Delhi District Court
St. vs . Sunder Lal & Ors. on 19 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM (MAHILA COURTS) :
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO. 321/06
P.S. B.H.R/DELHI
U/s. 498A/406/34 IPC
02401R: 0800822007
ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & ORS.
1. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : DURING SUBSISTENCE OF MARRIAGE
SINCE 08.05.1989
2. NAME OF COMPLAINANT : SMT. LAKSHMI
D/o SH. DWARKA NATH
3. NAME OF ACCUSED PERSON
& ADDRESS : 1. SH. SUNDER LAL
S/o SH. LAXMAN DASS
R/o HOUSE NO.53/11 PUL MITAHAI,
TOKRI WALAN, LIBRARY ROAD DELHI.
2. LAXMAN DASS (SINCE DISCHARGED)
S/O MANGAL RAM
3. SUMITRA(SINCE DISCHARGED)
W/O SH. LAXMAN DASS
All R/o HOUSE NO.53/11 PUL MITAHAI,
TOKRI WALAN, LIBRARY ROAD DELHI.
4.PRAKASH CHAND(SINCE DISCHARGED)
S/O SH. LAXMAN DASS
R/O P116, CHANDER SHEKHAR AZAD
COLONY, KISHAN GANJ DELHI.
5. SMT. BEENA (SINCE DISCHARGED)
W/O SH. ROSHAL LAL
R/O G14 GALI NO.2, PRATAP NAGAR,
DELHI.
4. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : 498A/406/34 IPC(CHARGE FRAMED
U/S 498A IPC)
5. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSON : PLEADED NOT GUILTY
6. FINAL ORDER : ACQUITTED.
7. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 19.12.2014
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 1/13
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
FOR THE STATE : MS. SARITA
FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON : SH. M.K. SHARMA
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The brief facts of the case as have been disclosed in the statement made by the
complainant Smt. Laxmi D/o SH. Dwarka Nath R/o House No.53/11, Pul Mithai Tokri Walan,
Delhi, wherein it is stated that complainant was married to accused Sunder Lal according to
Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is stated that soon after marriage, accused and his family
members started harassing the complainant by giving beatings. They used to beat the
complainant with slippers and threw her out of the matrimonial house. It is further stated
that whenever complainant's brother and sisterinlaw used to come at complainant's
matrimonial house to drop her, accused and his family members used to quarrel with them.
It is further stated that the complainant was forced to tolerate the misbehaviour of accused
and his family as she wanted to save her matrimonial ties. It is further stated that the
accused and his family used to hate the complainant and turned the children against her.
Even children of complainant used to beat her due to which she developed hearing
problem.
2. It is further stated that once accused poured kerosene oil upon the complainant,
whereas complainant's fatherinlaw hit her with 'phookni' due to which she sustained
head injuries. When the complainant was going to report the matter then her sister and jeth
took her for medical treatment. Thereafter, her jeth dropped her at her brother's house.
After spending few days at parental house, the complainant returned to her matrimonial
house, then her fatherinlaw misbehaved and tried to outrage her modesty. It is further
stated that after few months marriage of the son of her mausi saas was arranged, but
accused and his family members did not allow her to attend the marriage and on the date of
marriage, when she was alone at home then her fatherinlaw came at her room on the
pretext of giving her food and tried to molest her. When she raised the alarm then her
fatherinlaw left her room hurriedly.
