Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Pratap Kashyap on 16 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA
COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap
FIR No. 50/2004
PS Dwarka
MC No. 160/2016
Date of institution of case : 15.12.2004
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 14.12.2017
Date of judgment : 16.12.2017
JUDGMENT U/s 498A/34 IPC:
a) Date of offence : On and after 10.12.2000
b) Offence complained of : Section 498A/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Smt. Uma
d/o Sh. G.C. Verma
R/o C-67, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
d) Name of accused, his : (1) Rajeev Kashyap
parentage, local & (2) Jitender Kashyap
permanent residence both s/o Sh Ram Pratap Kashyap
r/o B/103, Top Floor, B-Block, Dilshad Colony,
New Delhi-110095.
e) Plea of accused : Accused are falsely implicated
f) Final order : Both accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC
1.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 10.04.2003, a complaint was received at CAW Cell Nanakpura from complainant Sh. G.C. Verma. In this complaint it is mentioned that complainant got his daughter Smt. Uma Verma married FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 1/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap to accused Rajeev on 10.12.2000. The marriage was settled through the elder brother of father of accused Rajeev namely, Sh. Ram Chander. Before the marriage there was no demand of any dowry. It was also decided that after sometime, Smt. Uma will accompany accused Rajeev to London. On 10.01.2001, accused Rajeev left for London after assuring Smt. Uma that he would sent necessary papers for issuance of Visa and in the meantime she should have the passport issued. In November 2001, Smt. Uma got the passport issued but she did not receive the letter from employer of accused Rajeev. In 3rd week of November 2001, accused Rajeev returned to Delhi for the marriage of his younger brother. However, after the marriage also, accused Rajeev did not talk about the visa. In 1 st week of February 2002, the father of accused Rajeev, namely, Sh. Ram Pratap (since deceased) demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the elder brother of complainant, namely, Capt. Rajnish Verma. Before this, Sh. Ram Pratap had already demanded and received Rs. 25,000/- from the elder sister of complainant, namely, Smt. Rama. He had also demanded Rs. 10,000/- from elder brother of complainant, namely, Sh. Sudhendra Verma but he was unemployed and could not pay. Accused Rajeev himself could not remit money to his parents from London due to which Smt Uma was victimized and locked up for hours together in the months of February and March 2002. She was not allowed to take calls from accused Rajeev. Accused Jitender would stand in her way and stop her from taking the calls. Once Sh. Ram Pratap got annoyed on her request to talk to accused Rajeev. He smashed the FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 2/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap mobile phone and told her to take the broken pieces of phone, her suit case and car and go to Lucknow. Accused Jitender and his mother Smt. Saroj (since deceased) also repeated this command. When this information received by Capt. Rajnish Verma, he took permission from accused Rajeev on phone and took Smt. Uma to Lucknow on 20.04.2002. On 17/18.04.2002, Smt. Uma found that her marriage certificate and high school certificate had been stolen. When she informed accused Rajeev, he told her that those documents were removed and it was within his knowledge. It is stated that accused Jitender committed theft of these articles with help of his father so that Smt. Uma does not get visa for London. Smt. Uma wrote to accused Rajeev and Sh. Ram Chander on 15.05.2002 regarding her grievances but no reply was received till 13.11.2002. She again wrote to accused Rajeev on 14.06.2002, 14.07.2002 and 10.11.2002. Accused Rajeev came to Lucknow on 20.11.2002 and met her in a park. From 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM he forced complainant to withdraw her allegations in writing. When she refused, he threatened her to divorce her. He later filed divorce case also. After receiving notice for dissolution of marriage, Smt. Uma sent legal notice dated 02.01.2003 to Sh. Ram Pratap and others.
Accordingly, the present FIR was registered for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. During investigation complainant was returned some of her articles and she was given a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1.75 lac towards remaining articles.
FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 3/13
State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap
3. Arguments on charge were heard and charge for the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC was framed against accused Rajeev and Jitender. Charge was also framed against Smt. Saroj and Sh. Ram Pratap but they have since passed away.
