receipt of information that caller had been beaten up by father in law and mother in law during day time at F State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 3, Sultan Puri. Said information was sent to SI Rajender Singh for necessary action. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that on 20.06.2006, he was also working as DD Writer. On that day, DD no. 82 B was recorded by him at about 10.35 pm, in PS Sultan Puri, on receipt of information that "Sasural Wale Mujhse Jhagra Kar Rahe Hai". Said information was sent to HC Khushi Ram for necessary action. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW15/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
25. PW16 Ct. Sunil Ikka: He deposed that on 28.11.2007, he had joined the investigation with IO Inspector Deen Dayal, when IO had effected arrest of accused Raj Singh and had also conducted his personal search. He exhibited his arrest memo as Ex. PW16/A and personal search memo as Ex. PW16/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
26. PW17 ASI Bijender Singh: He was the Duty Officer. He has proved factum regarding registration of FIR No. 222/07. He proved copy of said FIR as Ex.PW17/A and his endorsement made on rukka as Ex.PW17/B. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
27. PW18 ASI Mahender: He deposed that on 19.06.2006, on receipt of DD no. 29A regarding quarrel, he had visited H.No. F3/98, Sultan Puri Delhi, where he met Sumitra and her father Ramphal, who State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 informed him that inlaws of Sumitra were quarreling with them and they were not allowing Ramphal to take Sumitra to his native village. They all were taken to PS, where Ramphal told to Additional SHO in his presence that he wanted to take Sumitra with him at his native Village Nizampur. Accordingly, he was allowed to do so. However, no complaint was lodged regarding theft at that time. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
28. PW20 HC Ram Singh: He was working as DD Writer on 13.11.2006. He deposed that on that day, DD No. 5B was recorded by him at about 1.20 am, in PS Sultan Puri, on receipt of information that 34 thieves had entered inside property no. F3/98, Sultan Puri. Said information was sent to ASI Rajender Singh for necessary action. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW20/A. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
29. PW21 ASI Pushpender Pal Singh: He deposed that on 19.06.2006 at about 22:02 hours, he had received message " H. No. F3, Sultan Puri Jeth, Saas, Sasur ve Devar Ne Din Mai Peetha Tha, Main Din Main Thani Mai Gaye thee Police Nai Kol Karwai Nahi Ki" from Smt. Sumitra from mobile no. 9891340302. He had recorded the said information in PCR Form. He exhibited copy of order dt. 07.10.09 issued by DCP (PCR) as also the copy of certificate issued by ACP (GA) PCR regarding destruction of said record as Ex PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B and also copy of said PCR Form as Ex. PW21/C. State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017
30. PW22 HC Raj Singh: He deposed that on 19.06.2006 at about 22:26 hours, he had received message " Sasuraal Wale Mujse Jhagra Kar Rahe Hai" from Smt. Sumitra from mobile no. 9891340302. He had recorded the said information in PCR Form. He exhibited the copy of order dt. 07.10.09 issued by DCP (PCR) as also the copy of certificate issued by ACP (GA) PCR regarding destruction of said record as Ex PW21/B and said PCR Form as Ex. PW22/A.
31. PW23 SI (Retd.) Rajender Singh: He deposed that on 19.06.2006, DD No. 26A Ex.PW23/A was marked to him. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Rajender visited the place of information i.e. F3/98, Sultanpuri, Delhi, where they met complainant Sumitra Devi who told him that her brotherinlaw i.e. accused Sanjay had assaulted her. He had called Sanjay at PS Sultanpuri who told him that he was on duty. He had lodged DD No. 80B Ex.PW23/B in that regard. Subsequent thereto, both the parties were called in PS and were produced before concerned SHO. He had lodged DD no. 2B dated 20.06.2006 Ex.PW23/C in that regard.
During cross examination, he admitted that no statement made by Sumitra on 19.06.2006, is on judicial file. He could not disclose the final outcome of DD No. 26A.
