Delhi District Court
Case Titled As State vs Amar Singh, on 14 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 : SED
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS RENU BHATNAGAR
Case ID No. 02406R0078262013
Criminal Appeal No. 2/13
FIR No. 346/02
PS Kalkaji
U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Case titled as State Vs Amar Singh,
Concerned /Successor Court of Ms. Monika Saroha,
MM(Mahila Court), South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
In the matter of :
State
Through Public Prosecutor, Delhi
..... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Amar Singh,
S/o Sh. Leela Dhar,
R/o Village Jamalpur Durjan,
PO Jainpura, Tehsil Jaleasar City,
District Etah, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Gurdayal
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal,
R/o C516, New Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi96.
3. Smt. Shakuntala
W/o Sh. Gurdayal,
R/o C516, New Ashok Nagar,
CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 1 of 10
New Delhi 96.
4. Shiv Dayal
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal,
R/o C547, New Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi96.
5. Smt. Mahadevi,
W/o Late. Sh. Leela Dhar,
R/o Village Jamalpur Durjan,
PO Jainpura, Tehsil Jalesar City,
District Etah, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Respondents/Accused
O R D E R
14.08.2014
1. This is an appeal filed by the state against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2012 passed by Ms. Monika Saroha, MM vide which all the accused persons/respondents were acquitted in case FIR No. 346/02, U/s 498A /406/34 IPC, PS Kalkaji.
2. The main thrust of arguments is that the MM did not appreciate the testimony of the witnesses including PW3 Suman Lata (complainant) who had clearly established the case of the prosecution and deposed that the accused persons have made unlawful demands and subjected her to cruelty, physical and mental torture when she failed to fulfill their unlawful demands. It is stated that specific demand of dowry have come in the deposition of PW1 that on 31.12.1996 husband of the complainant demanded money for DPC (construction) on a plot at Mohan CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 2 of 10 Garden and on 19.12.1996 when they went to Vaishno Devi, the entire travelling expenses were paid by the complainant. Further as per her deposition when the complainant went to Assam on 19.05.1997 to join the company of her husband along with her mother, they paid Rs. 10,000/ . Further it has come on record that, in July 1997 at the matrimonial house in the village, the relatives of her husband/inlaws passed comments and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and also threatened her that they will remarry their son. It has also come on record that the streedhan / jewelery of the complainant was retained by her husband, sister in law and mother in law of the complainant did not return the streedhan despite demands. It is also argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the Ld. MM has not appreciated the testimony of PW4 mother of the complainant hence, it is stated that the judgment is incorrect, bad in law and the same is contrary to the evidence. Hence, it is prayed that judgment be set aside and the accused persons be convicted in terms of law.
3. The respondents/accused did not wish to file reply to the appeal and have advanced arguments straightway.
4. It is argued by the counsel for respondents that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Ld. MM. The findings of the magistrate are based on the factual background and the testimonies of the witnesses. It is stated that there is no merit in the revision petition and the same be dismissed.
5. I have heard the submissions from both sides and have CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 3 of 10 perused the judgment dated 26.10.2012 passed by Ms. Monika Saroha, MM, whereby all the respondents/accused are acquitted under section 498A/406/34 IPC.
6. Before deciding this appeal it is necessary to know the case of the prosecution in brief. In the complaint made by the complainant to Crime against Women Cell it is stated that her marriage was solemnized with accused/respondent Amar Singh on 14.12.1996. Her parents gave cash and lot of gifts at the time of Chunni ceremony, Tilak ceremony and marriage. Her parents had spent Rs. 2 Lakhs in the marriage but the respondent/accused Amar Singh and his family members were not satisfied. It is stated that soon after the marriage respondent/accused Amar Singh and his family members started taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent/accused Amar Singh took a room at Rohini and took the complainant there after the marriage, where no articles were available nor the respondent/accused allowed the complainant to bring other household articles from her parents house stating that he had to join duty on 03.01.1997 and they had to live only for 1012 days whereafter complainant may leave for her parents house. It is stated that she was employed as teacher at the time of marriage and the respondent/accused had an evil eye on her salary and he was demanding money on one pretext or the other and had borrowed money from her mother, when they visited Vaishno Devi. Accused/Respondent Amar Singh had one plot at Mohan Garden which he wanted to construct from her salary in April, 1997. Accused/Respondent Amar Singh asked her to CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 4 of 10 come to Jorhat, Assam where he was posted and to bring Rs. 10,000/ because he has not received his salary. When the complainant and her mother reached there there was no provision of their stay. His behaviour was also rude and he stated that there were so many proposals for the marriage who were giving Rs. 80,000/ in cash as well as motorcycle. He further told the complainant after showing some photographs of the girls from whom he got marriage proposals that he has rejected all those girls as complainant was employed as a Teacher and was getting handsome salary so that he can construct the house out of her salary at Delhi. In May, 1997 when the complainant conceived, accused/respondent Amar Singh did not like and asked her to go for abortion. She was not taken for check up during her pregnancy and accused/respondent was negligent and careless. During her stay at Assam in July, 1997, accused/respondent Amar Singh took her to his parents house at village Jamalpur, Etah, UP. At that time, she was carrying three months pregnancy. He made her walk to 34 Kilometers. They stayed in the village for one night and then returned. During their stay, the mother in law/accused no. 2 of the complainant did not care for her and taunted "Pata Nahin Kin Kanglo Ke Ghar Hamara Ladka Phas Gaya, Pata Nahin Log Apni Ladki Ko Sasural Main Khush Dekhna Nahi Chahte, Tere Maa Baap Paisa Saath Le Kar Jayenge Kya". That thereafter, respondnent/accused insisted the complainant to accompany her to Assam which was refused by her due to which accused became furious and started quarreling with her. However on reaching Assam, the accused left her in MI Room and went to join his CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 5 of 10 duty on 14.07.1997. She stayed for 10 days in the hospital as bleeding could not be stopped and due to which she was got aborted. It is stated that accused/respondent was responsible for the abortion where after she came back to Delhi. The respondent/accused Amar Singh also came and used to ask for her Pass Book and used to fight seeing the withdrawals of the amount and used to beat her mercilessly. It is also stated that she had taken a room on rent but the rent was never paid by the respondent/accused Amar Singh. The respondent/accused used to compel her for loan from GPF for construction of the plot and when she showed her inability, he used to abuse her. That her sister in laws and their husband i.e. accused No. 2 to 5 used to visit her place and used to taunt her. On few occasions her sister in laws even went to the extent of beating her by slapping on her face and they used to say "Dekhte hain tu kitne din hamare bhai ke sath rahegi" and finally on 14.01.1999 accused Amar Singh deserted her.