4. Prosecution examined six witnesses in its support:
4.1. PW-1 HC. Manju entered the witness box on 25.04.2011 and proved FIR Ex.
PW-1/A and original tehrir Ex. PW-1/B. 4.2. PW-2/ Smt. Uma entered the witness box on 05.07.2014 and deposed that she got married to accused Rajeev on 10.12.2000. Accused Rajeev left for London on 10.01.2001. Her parents in law and accused Jitender started harassing her for money and they did not want her to join accused Rajeev in London. The in laws of Smt. Uma used to demand money for installments of the house. In October-November 2001, Sh. Ram Pratap demanded Rs. 10,000/- from her sister, Rs. 15,000/- from her jija and Rs. 10,000- from her brother. He demanded money directly from her sister and told her not to disclose this fact to Smt. Uma. He also assured to return the money but did not do so. She stated that money from her brother was demanded in her presence when he visited her after getting a job. However, her brother could not pay and her sister and jijaji gave money to Sh. Ram Pratap. Accused Jitender used to lock Smt. Uma in a room. On 20.11.2001, accused Rajeev returned but he was found tutored. Smt. Uma requested him to take her with him but he returned to London alone on 18.01.2002. Her in laws made demand of Rs. 50,000/- from her and Smt. Uma states that she was FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 4/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap being harassed on the instructions of accused Rajeev. Her in laws also removed her marriage certificate and educational qualification certificates. Accused Jitender had told her that he would remove her important documents so that she does not go to London. In 1st week of March 2002, accused Rajeev called from London but Smt. Uma was not allowed to talk to him. When Smt. Uma requested, Sh. Ram Pratap damaged the phone which was gifted by her father. She was told to pick the broken pieces of phone and leave the house. Suddenly, she received call of her sister. She narrated the incidents to her sister who visited Smt. Uma's matrimonial house. Her sister advised her to write a letter to her father, which is Ex. PW-1/A. Her brother Rajnish Verma came to take her. On 18.04.2002 she went to her parental house. She informed accused Rajeev about the missing documents who showed his awareness. In last week of April or 1st week of May 2002, accused Rajeev told Smt. Uma that he did not wish to live with her. Accused Rajeev returned near Diwali of 2002 but did not see Smt. Uma. He started contacting her by letters and causing mental harassment to her. He wrote that she should apologize to his parents otherwise he would dissolve the marriage. On 20.11.2002, he met her at a park in Lucknow and pressurize her to apologize in writing, otherwise he would dissolve the marriage. On 10.12.2002, he filed divorce petition after which her father filed complaint Ex. PW-1/C with women cell. She gave application Ex. PW-1/B for taking action and relied on her list of articles Ex. PW-1/D. FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 5/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap In her cross-examination, she stated that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made in 1st week or mid of March 2002. She stated that she did not have phone number of accused Rajeev because he used to call his father only. She stated that she never made any PCR call because she was not provided with any phone. She stated that she did not write any letter to her husband. She stated that accused Rajeev filed divorce case in London and the same was granted in her presence on 16.05.2011. She stated that she had received phone call from her sister on the land line. 4.3. PW-3 /Sh G.C. Verma entered the witness box on 27.09.2014 and deposed that he is the father of Smt. Uma. He stated that it was settled that after marriage Smt. Uma will accompany her husband to London within a couple of weeks. Accused Rajeev left for London on 10.01.2001 and returned on 22.11.2001. He again returned to London on 19.01.2002 after the marriage of his brother, without making arrangements for visa of Smt. Uma, though she had received passport on 29.11.2001. He stated that he had given a Maruti 800 car and a mobile phone to Smt. Uma but Sh. Ram Pratap never gave this mobile to Smt. Uma. On 24.03.2002, accused Rajeev called from London but Smt. Uma was not allowed to speak to him. When Smt. Uma insisted, Sh. Ram Pratap smashed the mobile phone and broke it. He then told Smt. Uma to take the broken pieces and her car and leave for Lucknow. In February 2002, Sh. Ram Pratap pressurized Smt. Uma to ask her brother Capt Rajnish to come to Delhi within a week with Rs. 50,000/-. When Smt. Uma resisted him, he called Smt. FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 6/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap Rama, the elder sister of Smt. Uma. Smt. Rama conveyed the message of Sh. Ram Pratap to Capt. Rajnish. Capt. Rajnish replied that he would come to Delhi before Holi and meet Sh. Ram Pratap. As promised he came, but he told Sh. Ram Pratap that he could not manage Rs. 50,000/-. He was then asked by Sh. Ram Pratap to mortgage the car for money. Capt. Rajnish informed