32. PW25 ASI Khushi Ram: He deposed that on 20.06.2006, on receipt of DD no. 82B, he alongwith Ct. Dharambir had gone to the place of information i.e. H.No. 98, Sultan Puri, Delhi but said address could State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 19 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 not be located for want of Block number. He exhibited copy of DD no. 22A dt. 21.06.06 as Ex. PW25/A. He has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
33. PW26 Ct. Dharambir: He deposed that on 27.10.2006 at about 19:41 hours, he had received message " Ghar Mai Jhagra Hai" from Smt. Sumitra from mobile no. 9891340302. He had recorded the said information in PCR Form. He exhibited the copy of order dt. 07.10.09 issued by DCP (PCR) as also the copy of certificate issued by ACP (GA) PCR regarding destruction of said record as Ex PW26/A and PW26/B and said PCR Form as Ex. PW26/A.
34. PW28 Inspector Deen Dayal: He is the main IO of this case. He has deposed about the relevant investigation carried out by him in this case. He deposed that on 02.07.2007, result on MLC of complainant Sumitra, which was opined as simple, was received by him. During investigation, he had recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of public witnesses including that of Sheela Devi, Tarawati, Chanchal, Dinesh Prasad, etc. as also that of police officials. On 01.08.2007, he had collected subsequent opinion on MLC of injured Sumitra from concerned doctor of SGM Hospital. On 28.11.2007, he had formally arrested accused Raj Singh, Kusum and Santosh, vide memos Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/A respectively as they were granted anticipatory bail. Likewise, he had formally arrested accused Sachin, Ashok and Sanjay, vide memos Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/B as they were also granted State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 20 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 anticipatory bail.
During cross examination, he deposed that he had never visited house of Ramphal at Village Nizampur till investigation remained with him. Despite the fact that he had asked Ramphal to make statement prior to 24.08.2007 on 23 occasions, he did not make any statement on the ground that his daughter Sumitra had already lodged police complaint and he would make statement only after consulting his lawyer. He admitted that PW ASI Rajender had disclosed the name of Arif in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Public witnesses had also disclosed the name of Arif during their respective statements made before him. He had also visited house of Arif situated at Sultanpuri for 45 times, but he was not found available during those occasions. Neither his family members nor complainant and other public persons could provide any clue about Arif to him. He admitted that copy of police complaint dated 15.11.2006 (Ex.PW8/DA) lodged by Ramphal was annexed alongwith copy of complaint case U/s 200 Cr.P.C. available in the police file. He also admitted that original complaint Ex.PW28/DB received in PS Sultanpuri vide diary no. C3159 lodged by Rani against Arif, was also available in the police file. However, he could not disclose the final outcome of both the said complaints. He admitted that it was revealed to him during investigation that Arif used to visit the house of Sumitra during odd hours.
MEDICAL WITNESSES:
35. PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra: He was deputed by M.S of SGM State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 21 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 hospital to appear and depose on behalf of Dr. Sawinder Singh. He deposed that patient Ms. Sumitra Devi W/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar was examined by Dr. Sawinder Singh on 13.11.2006 at about 5.00 am at SGM Hospital, vide MLC no. 17557 Ex.PW4/A. He also deposed that as per said MLC, patient Ms. Sumitra Devi had sustained multiple bruises over right and left side of face, back, left leg, chin and lower lip, swelling right occipital area, tenderness over right mandibular area, right face and right lower chin and swelling tenderness over right shoulder and right arm. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
36. PW11 Dr. V.K Jha He deposed that patient Ms. Sumitra was examined by him on 13.11.2006 at SGM Hospital, vide MLC no. 17557 Ex.PW4/A. He also deposed that after examining the said patient, he had given his opinion as simple. He further deposed that injuries as mentioned in MLC were consistent with beatings given with flat surface object. He proved his findings as Ex. PW11/A on said MLC. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
37. While opening the arguments, Ld Additional PP referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. After referring to the ocular evidence as well as medical evidence available on record, he submitted that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. For the said purpose, he heavily relied upon the testimonies of PW2 Smt. Sumitra Devi State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 22 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 (complainant), PW24 Sh. Ramphal (father of complainant) as also the testimonies of PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW11 Dr. V.K Jha. He, therefore, urged that accused persons should be convicted in this case.