3. It is further stated that accused used to come home very late and whenever she used
to serve him food, he used to refuse to have food served by her and beat her under the
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 2/13
influence of liquor. The accused used to tell her under the influence of liquor that he was
having relationship with some other lady and he would give divorce to her. It is further
stated that on 11th August, accused and his family members gave her beatings and dropped
at her brother's house. But she returned the same evening to matrimonial house and found
the house locked and no one was found there. Thereafter, she broke open the lock and went
to her room. Despite wait, accused did not turn up whole night. On the next day
complainant's fatherinlaw, jeth and accused threw her out of the house. It is further stated
that people of the locality never intervened due to abusive behaviour of accused and his
family members. Finding no other alternative, the complainant reported the matter at
police station and only with the intervention of police, accused and his family members
agreed to return the keys of her room. It is further stated that the motherinlaw of
complainant locked the door and she alongwith accused went to live with complainant's
brotherinlaw, leaving her behind without making any provisions for her maintenance. The
complaint of complainant was forward to CAW Cell, where reconciliation proceedings were
conducted, but matter could not be sorted out. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of
complainant, a case U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
4. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused persons. Cognizance
of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face
the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied with copy of
charge sheet in compliance of provision given under section 207 Cr. PC. Arguments on the
point of charge heard and vide order dated 03.07.2010, charge U/s 498A IPC was framed
against accused Sunder Lal and other accused persons were discharged.
5. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In order to prove its
case, the Prosecution produced following seven witnesses :
(i) W/SI Roshni, Duty Officer, appeared as PW1 and proved copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A and
endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW1/B,
(ii) Complainant Smt. Laxmi Devi appeared as PW2 and proved her complaint
Ex.PW2/A.
(iii) SI Veer Singh, appeared as PW3 and proved reconciliation proceedings Ex.PW3/A.
(iv) Sh. Prem Nath, brother of complainant, appeared as PW4.
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 3/13
(v) Smt. Sheela, sisterinlaw of complainant, appeared as PW5.
(vi) Retired SI Lajja Ram, appeared as PW6 and proved arrest memo of accused persons
vide Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/E.
(vii) Smt. Sumitra, younger sister of complainant, appeared as PW7.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for recording of
statement of accused under section 313 Cr. PC. The statement of accused was recorded U/s
313 Cr.PC., wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to
him, to which he denied as false and incorrect and claimed to have been falsely implicated
and preferred to lead evidence in his defence. In order to disprove charge against him,
accused examined his children namely Sh. Kapil as DW1, Sh. Honey Kumar as DW2 and
Ms. Chandni as DW3.
7. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for final arguments. During the course of final
arguments, following submissions were made on behalf of the accused:
(i) The root cause of the dispute was quarrelsome nature of complainant, due to which
accused as well as their children have been forced to live separately as the mutual
relationship is not cordial. The complainant is still living at the matrimonial house.
(ii) The younger sister of complainant Smt. Sumitra/ PW7 is leading a happy matrimonial
life alongwith her husband, who is the brother of the accused.
(iii) Despite serious allegations of physical and mental cruelties, the complainant never
filed any other complaint whatsoever with the police or any other authority.
(iv) Coaccused persons have been discharged on account of falsity of complainant's
complaint, which should go in favour the accused.
(v) The essential ingredients of the offence U/s 498A IPC are not satisfied as the
incidents of alleged cruelty were mere domestic quarrels and were not in furtherance of
dowry demand.
(vi) Admittedly, brother of the complainant used to take her back to her matrimonial
house after few days of incidents of alleged cruelties and he never filed any complaint
with the police.
(vii) Admittedly, no MLC was conducted for alleged beatings and no other medical
papers have been filed and proved on record to establish the factum of beatings given by
the accused.
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 4/13
(viii) Admittedly, incident of pouring of kerosene oil with the intention to kill her, was
also not reported to the police.
(ix) There is no allegation to the effect that the complainant was not allowed to live at
matrimonial house till the demands of dowry were not fulfilled.
(x) Allegations are general in nature without there being specific details such as date,
time, year, place, etc. of the incidents. No reason has been assigned for sending the
complainant to her brother's place for 11th August incident.
(xi) Major improvements and contradictions can be seen in the testimonies of material
witnesses.
