Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Bala on 10 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MRS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT): DWARKA, NEW DELHI
State Vs Raj Bala
FIR NO. 179/08
Police Station: Dabri
Date of Institution of case : 17.11.1998
Date on which case 29.03.2012
reserved for judgment: :
Date of judgment : 10.04.2012
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a)Date of offence : In between 1988 to 1995
b)Offence complained of : U/s 498 A/ 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act
c)Name of accused and : 1. Raj Bala W/o Sh. Mehu Singh
his parentage R/o 102, Raj Nagar, Palam Village, New
Delhi.
2. Mehu Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o 102, Raj Nagar, Palam Village, New
Delhi.
3. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o 102, Raj Nagar, Palam Village, New
Delhi.
4. Sunil W/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o 102, Raj Nagar, Palam Village, New
Delhi.
5. Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Surjan Singh
R/o 102, Raj Nagar, Palam Village, New
Delhi.
FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 1
2
d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
e)Final Order : Acquitted u/s 498/34 IPC, 406/34 IPC
and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Accused persons have been sent to face trial with the allegations that they had subjected the complainant Smt. Suresh to cruelty during subsistence of marriage in the year between 1988 to 1995 while she resided with all the accused persons in the matrimonial home because of which eventuality she had to leave her matrimonial home with further allegations that they had also misappropriated the Istridhan articles given to her by her parents in marriage. Police complaint was made by Smt. Suresh upon which FIR was registered and statements of witnesses were recorded. Necessary investigation was conducted. Accused persons were accordingly taken into custody by the police officials. After conclusion of the necessary investigation, charge sheet in the matter was prepared and filed in the Court. Cognizance upon the offence was then taken up by the court.
2. Charge U/s 498 A/ 406/34 IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against the accused persons by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 18.07.2003 to which they had pleaded not guilty but had claimed trial.
3. Matter was then listed for Prosecution Evidence. Prosecution in support of its case has examined nine witnesses. Defence has not produced any witness.
4. PW1 HC Om Parkash is a Duty Officer who deposed to have recorded the FIR Ex. PW1/A on the basis of the complaint received from CAW Cell. This FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 2 3 witness was not cross examined by the counsel despite opportunity.
5. PW2 is Ct. Naresh who deposed to have visited the matrimonial home of the complainant and another house that of accused Rajbala alongwith WSI Saroj Bala and WHC Vinod on 28.04.1998 to recover the dowry articles allegedly in possession of accused persons. He deposed that accused Raj Bala was was arrested in his presence and her personal search was conducted vide Personal Search Memo Ex. PW2/A. She also proved the House Search Memo as Ex. PW2/B. He was cross examined by the counsel for accused.
6. PW3 is Smt. Suresh who deposed that she got married with accused Lalit Kumar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Jharodah Kalan on 04.11.1984. She deposed that her mother in law had taken all the jewellery except her earings and nosepin at the time of departure of wedding procession. She further deposed that accused Mehu Singh and Joginder Singh alongwith respective wives used to reside at her matrimonial home as part of family, alongwith her husband and in laws. She further deposed that she had joined her matrimonial home in the year 1988 after solemnization of marriage in 1984 but the dowry articles were given at the time of her marriage in the year 1984 itself. She deposed that accused Mehu Singh and Joginder Singh used to instigate her husband Lalit Kumar after serving him liquor upon which her husband Lalit Kumar used to beat her demanding more dowry from her. She further stated that her father had given Rs. 25,000/ to her which she had given to her husband as per demand. She further stated that her husband was instigated by accused Mehu Singh to start business with money from her parents for which she was beaten, tortured and harassed. She stated that accused Mehu singh had taken possession of their FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 3 4 plot and always used to interfere in the matrimonial affairs. She further deposed that she was beaten by all the accused persons in the year 1995 and was pressurized to get her child aborted after which she had no other option but to come back to her parental house. She further deposed that she had given the information to the concerned police station about moving to the parental house with her elder sister alongwith her essential item kept at her matrimonial house. She further deposed that she had demanded her dowry articles from her mother in law but she refused to return back . She further deposed that a complaint was lodged in the year 1997 with CAW Cell against all the accused persons. She further deposed that accused Kuldeep Singh, husband of her elder sister had written a letter to Director , SPG about their alleged involvement in terrorists activity. She proved her complaint as Ex. PW3/A. She also stated that she had handed over the marriage card to the police which she proved as Ex. P1.