38. Per contra, Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that the entire burden to prove its case was upon the prosecution, but the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden beyond reasonable doubt. For the said purpose, he referred to the case of prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet and the testimonies of independent public witnesses i.e. PW5 to PW8 as also PW19 & PW27 examined during trial, in order to bring home his point that all those public witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution during trial. Thus, the case of prosecution has been demolished during trial. He, therefore, urged that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in this case.
39. As already noted above, all the six accused persons were charged with offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC. Before dealing with the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss the legal position with regard to offence punishable U/s 498A IPC. It is quite crystal clear from the bare reading of Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC that it does not make each and every harassment as cruelty. In order to attract the said penal provision, the harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or same is on account of her failure or failure of any person related to her to State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 23 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 meet such demand. In other words, mere demand for property, etc. by itself does not amount to cruelty. While saying so, I am also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of "Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.", 1990(2) RCR
18. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 53. In the said case, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that offence U/s 498A IPC would not be made out if beatings given to bride by husband and his relations, was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry.
40. Similarly, in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors., 1995(6) SCC 219, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in order to constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC, the harassment must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if same is missing then the case would fall beyond the scope of Section 498A IPC.
41. Our own High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State & Anr., passed in Crl. M.C. No. 264553/2005 decided on 12.10.2007, has held that pre condition for attracting the provision contained in Explanation (b) of Section 498A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand, then such a cruelty will not be covered under Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC.
State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 24 of 32FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017
42. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. The acts of cruelty as alleged by complainant i.e. PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi in her complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC ( Ex. PW2/A) are as under:
i). The accused persons used to cut her electricity connection and did not allow her to fetch water from her neighbourers;
ii). All her istridhan articles were retained by accused persons who are in possession thereof;
iii). The accused persons were pressurizing her to marry with accused Sachin or with accused Ashok, after death of her husband Anil Kumar;
iv). The accused persons were pressurizing her to give in writing that her devar should get the job in lieu of the death of her husband on compassionate ground; and
v). The accused persons wanted to receive the entire dues payable by employer of her husband on account of his death.
43. So far as allegations regarding disconnection of electricity connection and not allowing PW2 to fetch water from neighbourhood is concerned, it may be noted that PW2 could not even disclose the name of the next door neighbourer of her matrimonial house. Specific question was put to her as to who was residing in house no. F3/97 or in house no. F3/99 in the year 2006 but she could not disclose their names. Even otherwise, those allegations cannot be construed as demand in connection with dowry falling within the ambit of Explanation (b) appended to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, the allegations that accused persons were pressurizing her to marry with accused Sachin or with accused Ashok or to give in writing that job should be given to her devar on compassionate ground, also do not fall within the ambit of Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC as those allegations have no nexus with demand of dowry. As regards the State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 25 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 allegations that accused persons wanted to receive the dues payable by employer of her husband Anil Kumar is concerned, it is relevant to note that PW2 herself has admitted during cross examination that she had already received those funds/dues amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/ and 3,00,000/ from the employer of her husband. Not only this, she has also admitted during cross examination that accused persons had returned all her istridhan articles as per her own list before CAW Cell and she was happy with the said settlement. Moreover, PW19 Sh. Kewal Singh has also testified during trial that istridhan articles were returned back to complainant i.e. PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi in his presence, before CAW Cell.
