Delhi District Court
State vs . Kajodmal & Ors. on 15 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
( MAHILA COURT - SED )
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Serial No. 639//2
Unique Case Identification No. 02406R0038821999
State Vs. Kajodmal & Ors.
FIR No. 984/96
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/S U/s 498A IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. Date of institution 14011999
2.Date of commission of offence On and after 05.05.93
3.Name of the complainant State through Mithlesh
4.Name of the accused 1. Kajodmal
S/o Sh. Naina Ram
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
2. Nirmal
W/o Om Prakash
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
3. Yogender Kumar
FIR No. 984/96
P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 1 of 25
S/o Kajod Mal
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
4. Suman
W/o Sh. Yogender Kumar
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
5. Om Prakash
S/o Kajod Mal
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
6. Sushil
S/o Kajod Mal
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
7. Yogender
S/o Kajod Mal
R/o A826 Arjun Nagar
K.M. Pur, New Delhi
5.Nature of offence complained of U/s 498A IPC.
6.Plea of the accused person Accused persons pleaded
not guilty
7. Date reserved for order 110311
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 15032011
FIR No. 984/96
P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 2 of 25
Date of Institution : 14011999
Date of reserving order : 11032011
Date of pronouncement : 15032011
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The complainant was married with the accused Sushil Kumar on 05.05.93 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Soon after the inception of marriage the accused husband, father in law Kajod Mal, Chhoti Devi mother in law, Om prakash and Yogesh brother in laws, Nirmal and Suman sisters in law (jethani) started harassing complainant for bringing less dowry. They also physically abused the complainant along with verbal abuses. Thereafter a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and maruti car was raised for setting up the shops of accused at Kotla Mubarak Pur to be fulfilled by the father of the complainant. When the complainant expressed the inability of her father to fulfill the said demand, she was treated with cruelty. Finally, she was physically assaulted and kicked out of the matrimonial house in three bare clothes in December 1995. All the stridhan and valuable articles were kept by the accused persons. She was categorically informed that in case she is not able to fulfill the said demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 3 of 25 maruti car, she will not be permitted to enter the matrimonial house. On the report of the complainant FIR was registered.
2. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C formal charge was framed against the accused persons on 20.09.03 and the accused persons were charged U/s 498A/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial accused Chhoti Devi expired and proceedings qua her were abted on 02.08.08.
3. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined 6 witnesses. Prosecution witness 1 (hence forth PW) complainant Mithlesh, she reiterated the contents of her complaint Ex. PW 1/A along with that she deposed that she had given the original list of dowry articles at the Woman Cell so she could not produce the original and she does not intend to depose any further.
4. She was cross examined by the counsel for the accused wherein she admitted that at the time of marriage her parents were residing in rented accommodation at Sangam Vihar and her father was working as a Daftri. She admitted that she had not mentioned any specific date, month or year when the alleged harassment was caused to her or the demand of dowry was raised in her complaint FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 4 of 25 which is Ex. PW 1/A. Further in her cross examination, she stated that the accused persons demanded maruti car and Rs. 100,000/ on 08.12.95. That this demand was raised even prior to the said date and it was regularly being raised. She stated that she was turned out of the matrimonial house on 18.12.95. That complaint Ex. PW 1/B was prepared by her in Hindi and was got typed in English by her advocate. She also admitted that no complaint was filed by her before any Panchayat, Samaj or Police prior to the complaint Ex. PW 1/B nor she got herself medically examined during the said period.
5. Further down in her cross examination she admitted that on 28.11.96 she had given in writting before Crime Against Women Cell (hence forth CAW) that she does not want take her dowry articles back. She refused for the same as they were incomplete as per the list of dowry articles. However, it is correct that in her statement Ex. PW 1/DA this fact has not been mentioned. She also admitted that a case U/s 325/326/34 IPC was registered against her and her family members Vide FIR No. 485/92 at PS Ambedkar Nagar. She denied that when the accused Sushil Kumar asked her about the above mentioned FIR against her, she FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 5 of 25 got agitated and assaulted him and left the matrimonial house in the year 1993.
6. PW 2 Woman Sub Inspector (hence forth WSI) Asha deposed that on 11.12.96 she was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as a duty officer. She registered FIR No. 984/96. Copy of the same is Ex. PW 2/A.