7. In cross examination by the counsel for accused persons, PW3 Smt. Suresh declined the suggestion that she had visited the Police Post Palam Colony on 03.09.1995 vide DD entry no. 21 wherein she noted to have voluntarily taken some articles from her matrimonial home to her Government allotted accommodation in Pushp Vihar. She admitted that she had filed the complaint in the police station on the same day as that of her sister in year 1997. She also admitted that she got married on 04.11.1984 and had joined CRPF in the year 1986 whereas she had joined the matrimonial home in the year 1988 after which she was sent on deputation in SPG in the year 1992. She stated that she had not filed any complaint prior to filing of present complaint in CAW Cell on 12.11.1997. She admitted that accused Kuldeep husband of her sister FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 4 5 Sunita had filed a written complaint with the senior officers of SPG against her and her sister Sunita about two years prior to their filing the complaints on 12.11.1997 in CAW Cell. She also admitted that her residential flat was allotted to her elder sister by SPG prior to the filing of the complaint. She than admitted that she had gone to PP Palam Colony alongwith her father in law in the year 1995 wherein she had informed in writing about taking all household goods without any any force or duress and with her own sweet will and as such her father in law and her husband had no objection for the same. She stated that she was allotted an official quarter in the year 1995 in Pushp Vihar and her sister was allotted a quarter in the year Pushp Vihar in 1989.
8. PW4 is Padam Singh who deposed that he was member of the Panchayat twothree times which was constituted to resolve the dispute between the complainant and her husband and other in laws. She deposed that accused persons had demanded dowry either Rs. 50,000/ cash whenever they visited there for resolution of dispute. In cross examination, he stated that his statement was never recorded by the police with respect to the present case and that it was recorded only in the court.
9. PW5 is Lache Ram who deposed that accused persons used to demand dowry from complainant as well as her sister Sunita. He further deposed that accused persons used to quarrel with them and give beatings to complainant and her sister. He further deposed that father of complainant had given Rs. 30,000/ to accused Kuldeep in his presence. During cross examination , he stated that his statement was recorded in the police station Vasant Vihar by the police officials. He also stated that Gauna Ceremony of Suresh had taken place at the time of marriage.
FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 5 6
10. PW6 is ASI Vinod who deposed to have witnessed the arrest of the accused Raj Bala by SI Saroj . He was cross examined by the counsel for accused persons.
11. PW7 is Mahavir Singh who deposed that he resided in the same locality where marriage of both sisters were solemnized and as such, sufficient dowry articles were given in the marriage. He further deposed that husbands of both the girls used to consume drink, abuse and beat them on account of demand of money and dowry. In cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded after 45 years of marriage in his village by the police officials.
12. PW8 is Smt. Sunita who deposed that all the accused persons used to beat her and her sister demanding Rs. 50,000/ from them. She further deposed that accused Mehu Singh alongwith his brother Jogender Singh had taken Rs. 80,000/ from her father in law. He stated that accused Raj Bala was arrested and her house was searched in her presence. In cross examination, she stated that government accommodation was allotted to her in the year 1989 and divorce petition was also filed prior to the filing of the complaint in CAW Cell. She further stated that her sister Suresh started residing with her in official flat in Pushp Vihar in the year 1996. She declined the suggestion that she had filed the complaint in CAW Cell in order to pressurize the accused persons to hand over the property to her and her sister.
13. Counsel for accused had requested for summoning the copy of DD entry no. 21 dated 03.09.1995, Police Post Palam Colony, in response to which HC Om Parkash had appeared alongwith FIR register who stated on oath before the court that concerned record has already been destroyed vide order no. 167190/HAR/SED dated 05.04.2006. His statement was recorded in the FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 6 7 court on 23.04.2011.