8. The arguments of the prosecution are given below:
(i) The guilt of accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt through the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses,
9. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through
entire record including testimonies of witnesses. Before appreciating evidence on record,
let us first discuss the relevant legal provision given U/s 498 A IPC. Section 498A IPC
provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the
woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive 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 coerce 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 or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand
10. In the light of aforesaid legal provision, the court would now appreciate the evidence
brought on record to ascertain if alleged acts of accused amount to cruelty in terms of
provision given U/s 498 A IPC. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract
the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly, the complainant has built
her case on explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar
Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by
DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J page 3019 , the court observed that cruelty by itself without
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 5/13
demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section
498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the
cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs
Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498A IPC
observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must
have the nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the
scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section 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). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme Court in
the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed
that cruelty under section 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage
Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
11. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of aforesaid legal
provisions and judicial pronouncements.
The testimony of PW2/complainant is reproduced and appreciated as below:
(11.1) She has deposed that since the very first day, she was not given
humane treatment and her husband along with his parents, brother and sister used
to assault her on one pretext or another. It be observed that allegations are
general in nature without there being specific details. She has further deposed that
accused used to demand Rs. 60,000/ and her father obliged the accused so that she
would be given proper treatment. But the attitude of accused did not change towards
her. She was assaulted to such an extent that she got deafness in her ear. In this
regard, it be observed that the fact of demand of Rs.60,000/ is not mentioned in
her statement given to police as well as complaint Ex.PW2/A. During cross
examination, she has admitted that her parents were dead at the time of her
marriage, which clearly falsifies her claims with regard to payment of Rs. 60,000/ .
The allegation of causing deafness in her ear is also not supported by corroborative
evidence. During cross examination, she has deposed that she used to take
medical treatment, whenever she used to get beatings by the accused and his family
members, but she has admitted that she did not remember the date and time when
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 6/13
she took medical treatments.
(11.2) She has further deposed that once accused had poured kerosene oil on
her person but she some how escaped from his clutches and saved herself. It be
observed that the allegation is not supported by corroborative evidence. During
cross examination, she has admitted that she has no medical treatment document
with regard to said incident. It also be observed that despite such serious allegation,
admittedly, complainant did not report the matter to police.
(11.3) She has further deposed that her husband used to take liquor and
return late in night and on her serving meals to him, he used to throw liquor on
her and threatened to dissolve their marriage and to perform second marriage with
some other girl. It be observed that the allegations are not supported with
corroborative evidence. It is on record that accused has not filed divorce
petition against her till date and complainant is still residing at her matrimonial
house.
(11.4) She has further deposed that on 11.8.2006, she was taken to her
brother's house and remained there for some time and then returned to her
matrimonial house, but the premises was found locked and when she entered the
room, the accused came there and assaulted her. Thereupon, she informed the police
and with their assistance her entry was permitted. In this regard it be observed that
the complainant has not mentioned the exact date of the incident and mentioned
some different facts in complaint Ex.PW2/A, wherein she has stated that she broke
open the door and went inside her room and accused did not turn up the whole
night. It further be observed that the factum of giving information to police, entry
of complainant in matrimonial house with the assistance of police, etc. are not
proved for want of evidence on record.
12. It is worthwhile to mention that while appreciating the evidence in such type of cases
involving matrimonial disputes, the court has to be on its guard and not to be swayed by
the general and bald nature of allegations which are bound to emanate from the mouth of
family members of a woman after the relations between two sides have gone to the extreme
opposite end. It is for this reason a strict analysis of allegations levelled by the family
members of the complainant shall be done. Clearly, the accused persons have faced trial for
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 7/13
penal provisions and the consequence of which are very grave in nature so a strict
interpretation needs to be taken of the various allegations levelled by the complainant and
her relatives.
13. The testimony of brother of complainant Sh. Prem Nath/PW4 is reproduced and
appreciated below:
(13.1) He has deposed that the accused person started beating her sister after
one and half year of the marriage for many times and once accused Sunder
poured kerosene oil upon his sister Laxmi. But he did not remember the date and
time. It be observed that complainant/PW2 has mentioned different facts. She
has stated that she was subjected to inhumane treatment and assault by the accused
and his family members on one pretext or another since the very first day of the
marriage. It further be observed that the allegation of pouring kerosene oil by the
accused is based on hearsay information and not supported with corroborative
evidence and admittedly matter was not reported to police. During cross
examination he has admitted that kerosene oil was never poured on his sister in his
presence and his sister informed him about the same. He has further admitted that
his sister was never got medically treated by him for said incident.