him that the car was registered in the name of his father and therefore it cannot be mortgaged. Upon this Sh. Ram Pratap got annoyed. Thereafter Smt. Uma was increasingly harassed till she was removed from the matrimonial house on 18.04.2002. On 20.04.2002, Smt. Uma reached Lucknow. On 15.05.2002, she wrote a letter to mediator Sh. Ram Chander and accused Rajeev about her harassment. When she was packing on 17/18.04.2002, she found her certificates missing. On 19.04.2002, when Smt. Uma talked to accused Rajeev from a PCO, he told her that the documents are with him and that it were removed with his knowledge. Between 20.01.2002 to 18.04.2002, Smt. Uma was not allowed to speak to her husband and accused Jitender used to stop her from going to a PCO Booth. He also deposed that Sh. Ram Pratap had earlier received Rs. 15,000/- from Smt. Rama and Rs. 10,000/- from her husband in December 2001. Sh. Ram Pratap had also demanded Rs. 10,000/- from witness's younger son Sudhender but because he was unemployed, he refused. He stated that on 13.11.2002, accused Rajeev wrote a letter stating that it may take 1 to 5 years to migrate Smt. Uma to London. On 20.11.2002, accused Rajeev visited Lucknow and demanded that complainant should retract her FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 7/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap statement made in letter Mark X1. He also relied on letter dated 17.04.2002 Ex. PW- 1/A and its envelope Ex P1. He further stated that he tried to negotiate but due to adamant behavior of accused Rajeev, Sh. Ram Pratap and others but no settlement has arrived at. They had already conspired to throw Smt. Uma out of the house. Finally, he filed complaint Ex. PW-1/C and gave photographs Ex. P2 to IO which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/B. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had already received Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of broken mobile phone during anticipatory bail proceedings. He admitted that the car is with him. He did not remember the make or model of mobile phone. He admitted that the present case was filed after divorce proceedings were initiated by accused Rajeev. He stated that he used to be in touch with his daughter through phone. He also admitted that his son Rajnish used to be in touch with accused Rajeev through phone.
4.4. PW-4/ SI Avtar Singh entered the witness box on 23.05.2016 and stated that admitted list of articles Ex. PW-4/A was received by him. After no settlement was arrived at, report Ex. PW-4/B was prepared and present FIR was registered. 4.5. PW-5/ Rajnish Verma entered the witness box on 04.09.2017 and stated that he is the elder brother of Smt. Uma. On 12.12.2001, Sh. Ram Pratap took Rs. 15,000/- from the husband of Smt. Rama and next month he took Rs. 10,000/- from Smt. Rama. In March 2002, he got a call from Smt. Rama telling him that Sh. Ram Pratap FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 8/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap wants to meet him and is demanding Rs. 50,000/-. He was also told not to disclose this to accused Rajeev. When he met Sh. Ram Pratap, he was told that Sh. Ram Pratap needs money otherwise his house would be sold out. When he expressed his inability, he was told to mortgage the car. When he told that the car is in the name of his father, Sh. Ram Pratap got annoyed. On 16.04.2002, he got a call from Smt. Rama that Smt. Uma is not well and is under depression. He was also told that the mobile phone gifted to accused Rajeev had been snatched and broken. On 19.04.2002, he brought Smt. Uma to Lucknow with the consent of accused Rajeev.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not have the number of Rajeev. Then he again said that he had the number but he was not in constant touch with him. He also stated that he was in touch with Smt. Uma and used to visit her whenever he would come to daily as he was Asst. Pilot Instructor. He admitted that Smt. Uma got remarried in December 2012.
4.6. PW-6/ SI Ram Niwas entered the witness box on 23.11.2017 and stated that he collected documents vide memo Ex. PW-6/A, the recovery cum handing over memo of istridhan articles is Ex. PW-6/B. He stated that during anticipatory bail proceedings, Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid to Smt. Uma towards istridhan articles.
5. Statement of accused under Section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC. was recorded wherein they denied all the allegations against them. Accused persons chose not to lead evidence in defence.
FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 9/13
State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State, ld counsel for complainant and ld. Counsel for accused.
7. In order to prove offence u/s 498A/34 IPC prosecution had to prove that accused are the husband/relative of husband of victim and that they subjected her to cruelty, as defined in Explanation to the Section. That is to say, cruelty was either in connection with any unlawful demand for property made from her or her relatives, or it was of such a nature as is likely to drive victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life/limb/health.