7. PW 3 Kedar Nath deposed that he is the father of the complainant, he had spent one and half lac rupees in the marriage of his daughter. That he had given good furniture and other household articles, jewellery, clothes, utensils and cash at the time of marriage. His daughter was also gifted by other relatives at the time of marriage. He was informed by his daughter that she is being harassed in her matrimonial house by the accused persons. His daughter told him that her husband used to demand one lac and one maruti car, when his daughter expressed her inability to fulfill the said demand, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. He tried his level best to reconcile the matter but to no avail.
8. In the year 1995, in the winter season his daughter lodged the complaint at PS Kotla Mubarakpur against her husband and in FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 6 of 25 laws. He further deposed that his daughter still wants to reside with her husband. He identified the father in law and the husband in Court.
9. He was cross examined by the Counsel for the accused. In his cross examination he stated that he does not know if the accused persons had given a list of admitted articles at the CAW Cell and they were ready to return, but his daughter gave in writing that she does not want to take the articles back. He further admitted that he was class IV employee at the time of marriage of his daughter and was living in a rented accommodation. He further stated that he does not remember the date, month and year when he took the help of the Panchayat and went to the House of accused persons, but it was prior to giving complaint before CAW Cell. He does not remember the name of persons who went with him to the house of accused persons. He further admitted that accused persons had left his daughter at his house after one month of marriage and since then she has been living with him. However, he does not remember the date, month and year. He did not give any written complaint to Biradari, Panchayat, Police or any other authority after the accused persons had left his daughter at his house. FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 7 of 25
10.PW 4 Pyare Lal deposed that he was known to PW 3 since 1985 as they resided together till 1996 at Madangiri. In 1993 marriage of the daughter of PW 3 was performed. She was kept well for one and half years by her in laws and thereafter, a demand of dowry was raised by them. At the time of marriage of daughter of Kedar Nath he along with other two people arranged the funds, furniture, utensils and another articles.
11.He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons wherein he stated that when his statement was recorded by the police in the year 1996 he had not given any documentary proof of his residing in the neighbourhood of PW 3 to the police. He also did not hand over any receipt or document for the purchase of goods stated to be purchased by them. He further stated that PW 3 was working as a Chowkidar in Post Office. He was not having enough money for marriage for making arrangement for the marriage, so he along with other two people arranged for the same. He was told by PW 3 the demand was raised for dowry by in laws of his daughter because of this his daughter was left in his house.
12.PW 5 Ram Swaroop, he is the uncle of PW 2, the complainant. FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 8 of 25 He deposed that at the time of marriage of the complainant he was posted at Bharatpur. He attended the marriage at Delhi. Dowry articles were given to the complainant in her marriage. He was told by PW 3 father of the complainant, that demand was raised of Rs. 1,00,000/ and maruti car by the in laws of the complainant from her and that they are not keeping her well. He deposed that panchayats were held many times but no settlement could be arrived at between them. The complainant was left by her in laws in her parental house in the year 1995. Thereafter, he was told by PW 3 his brother that all the stridhan articles which were given to the complainant at the time of marriage have not been returned to her by the laws. That the complainant is staying in the parental house since then.
13.He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he did not go with the complainant to CAW Cell during the investigation or inquiry proceedings. He does not have any knowledge of the fact that accused persons were ready to return all the dowry articles but the complainant refused to accept the same. He participated in one panchayat in the year December 1995 but no decision could be arrived at in that panchayat. He did FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 9 of 25 not lodge any complaint before police or any other authorities against the accused persons. The complainant was left with her parents in the month of December 1995.
14.PW 6 Inspector Suresh Chand Verma, he was the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that in the year 1996 he was posted as a Incharge police post Madangir. On 11.12.96 the duty officer handed over copy of the FIR with complaint Ex. PW 1/A which was received from CAW Cell for investigation. Thereafter, he visited the residence of complainant where the father and mother of the complainant met him and joined the investigation. He recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C on 20.12.96. The complainant handed over documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex. PW 6/A and the documents already mark as Mark A and B and remaining X and X1. On 27.12.96 he visited the house of the complainant where her Uncle Ram Swarup joined the investigation and he recorded his statement. On 27.03.97 accused Kajod Mal and his son Sushil joined the investigation and were formally arrested by him. On 28.03.97 remaining accused persons were also formally arrested. He was transfered and the case file was deposited in the MHC(M).
FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 10 of 25
15.He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused wherein he stated that what is required in the investigation for Section 498A IPC he has done all the investigation. He admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any of the neighbours of the accused persons. However, he made investigation from them. He further stated that he does not remember any of such neighbours and their house numbers. He admitted that he did not examine any person from panchayat or Khateek Samaj in respect of the pamphlets mark X and X1.