(13.2) He has further deposed that he visited accused's house for settlement, but
brother of accused namely Prakash had beaten him and tore his shirt in the
presence of the accused. It be observed that there is no evidence on record to prove
that the settlement efforts were made on behalf of either families and the
factum of settlement efforts is not mentioned in the statement of complainant/PW2.
Similarly, the fact of having been beaten up by the brother of accused is also not
mentioned in the statement of any other witnesses.
(13.3) He has further deposed that accused persons had thrown his sister out of the
matrimonial house and his sister remained in his house for about 23 months.
Thereafter, they left her at matrimonial house. He has further deposed that
accused person harassed and beat his sister due to which she lodged a complaint
against the accused persons and till today accused is harassing and beating his
sister. In this regard, it be observed that the fact of complainant's living at her
brother's house for 23 months is not mentioned in the statements of the
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 8/13
complainant. The allegations are general in nature and not supported by
corroborative evidence and are without specific details such as date, month, year,
role of accused, etc. It also be observed that it is established on record that the
complainant is residing at the matrimonial house alone and accused as well as their
children are residing separately, which goes on to prove that the claims of this
witness with regard to continuous torture are falsified.
14. The testimony of sisterinlaw of complainant Smt. Sheela/PW5 is reproduced and
appreciated below:
(14.1) She has deposed that complainant told her that accused used to beat her for
the demand of dowry. She has further deposed that accused left complainant many
times in the parental house after giving beatings and complainant was forced to live
in the parental house for the period of six months. She has also deposed that she tried
to compromise the matter with the accused but all in vain. It be observed that
allegations are general in nature, not supported by corroborative evidence and
without specific details such as date, month, year, role of accused, etc. It further be
observed that the fact of stay of complainant at her parental house for about six
months is in contradiction with the facts mentioned by PW2 and PW4. It also be
observed that there are no evidence on record to prove the fact of settlement efforts
made by complainant's family members. During cross examination, she has
deposed that she had taken complainant for medical examination many times,
but she did not remember the date, time and month. It be observed that this fact is
not confirmed either by PW2 or PW4. She has denied the suggestion that the
complainant was not beaten by the accused persons and that accused has been
falsely implicated.
15. It is pertinent to mention that PW7/sister of complainant has not supported the case
of prosecution. She has turned hostile, denied giving any statement to police and during
cross examination by Ld. APP, nothing substantial could be elicidated, which goes on to
prove the plea of accused that the cause of dispute was domestic quarrels and not physical
and mental cruelties in furtherance of demand of dowry. During cross examination, she
has denied that she alongwith her husband tried to make understand inlaws of the
complainant, but they did not agree and once accused had poured kerosene oil on the
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 9/13
complainant and when she resisted and father of accused quarreled with the complainant,
due to which complainant sustained head injuries and she had taken her sister to a private
doctor. She has further denied that she was voluntarily not deposing against the accused
because she is in apprehension that if she deposes anything against the accused then her
matrimonial life will be spoiled and she shall be removed from the matrimonial house.
16. It be also observed that in the present case, there is no investigation regarding source
of dowry articles. In the judgment of Narender Kumar & Anr.Vs State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) I (2008) DMC 337, it has been held by the Hon'ble court that the court must be very
cautious during trial of offences under section 498A/406 IPC as in all such cases in the
name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives
nothing is done by the police. Police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect
any other evidence about claims made by the complainant. This all results into gross misuse
of provision of law and investigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial
and other evidence in respect of claims made by complainant. The courts should always be
careful in considering credibility and truthfulness of statement of complainant and
relatives.