8. It is not disputed that Smt Uma and accused Rajeev got married on 10.12.2000.
9. It is not the case of prosecution that any of the accused ever caused any injury to Smt Uma of such a nature "as is likely to drive her to commit suicide" or cause "grave injury or danger to her life/limb/health".
10. There is nothing to show that Smt Uma was ever driven to commit suicide or that the conduct of accused was likely to drive her to do so. Therefore there is no cruelty within the meaning of Explanation a) to Section 498A IPC.
11. To see whether the case falls under Explanation b) to Section 498A IPC, prosecution must establish that the accused persons made some unlawful demand from the Smt Uma or her family.
12. It is admitted that before the marriage there was no demand of any dowry.
FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 10/13
State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap
13. PW-2/ Smt. Uma deposed that after the marriage, her parents-in-law and accused Jitender started harassing her for money and used to demand money for installments of the house. However she does not mention any specific incident when any demand was made from her or when she was subjected to harassment or what amount was demanded. She deposed that Sh. Ram Pratap demanded Rs. 10,000/- from her sister, Rs. 15,000/- from her jija and Rs. 10,000- from her brother. PW-3 and PW5 deposed that Sh Ram Pratap made demand of Rs 50,000/- from PW5. However the role of accused Rajeev and accused Jitender in these demands is not shown. Rather PW5 was told not to disclose about this demand to accused Rajeev.
PW3 stated that Smt. Uma was increasingly harassed after PW5 failed to meet demand of Rs 50,000/- but does not explain who harassed Smt Uma. On the other hand, PW2/Smt Uma herself deposed that her sister was told not to disclose this fact to Smt. Uma, meaning thereby that there was no harassment on account of these demands. Further PW2 also deposed that Sh Ram Pratap had in fact assured to return the money.
14. The other allegation against accused Jitender is that he used to lock Smt. Uma in a room. Here again, no specific incident or reason for such locking was described by PW2.
15. PW2 deposed that accused Jitender had told her that he would remove her important documents so that she does not go to London, after which she found her FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 11/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap documents missing. This incident even if taken to mean that accused Jitender actually disappeared her documents, the same would not fall under Section 498A IPC.
16. The allegation against accused Rajeev is that he did not take Smt Uma to London with him when he first left after marriage on 10.01.2001 and then again on 18.01.2002. Apart from the fact that Smt Uma did not have a passport till November 2001, such conduct of accused Rajeev was at the most unfair but not cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.
17. PW2 deposed that her in-laws made demand of Rs. 50,000/- from her and she was being harassed on the instructions of accused Rajeev. However, as noted above, there is no specific incident of any demand from Smt Uma nor any explanation as to why Smt Uma thought that she was being victimized on the instructions of accused Rajeev.
18. The last incident in the matrimonial house is when the phone gifted by PW3 was smashed by Sh Ram Pratap and she was told to leave the house. No unlawful demand has been associated with this incident.
19. PW2 deposed that after this incident, she was advised by her sister to write a letter to her father, which is Ex. PW-1/A. The incident took place in first week of March 2002, as per PW2, yet the letter has been posted only on 18.04.2002 (as per postal stamp on Ex P1.) Moreover, Smt Uma had already informed her sister Smt Rama the same day, who even visited the matrimonial house with her husband. As per FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 12/13 State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap PW5, Smt Rama had also informed him about this, but strangely none of them deemed it fit to inform the complainant over phone or in person. It is also noteworthy that Smt Uma used to be in touch with complainant (as per PW3) and PW5 also used to keep visiting her but in these about 7-8 weeks, neither PW3 nor PW5 had any contact with Smt Uma. Only a letter was written which was posted on 18.04.2002, that is, the same day that Smt Uma left with her brother for Lucknow. Therefore, the reason behind writing this letter is unclear.
Even if this letter is taken to be containing the actual grievances of Smt Uma, it does not hold any allegation of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. It merely states that Smt Uma was harassed on account of her family and her husband. It states that Vicky (presumably accused Jitender) calls names to her parental family, that he once locked the kitchen and that all of them do not allow her to talk to accused Rajeev.
20. As such, prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of any of the accused persons. Accused Rajeev Kashyap and Jitender Kashyap are acquitted for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC.
21. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI )
TODAY ON 16th December, 2017 MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
Dwarka/Delhi
FIR No. 50/2004 PS : Dwarka Page no. 13/13
State Vs Ram Pratap Kashyap