16.The prosecution closed its evidence and the case was fixed for statement of accused persons U/s 311 Cr.P.C. In the statement of accused Nirmal specifically denied all the allegations levelled against her and stated that she is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has not committed any such act. The complainant had left the matrimonial house two days after Raksha Bandhan in the year 1993, when her husband confronted her with the case her U/s 325/326/34 IPC vide FIR No. 485/92 at PS Ambedkar Nagar. The complainant had been residing separately with her parents from the above mentioned day of 1993 and never resided with her husband after FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 11 of 25 that. Despite best efforts made by her and her family members to bring her back she has not returned. She has falsely implicated her in the case in order to wreck vengeance. She has never raised any demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ or maruti car from the complainant. She has not even resided with the complainant at any point of time.
17.In statement of accused Yogender Kumar has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and has taken a similar defence as accused Nirmal. In statement of accused Smt. Suman and Om Prakash have also taken a similar defence. Accused Kajod Mal has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he has not committed any such act. He had also a taken similar defence mentioned and that the complainant has not been residing with the accused since 1993. Although he has accepted that the complainant was staying with him and her husband in the matrimonial house.
18.In statement of accused Sushil, who is the husband of the complainant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any such act. The complainant had left the matrimonial house two days after Raksha Bandhan in FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 12 of 25 the year 1993 when he confronted her with a case registered against her U/s 325/326/34 IPC and the complainant has been residing separately since then. The complainant has falsely roped him and his relations to wreck vengeance. He had never raised any demand of any amount or maruti car.
19.The accused persons wanted to lead defence evidence. They examined Jai Kishan as DW 1 who deposed that he had been residing in the neighbourhood of the accused persons for the last 25 years. He attended the marriage of accused Sushil and it was a simple marriage. The complainant lived in the matrimonial house till August 1993. During this period he did not see the complainant was ever subjected to maltreatment, harassment or torture by the accused persons. He did not see complainant in the matrimonial house after August 1993. Accused Om Prakash and Yogender were already married at the time of marriage of complainant and were residing separately at the first floor of the matrimonial house. He had never heard of any of the demand being raised by the accused persons upon the complainant.
20. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he stated that he is still residing at the aforesaid address. He has FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 13 of 25 cordial relations with the accused persons. It is correct that he often used to visit the house of the accused persons. He stated that his house is 56 houses away from the house of the accused persons, but he is not unaware of the incidents being occurring in the house of the accused persons.
21.The case was argued by Ld. APP as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. It has been argued by Ld. APP that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. All the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other and have succeeded in proving cruelty meted out on the complainant by the accused persons and the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and maruti car was being raised by the accused persons on the complainant. Since the accused persons had treated the complainant with cruelty and have harassed her for demand of dowry, therefore, the offence 498A IPC is proved against the accused persons and they are liable to be convicted.
22.Conversely, it has been argued by the counsel for the accused persons that although the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant as she was confronted FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 14 of 25 by her husband about the fact of FIR registered against her for the offence U/s 325/326/34 IPC and therefore, since she could not give any plausible answer for the same, she left the matrimonial house on her own accord and as an after thought she has concocted a story of demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and maruti car and the alleged harassment and cruelty for the fulfillment of the same.
23.Secondly, she has not even narrated the single specific incident where she was treated with cruelty by any of the accused persons. No specific allegations have been levelled against any of the accused persons. Since, no cruelty was ever meted out on her therefore she was unable to narrate any specific incident of cruelty against any of the accused persons. Thirdly, admittedly the brother in laws and their respective wives had not resided with the complainant and were residing on the first floor of the matrimonial house, therefore, there was no occasion to have intervened in the marital life of the complainant or raise any demand.
24.Fourthly, the father of the complainant even as per his own admission was class IV employee with a meager income, how could the accused persons raise a demand on a person with insufficient means. Even as per the deposition of PW 4 he along FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 15 of 25 with other two accused persons helped the father of the complainant to make arrangement of the marriage and for the dowry articles given at the time of marriage.
25.Lastly to show their bonafides the accused persons were always willing and ready to give back the stridhan articles of the complainant, but the complainant herself had refused to accept the same. Counsel for the accused has also relied upon two judgments, in case the alleged demand of complainant is accepted even then as per her own admission, the same was being raised for setting up shop of the accused. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as dowry demand. He has made a reference to Hans Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs. State Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi. Solitary instance of asking for money to purchase a shop to start business, does not per se constitute dowry to attract provisions of Section 498A. When it is not followed by any cruelty or harassment, as defined in Section 498A of IPC.