17. In the present case also, admittedly no investigation regarding source of dowry
articles has been conducted. Though the complainant has claimed that Rs.56 lacs were
spent at the time of marriage, but no investigation with regard to source of said money has
been done. The claim of complainant in this regard is falsified during her cross
examination, wherein she has admitted that her parents were dead at the time of marriage
and the income of her brother was about 23,000/ per month. She has admitted that they
were five siblings. In these circumstances, claim of complainant is not substantiated. She
has not explained as to from where such amount of Rs.56 lacs were arranged.
18. Now dealing with defence evidence, the accused in his defence has examined his
three children as DW1 to DW3, who have unequivocally deposed that their
mother/complainant used to pick up quarrel with their father over petty issues. She used to
throw meals and household articles on the accused in the fit of anger. They have further
deposed that their mother/complainant never used to cook food for them and they were
being maintained by the accused and their grandmother. They have also deposed that the
accused had never beaten the complainant and maintained her properly and all their
FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 10/13
articles are lying in the room of their grandmother due to quarrelsome nature of
complainant. During their cross examination, they have denied the suggestion that their
father/accused is alcoholic and that their mother/complainant is not a quarrelsome lady.
During of cross examination of PW5, it has come on record that the children are residing
with the accused.
19. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the complaint was made to police
on 01.09.2006 i.e. more than eighteen days after the alleged incident and about 1516 years
of cruelties, which are claimed to have been committed since the very beginning of the
marriage. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First
Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report,
more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an
after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the
danger of the introduction of the coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a
concocted story as a result or deliberations and consultations, casting a serious doubt on its
veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily
explained. (2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 577) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao)
.
In the present case also, no explanation worth the name for delay in filing the Complaint with the police has come on record. Rather, during crossexamination, PWs have admitted that no complaint was filed with regard to alleged cruelties and harassment.
20. After going through the statement of complainant and her relatives, it appears that the main reason for dispute between the parties was " INCOMPATIBILTY '' and certainly not dowry demands as alleged by the complainant and other relatives. In case of Narender Kumar Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) I (2008) DMC 337, It has been very aptly held by HMJ(Retd.) S.N. Dhingra that " it must be understood that god had not made any two persons same with the same ideas, qualities and it must be acknowledged that marriages do fail and there is a mismatch not only in arranged marriages but even in love marriages. The mismatch is discovered during the continuation of married life...................................... Every marriage that fails does not fail due to dowry demand or cruelties. The marriages do fail for several other reasons including the reason of incompatibility of the persons. A failed marriage is not a crime however, the provisions of Section 498A are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and the people are using this as tool to extract as much monetary FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 11/13 benefit as possible.............. Involving each of the family members of the husband is another arm in the armory of the complainants of failed marriages. Not only close relatives but distant relatives and even neighbours are being implicated under Section 498A and other provisions of IPC in cases of failed marriages. The Courts must be very cautious during trials of such offences".
21. In the present case also, the court is of the view that the accused has been able to demonstrate that the root cause of dispute was incompatibility and quarrelsome nature of the complainant and not the demand of dowry.
22. In view of aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced in order to secure his conviction. Accused accordingly, deserve acquittal and is acquitted from the charge framed under section 498A IPC.
23. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19.12.2014 (MONA TARDI KERKETTA) MM02 , MAHILA COURTS TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 12/13 FIR NO. 321/06 P.S. B.H.R/DELHI U/s. 498A IPC 02401R: 0800822007 ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & ORS.
19.12.2014 Present : Ld. Sub. APP for the State.
Accused Sunder on bail with Ld. counsel Sh. M. K. Sharma. Other accused persons have been discharged vide order dated 03.07.2010.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, accused is acquitted from the charge framed u/s 498A IPC.
Previous bail bonds are cancelled, sureties are discharged. Documents if any, be returned against receiving and endorsement if any be cancelled.
Fresh bail bond in compliance of provision given under section 437A Cr PC has been filed, attested and accepted. The bail bond furnished shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 19.12.2014 FIR NO. 321/06 PS. B.H.R ST. VS. SUNDER LAL & Ors. 13/13