14. PW9 SI Saroj Bala who deposed to have conducted the search of the matrimonial house of complainant and arrested the accused Raj Bala and stated that Search Memo Ex. PW2/B bears her signatures at point Y. She also deposed to have arrested the remaining accused persons. She was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons.
15. Prosecution Evidence was then concluded.
16. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC have been recorded in which all the accused persons denied the allegations and stated that they do not want to lead the evidence in defence.
17. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP as well as by Ld. Defence Counsel in detail.
18. Ld. APP has argued that case of prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by conjoint reading of testimonies of PW3 Sunita , PW7 Mahavir Singh and PW8 Smt. Santosh. He has also argued that cross examination of significant witness revolves around only the circumstances post leaving the matrimonial home of complainant and as such, has not touched upon any vital part of examination in chief. Ld. APP has also relied upon Pratibha Rani Vs Suresh Kumar AIR 1985, SC 628 to bring home the liability of return of Istridhan articles of complainant upon husband.
19. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that complainant had not approached the police promptly and has not explained the delayed registration of FIR which also dents the limitation period available/permissible for taking cognizance of the offence. He has pointed various incongruencies, inconsistencies and contradiction in testimony of significant prosecution witness basically taking FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 7 8 the stand that two sister in laws of accused person alongwith their husbands never resided with complainant to be able to harass them and have had nothing to do with matrimonial life of complainant and that husband used to be away from home being an army man and thus culpability cannot be fastened upon them. Ld. Defence counsel has filed detailed written arguments also. He has relied upon various judgment viz. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 170 titled as Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs Sate of Orissa, 104 (2003) Delhi Law Times 824, Delhi High Court titled as Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors. , 2011(2) JCC 1509 (Delhi) titled as Brij Mohan Vs State and 2002 (1) JCC 312 Delhi High Court tilted as Parminder Singh & Anr. Vs The State.
20. Before proceeding further, let us enumerate the ingredients of Section 498 A IPC, in the light of which we can then analyze the deposition/testimony of various prosecution witnesses.
21. The necessary elements constituting an offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC are: The prosecution must prove that:
(i) the women was subjected to cruelty or harassment;
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the women or by the relative of the husband.
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to drive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical ; or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (2) on account of failure by such woman or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand.FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 8 9
22. PW3 Smt. Suresh is the complainant in the present matter. She testified that sisters and brother in laws of her husband used to reside at her matrimonial house and thus used to instigate her husband to make dowry demands of Rs. One to Two lacs from her so that he could start his own business.
23. PW3 Smt. Suresh proved her complaint made by her in Police Station as Ex. PW3/A. There are inconsistencies between what she proved in her complaint and her deposition before the Court. PW3 Smt. Suresh has not detailed the instances in her testimony in the witness box which she narrated in her complaint. PW3 Smt. Suresh was employed with CRPF and then was sent on deputation with SPG and thus, there was no reason for her to have borne the alleged tortures towards her quietly. She had the means and opportunity to approach the police for the redressal of her grievance and there is no good reason why she chose not to do so all those yeas when she resided with her husband in her matrimonial home. It is significant as per own statement that she did not make any police complaint prior to the present complaint.
24. PW3 Suresh testified that demand of Rs. 12 Lacs was made from her upon which her father due to continuous insistence gave her Rs. 25,000/ which she gave to her husband. PW4 Padam Singh has referred to demand of Rs. 50,000/ in cash and scooter on the other occasions. PW5 Lache Ram has not quantified any demand. PW7 Mahavir Singh also deposed about demand of Rs. 50,000/ cash and scooter from complainant. Thus, there is no consistency as to the nature and quantum of demand made from complainant. There is no date or year or even manner of payment of Rs. 25,000/ allegedly given by father of complainant to accused Lalit. PW3 Suresh being a police personnel with financial independence is expected to FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 9 10 be aware of the implications of such an act. There cannot be any justification for her having supported such a transaction. PW5 Lache Ram deposed that an amount of Rs. 30,000/ was handed over to accused persons by father of complainant in his presence. This has not been testified about by complainant herself.