7. On this complaint the present FIR is registered and the witnesses were examined. The complainant herself appeared in the witness box as PW3 and substantiated the averments of her complaint. The most material witness to the offence of cruelty or criminal breach of trust is the complainant herself as well as her mother PW4. So far as the accused except accused Amar Singh husband of the complainant is concerned, the trial court has rightly observed that the only allegations against them in the statement of the complainant is that they all used to taunt upon the victim/complainant by saying "Pata Nahin Kin Kanglo Ke CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 6 of 10 Ghar Hamara Ladka Phas Gaya, Pata Nahin Log Apni Ladki Ko Sasural Main Khush Dekhna Nahi Chahte, Tere Maa Baap Paisa Saath Le Kar Jayenge Kya", "Dekhte hain tu kitne din hamare bhai ke sath rahegi"
and the allegations against the mother in law that she used to say that there were other proposals available for respondent/accused Amar Singh then her giving more dowry. Allegations of slapping upon the Nanad on few occasions are not put forth to the complainant before the court. There are no specific allegations against the husband or her sister in laws. The Trial court has rightly observed that except the allegations of taunts on one or two occasions there is no allegations by the complainant that the accused persons used to demand dowry. No deposition with regard to the physical abuse is mentioned in the deposition. As per her allegations she had hardly spent much time with her in laws as most of the time she remained with her husband Amar Singh at Assam, Aurangabad or at her mother place. The Trial court has rightly observed that there was no averment that the conduct of the inlaws is such as is likely to drive the victim to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries to her mental and physical health. The taunts by the mother in law or sister in laws could not be termed as dowry demands and may be a part of normal wear and tear of life. No specific allegations or the time of slapping by the sister in laws is put forth and the Trial court had rightly observed that there are no specific allegations with regard to the cruelty, dowry demands so as to constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Similarly, no entrustment of dowry articles to the accused persons is proved from the CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 7 of 10 deposition of the complainant and as such, the Trial court has rightly acquitted accused no. 2 to 6 under section 498A/406 IPC.
8. So far as accused Amar Singh is concerned, as per the allegations accused has demanded Rs. 10,000/ when he was posted at Assam or demanded Rs. 80,000/ or asking her to withdraw the amount from her GPF for construction of the plot could not be termed as dowry demand as is rightly observed by the Trial court. Asking a working wife to bring some money at the time of distress, when the husband is not getting his salary, is not a dowry demand. Similarly, asking the wife to withdraw from GPF amount for the construction of the plot or asking her to bring Rs. 80,000/ for the construction of the house could not qualify the definition of dowry demand. No specific averment of beating with specific time or date was given by the complainant. The allegations that accused used to beat her is vague. No other demand is put forth. The allegations of teasing a wife that he would have got better marriage proposals are also comments passed by the husband during the ordinary course of life and they also do not qualify the definition of cruelty. Small pranks between the married couple do not amount to cruelty. It is difficult rather impossible to enumerate act amounting to cruelty or to put cruel conduct into a 'straight jacket' or to make cruel conduct conformable to any inflexible standard the danger of any attempt at giving a comprehensive definition of cruelty that may embrace all cases and situations. Cruelty is elastic form to meet the necessities of changing requirements and concepts of society and not be isolated from the CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 8 of 10 environment and background of spouses, capacity of endurance of spouses. The explanation to Section 498A provides that : Cruelty means: (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
9. Hence, every harassment is not cruelty but it should be with the object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand or on account of their failure to meet the demand. The Trial court has rightly observed that from the statement of complainant and her mother the conduct of the accused/husband could not be termed as one resulting in danger to the mental and physical health of the complainant. The observation of the Trial court with regard to the offence under Section 406 IPC against the applicant also hold good as it is not her case that she entrusted her streedhan to her husband or her inlaws or that she demanded the same which was refused.
10. Accordingly the statement of the complainant or her mother do not prove offence of cruelty or the criminal breach of trust against any of the accused. I find no infirmity or illegality passed by the Trial court. Hence finding no merit in the appeal filed by the state, same is hereby CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 9 of 10 dismissed.
11. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.P.C., accused/respondents are directed to furnish bail bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety of like amount for the period of six months with the condition that they shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when notice be issued in respect of any appeal filed by the state against the judgment within a period of 6 months. Case property be confiscated to the state after expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any. Trial court record along with copy of the order be sent to the concerned Trial court. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.08.2014.
( RENU BHATNAGAR )
ASJ01/SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI
14.08.2014
CA No. 2/13 State Vs Amar Singh etc. Page No. 10 of 10