44. Ld. Additional PP vehemently argued that there is specific allegation of beatings given to PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi by accused persons during intervening night of 12/1311/2006, as a result of which she was got medically examined at SGM Hospital vide MLC dt. 13.11.06 Ex. PW4/A. He further submitted that as per said MLC, PW2 is found to have sustained multiple injuries on her person. He also relied upon the testimony of PW11 Dr. V.K Jha and his opinion Ex. PW11/A, wherein he has opined that the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex. PW4/A were sustained with the beatings given with flat surface object. He, therefore, contended that same constitutes an incident of physical cruelty given to PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi by herinlaws i.e. accused persons. Therefore, they are liable to be convicted for the said offence. However, I am afraid if the said argument is sustainable in the eyes of law for the simple reason that MLC Ex. PW4/A of State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 26 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 complainant i.e. PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi would show that she herself had told the concerned doctor that she had fallen down from the staircase, when she was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW4/A. Not only this, PW1 W/Ct Pushpa Devi (who had taken complainant Ms. Sumitra Devi to said hospital at that time) has also testified during trial that complainant herself had given the history of falling down from staircase before concerned doctor at the time of her medical examination in SGM hospital during the intervening night of 12/13112006. Further, PW1 also testified that even before concerned SHO of PS Sultan Puri, complainant had stated in her presence that she had sustained injuries as she had fallen down from the staircase.
45. Apart from above, PW10 Dinesh Parsad Gupta and PW27 Harish Chand who are independent public witnesses and were residing in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial house of PW2, have also deposed that Ms. Sumitra Devi had sustained injuries during said intervening night due to falling down from the staircase.
46. PW2 Sh. Ramphal who is noneelse but father of complainant, deposed during cross examination that her daughter i.e. PW2 did not inform him prior to 16.11.2006 about the alleged incident dated 12.11.2006. No written complaint or even PCR call is shown to have been made either by PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi or by any of her family members from parental side with regard to the alleged incident of beatings given to her. She was also confronted with relevant portions of her chief examination visavis her State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 27 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 complaint case Ex. PW2/A and material allegations regarding abuse made by accused Santosh Devi or allegations that accused persons namely Santosh Devi and Sanjay had asked for money or had given any threats to her, were not found mentioned therein. The testimony of PW3 Smt. Yashwanti Devi is totally based upon hearsay, which is not reliable at all. Even otherwise, she is also found to have made considerable improvements during trial visavis her previous statement Ex. PW2/DX made before the police during the course of investigation. Same is the case with regard to the testimony of PW24 Ramphal.
47. In view of the aforementioned discussion, Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of any of the accused persons for offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC beyond shadow of doubt.
48. Now, I shall deal with the offences punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC charged against accused Kusum, Sanjay Kumar, Ashok and Sachin as well as with the charge for offence punishable U/s 506 IPC, framed against accused Sanjay Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Sachin Kumar. Although, it is alleged by prosecution that the accused persons had committed house trespass after preparation for causing hurt, assault etc. in the matrimonial house bearing no. F3/98, Sultan Puri Delhi on 12.11.2006 and attempted to commit murder of complainant Ms. Sumitra Devi (PW2) and the accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Sachin Kumar extended threat to her on 16.11.2006 to kill her in case she would ever visit Sultan State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 28 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 Puri but the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent or convincing evidence during trial to prove those allegations with regard to said offences. First of all, it is relevant to note that house no. F3/98, Sultan Puri Delhi did not belong to the complainant Ms. Sumitra Devi, as also admitted by her during cross examination that said house was in the name of grandfather of her husband Anil Kumar. Same was given to her husband when he got separated alongwith his family for the purpose of residence. That being the position, it cannot be said that the accused persons had committed house trespass in the said house. Even if it be presumed for the sake of argument that the accused persons were not within their right to enter the said house without permission of complainant, still the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden beyond pales of reasonable doubt. The entire story mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW2/A, could not be established on record during the course of trial. Rather, the said story has been demolished by the testimonies of independent public witnesses examined in this case. As already mentioned above, PW5 to PW8, PW10, PW19 and PW27 are the public witnesses who were residing in the neighbourhood of matrimonial house of complainant. This fact has been admitted by complainant PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi herself in her cross examination. PW5 Ms. Chanchal, PW8 Ms. Tarawati, PW10 Sh. Dinesh Prasad Gupta and PW27 Sh Hari Chand have deposed during their respective testimonies that during the intervening night of 12/13112006, one unknown boy namely Arif was found in the house of complainant Ms. Sumitra Devi and when State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 29 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 neighbourers caught hold of said boy and made enquiries from him as well as from Ms. Sumitra Devi, they could not give any satisfactory reply. Rather, Ms. Sumitra Devi tried to save said boy who was given beatings by the neighbourers and herinlaws. All the aforesaid public witnesses have deposed entirely contrary to the case of prosecution and thus, they have put serious dent on the case of prosecution so far as the aforesaid allegations are concerned. Moreover, PW28 Inspector Deen Dayal (who is IO in this case) has also admitted during cross examination that it was revealed to him during investigation that one boy namely Arif used to visit the house of complainant Ms. Sumitra Devi during odd hours. He also admitted that name of Arif had been disclosed to him by public witnesses namely Smt. Chanchal, Smt. Tarawati and Sh. Dinesh Parsad Gupta in their respective statements U/s 161 Cr.PC that Arif frequently used to visit the house of complainant during odd hours. PW14 ASI (Retd.) Rajender has also corroborated the said fact as he also testified during trial that factum of Arif visiting the house of complainant during odd hours, was disclosed by the public witensses in his presence.
49. Moreover, even the wife of Arif i.e. Ms. Rani is also found to have lodged complaint dated 12.11.2006 (Ex. PW28/DB) in PS Sultan Puri vide Dairy No. C3159 with regard to the incident dated 12.11.2006. This fact has also been admitted by IO i.e. PW28 Inspector Deen Dayal during cross examination but he could not disclose the final outcome of the said police complaint. It is also relevant to note that PW14 ASI Rajender also State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 30 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 testified during trial that PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi (complainant) had also made statement (Ex. PW14/A) that she had fallen down on her own from staircase and she did not want any legal action against the accused persons. The PCR call received in PS Sultan Puri on 12.11.06 vide DD no. 5B (Ex. PW20/A) was with regard to apprehension of 34 thieves inside House No. F3/98, Sultan Puri, Delhi and two were apprehended. The said DD was infact marked to PW14 ASI Rajender Singh and he was the first police official who had reached at the spot. The testimony of said witness therefore, clearly rules out any such incident being committed by accused persons during said intervening night. The said facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that police complaint was made with regard to alleged incident dated 12.11.06 at a much belated stage, further creates reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution.
50. It is also pertinent to note that there is no mention of any mark on the neck of complainant i.e. PW2 Ms. Sumitra Devi, as per her MLC Ex. PW4/A. The alleged history given by her before doctor was due to fall from the staircase. The nature of injury is opined to be simple on the said MLC. Had it been the situation where accused Sanjay would have pressed the neck of complainant, marks would have been definitely present on her neck, which is not the case herein. Even the forensic expert i.e. PW11 Dr. V.K Jha simply opined that the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex. PW4/A were consistent with the beatings with flat surface object. Same also rules out the theory of attempt to commit murder of complainant as put forth by State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 31 of 32 FIR No. 222/07; U/s 498A/307/380/487/4521/506/34 IPC; P.S. Sultan Puri DOD: 03.02.2017 the complainant in complaint Ex. PW4/A which had led to the registration of FIR in question. Moreover, it is well settled law that whenever two views are possible on the basis of evidence available on record, the view in favour of accused should be adopted by the Court. Still, if any authority is required, then reference with advantage can be made to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2014 (8) JT 329 and (2011) 6 SCC 343.
51. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of accused persons beyond pales of reasonable doubt. Consequently, all the accused persons namely Raj Singh, Santosh Devi, Kusum Lata, Sanjay Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Sachin Kumar are hereby acquitted of the offences charged against them by giving benefit of doubt. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in open Court today
On 03.02.2017 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Raj Singh etc. ("Acquitted") Page 32 of 32