26. He has also relied up another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 2010 (4) C.C. Cases (SC) 274 In the Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan dated th 13 August, 2010. It is a matter of common experience that most FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 16 of 25 of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 17 of 25 visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
27.The counsel for accused has relied upon the above mentioned judgment, as the brother in laws and their respective wives had never resided with the complainant and still they have been roped in order to wreck vengeance since no specific role has been assigned to any of these accused persons, therefore, they are liable to be acquitted.
28.I have heard the rival contentions of both the counsels and bestowed my considerable thoughts on the same. I am of the view that in order to establish its case u/s 498A IPC following ingredients are required to be fulfilled. The first and foremost FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 18 of 25 requirement of the Section is that the complainant should be subjected to harassment, torture and cruelty in furtherance of demand of dowry.
29. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Smt.Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18 where it was observed:
"It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands. Similar view was taken in Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 1991 (2) RCR 53 where it was observed that in case of beatings given to bride by husband and his relations due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry, offence under Section 498A would not be made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207 held that proximate or live link must be shown to exist between the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand and in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 219 it was held that harassment to constitute cruelty under Section 498A FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 19 of 25 Explanation (b) must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case would fall beyond the scope of Section 498A.
Similar was the view expressed in Raj Kumar Khanna Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 95 (2002) DLT 147 (DB) where after referring to various authorities the Hon'ble High Court held that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract the provision of Section 498A IPC and that harassment to constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if that was missing the case would fall beyond the scope of Section 498A IPC.
30.From the above judgment it is clear that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons no date and time has been mentioned when the alleged acts of cruelty were committed upon the complainant. She has simply mentioned one demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ as well as maruti car being raised upon her repeatedly. It is a clear law that demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ admittedly was for setting up of shop of the accused persons which cannot be termed as dowry. As far as the demand of maruti car is concerned, it is quite improbable that accused persons who FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 20 of 25 are aware of the financial condition of the father of the complainant who admittedly was a class IV employee was not able to bear the expenses for the marriage function, which was a simple one could have fulfilled a demand for a car.
31.Even as per the deposition of PW 4 the father of the complainant PW 3 was not able to arrange the funds at the time of marriage and therefore, PW 4 along with help of two other persons assisted the father of the complainant financially in making arrangements for the marriage. Therefore, the said demand of maruti car could not have been raised upon such a person who himself was sustaining with difficulty.
32.Even PW 3 father of the accused had admitted that the accused persons had left his daughter at his house after one month of the marriage and since then she has been living with him. However, he does not remember the date, month or year. As PW 3 has himself admitted that his daughter was sent in the year 1993 in which year the marriage was solemnized, therefore the story of the accused persons seems to be quite probable that the complainant had left the house in the year 1993 after Raksha Bandhan and that she has been residing separately since then. The story of the FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 21 of 25 complainant that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house in the year 1995 seems to be false and after thought. It has been created only to avoid explanation of delay in filing the complaint. In case she had left the house in the year 1993 the onus was on her to explain as to why she did not file the complaint for about two and half years and chose to lodge the complaint only on 05.02.96.
33.From the above, to my mind the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,the accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
Announced in open court ( POOJA TALWAR )
on 15032011. M.M/MAHILA COURT/SED
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 984/96
P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 22 of 25
State Vs. Kajodmal & Ors.
FIR No. 984/96
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
15032011
Present : Ld. APP for State.
All accused in person.
At this stage an application has been moved by the complainant forwarded by APP for U/s 216 Cr.P.C for framing charge U/s 406/34 IPC against accused persons since there allegations of entrustment against the accused persons. I have gone through the entire complaint as well as deposition of the complainant. She has not levelled any allegations either of entrustment or demand of refusal against the accused persons. Moreover herself refused before CAW Cell to accept dowry articles from the accused persons. Therefore, to my mind the application U/s 406 is accordingly dismissed.
All accused are acquitted vide my separate judgment of even date i.e. 15032011. Bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. Endorsement, be cancelled, if any. File be consigned to record room.
( POOJA TALWAR ) M.M/MAHILA COURT/SED Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 23 of 25 FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 24 of 25 FIR No. 984/96 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar Page No. 25 of 25