25. PW3 Suresh admitted in her cross examination that she had left her matrimonial home in the year 1995 with her belongings with an intimation at Police Post Palam Colony without any objection raised by her husband or her father in law. In such intimation, she could have easily noted the alleged harassment meted to her in case that was so but she chose not to do so. In her cross examination, she has denied having visited PP Palam Colony at one stage, at other stage pleaded her loss of memory and yet at other stage has admitted so. Such variation also reflect upon the veracity of PW3 Suresh as a witness and the credibility of her testimony.
26. PW3 Suresh alleged in her complaint proved as Ex. PW3/A that only Rajbala and Mehu Singh resided in the matrimonial home whereas accused Sunil and Joginder started residing in a nearby house, however in witness box, she claimed all of them residing at her matrimonial home.
27. PW3 Suresh left matrimonial home in the year 1995 admittedly but made first complaint in police station only in Nov. 1997 which delay has just been explained by her by any means.
28. PW3 herself deposed that there was a quarrel in the house in the year 1995 which was regarding the plot. She also stated that accused Mehu Singh had taken possession of their plot and used to interfere in her matrimonial affairs. PW8 Smt. Sunita also deposed that she and her sister who is complainant in FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 10 11 the present matter had raised objection to have given Rs. 80,000/ by their father in law to accused Mehu Singh. It appears that share in the acquisition amount and the property became immediate propelling force to move complaint. This also become further apparent as complaint was filed by both sisters on the same day.
29. There are thus inconsistencies in the complaint Ex. PW3/A and in the testimony of complainant. Further, other significant prosecution witness PW4 Padam Singh, PW5 Lache Ram and PW7 Mahavir Singh have either denied having given any statement to police or have deposed to have so made within one year or within 45 years of marriage. However, the complaint was filed after almost 13 years of marriage. Further, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the nature and quantum of demand. There are no specific allegations against any of the accused person.
30. In view of the above noted discussion, neither demand of dowry nor any harassment owing to any demand stands proven against any of the accused persons.
31. Now coming to essentials of Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 which are:
1.There must exist a demand of dowry:
2.Such demand of dowry must be made by any person from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom;
3.such demand must have been made either directly or indirectly.
32. PW3 Smt. Sunita has not testified about any demand by any of accused person in consideration of solemnization of marriage. There was no demand FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 11 12 deposed about at the time of marriage or immediately after marriage. Infact first instance, she deposed about was in the year 1988 when she herself was posted at Chennai. Any demand whatsoever has also not been fulfilled. Complaint has been made after 14 years of marriage. The articles, if at all given at the time of marriage were not against any demand and thus cannot be termed as such to be "Dowry" within the premise of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, the legal ingredients of Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved by prosecution against any of accused persons.
33. Now coming to the essentials of offence punishable u/s 406 IPC. Before proceeding further, let us enumerate the basic ingredients of provision Section 406 IPC carries the punishment for commission of offence punishable u/s 405 IPC. Section 405 IPC defines Criminal Breach of Trust as
1. Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property.
2. That person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or (ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
34. PW3 Suresh testified that her entire jewellery was taken by her mother in law at the time of solemnization of marriage who is not an accused in the present matter. She has also further testified that she had demanded few jewellery FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 12 13 articles back from her mother in law who as noted earlier is not an accused in the present matter. Further, as admitted by her in her cross examination , she had taken her articles after intimation to PP Palam Colony to her allotted quarter with no objection, whatsoever raised by her husband and father in law where also she did not note that she indeed could take only a few articles whereas remaining were not allowed to be taken by her husband or in laws.
35. There is no specific affirmation of any of Istridhan articles having been entrusted or having been thus demanded from any of accused persons. The basic ingredients of commission of offence punishable u/s 406 IPC are thus not made out against any of the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Raj Bala, Mehu Singh, Joginder Singh, Sunil and Lalit Kumar are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498 A/34 IPC, 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act . Ordered accordingly.
(Announced in the open (Shelly Arora)
court on 10.04.2012) Metropolitan Magistrate
(Mahila Court): Dwarka
New Delhi
FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 13
14
FIR no. 179/08 State Vs Raj Bala 14