Delhi District Court
Fir No:588/01 1 State vs . Arun Kumar Goel on 26 May, 2014
FIR No:588/01 1 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 588/01
PS - Pr. Vihar
U/s. 498A/406/34 IPC
ID No. 02404R0408252003
26.05.2014
STATE VS. ARUN KUMAR GOEL
Date of institution : 10.09.2002
Date of Commission of Offence : Since 15.02.97
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Renu Goel
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : 1) Arun Kumar Goel
S/o late Sh. Puran Chand Goel
R/o D14/129, Sector 8, Rohini,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order : 26.05.2014
Date of announcing of order : 26.05.2014
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS - Pr. Vihar against accused person namely Arun Kumar Goel (husband), Vidyawati Devi (mother in law), Manoj Kumar Goel (Jeth), Mamta Goel (Jethani) for the offences u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC. The present case was registered FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 1 of 19 FIR No:588/01 2 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel upon the complaint made by the complainant Renu Goel. Gist of the complaint is as under:
2. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Arun Kumar Goyal on 15.02.1997 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. It is alleged that complainant is being harassed and tortured mentally as well as physically by the accused persons. It is also alleged that complainant has filed a civil suit in the Tis Hazari court which was disposed off on 10.11.2000 wherein accused stated before the court that he will not dispossess the complainant from the flat bearing no. B 42 Overseas Apartment, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi, however the accused again tried to throw out the complainant as well as their minor child from the aforesaid house. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant does not have any source of income and the accused is not ready to take care of complainant and their child. It is further alleged that accused is extending threats to kill the complainant with the help of some gunda elements. Out of apprehension of being killed complainant had been left with no other option but to go with her parents at their house. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant has left her istridhan articles at her matrimonial home bearing no. 42, Overseas Apartment, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was made. Arguments on charge were heard and charge U/s. 498A/406 IPC was framed against the accused Arun Kumar Goel to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial. Other accused persons namely Vidyawati Devi, FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 2 of 19 FIR No:588/01 3 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel Manoj Kr. Goel and Mamta Goel were discharged by the Ld. Predecessor vide detailed order dated 22.02.2005.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses.
a) PW1 is Smt. Renu Goel i.e. complainant herself.
b) PW2 is HC Harender, Duty Officer who proved the registration of FIR no. 588/01 Ex. PW2/A as well as proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW2/B.
c) PW3 is Prem Prakash @ Shyam Lal Gupta, father of complainant who brought the letter written by complainant to him and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B.
d) PW4 is Sh. Naveen Gupta, brother of complainant.
e) PW5 is SI Giri Raj Sharma, who deposed that the record of DD no. 18 and 22 dated 04.9.1999 has already been destroyed by the order of DCP dated 09.6.10. Copy of the same was marked as mark A.
f) PW6 is SI Hira Lal IO of the present case who proved the search memo Ex. PW6/A, arrest memos Ex. PW6/B to PW6/E.
5. Statement of the accused Arun Kumar Goel has been recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., after putting all the incriminating evidence and documents on record. The accused stated without oath denying all allegations made against him and stated that he is falsely implicated in the present case. Accused stated that complainant never wanted to live in a joint family and she pressurized the accused to live separately from his parents and brother. He further stated that after selling the Prashant Vihar property A 110, complainant pressurized him to FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 3 of 19 FIR No:588/01 4 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel purchase next house in her name or else she will implicate accused in the false dowry case. Due to mis conduct of the complainant accused lodged complaint dated 10.5.99 before the PS Pr. Vihar and complainant and her parents tendered a written apology dated 17.5.99. Accused further stated that he never misappropriated any dowry articles or istridhan of complainant and presently complainant is residing in the flat of the accused with entire istridhan articles and accused is out of his own flat. Accused pleaded innocence and opted to lead defence evidence. Accused has examined 3 defence witnesses as DW1 to DW3.
6. DW1 is Yogesh Gupta, Jija of accused Arun Kumar Goel. DW1 deposed that he was present at the time of marriage of accused and complainant and after 1 ½ year of marriage he came to know about the dispute between the accused and the complainant. Complainant had grievance that accused has not giving her proper time and attention due to ailing father of the accused and later on complainant started insisting to reside separately from the joint family. DW1 further deposed that family members of the Renu took her with them forcefully and insisted that they will not send her back until unless family partition takes place. DW1 further deposed that complainant and her father admitted their guilty by application dated 17.5.99 before the concerned PS but again complainant started quarreling for residing separately from other family members and accordingly one separate flat was given to the complainant and the accused. He further deposed that no dispute apart from the aforesaid deposition arose between complainant and accused.
FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 4 of 19
FIR No:588/01 5 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel
DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for State
wherein he deposed that he do not remember the exact date month or year when the accused and the complainant got the separate flat and he never visited the said flat and he has no knowledge about the things happened in the said flat. He denied the suggestion that the middle man Kaushik stopped talking to the accused and DW1 due to demand of dowry and the beatings given to the complainant.
7. DW2 Sh. Vikram LDC Record Room, Civil deposed that record of the civil suit no. 77A/00 bearing Goshara no. 31 RA Diary no. 1602/01 with order dated 10.11.2000 has already been destroyed. Copy of the destroyed record is Ex. DW2/A & DW2/B.
8. DW3 is accused Arun Kumar Goel himself who deposed in his examination in chief that complainant started quarreling with him after few months of marriage because accused was giving more time to his ailing father and complainant wanted to reside separately from the family. He further deposed that complainant and her parents pressurized him and his family members to live separately otherwise they will implicate them in the false case. DW3 categorically stated that in the March 1999 parents of the complainant visited their house and abused and threatened him by saying I should start living separately with the complainant or else transfer the title of the house in the name of the complainant. After one month parents of the complainant again visited the house of the accused and picked up a fight and took the complainant alongwith them. Accused informed the matter to the local police on 10.5.1999. Copy of complaint is Ex. DW3/A. Thereafter at PS Prashant Vihar parents of the complainant admitted their mistake on FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 5 of 19 FIR No:588/01 6 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel 17.5.99 in writing, the said writing is Ex. DW3/B which bears signatures of complainant and her parents. Thereafter complainant started residing with the accused but after 23 months she again started demanding flat in her name because of which it was decided that the H. No. A/110 Pr. Vihar be sold and two separate flats be purchased for both the brothers. Thereafter two flats were purchased out of which flat bearing no. B42, Overseas Apartment, Sector 9 Rohini was given to the complainant and accused. Before shifting complainant put a condition that any persons from the family of the accused should not visit the said flat. Accused resided with the complainant in the said flat for about 1 year but thereafter complainant and her parents pressurized the accused to transfer the flat in the name of the complainant or else they will implicate accused and his family members in the false case. Complainant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the accused and his family members. Copy of claim, statement of parties and orders are Ex.DW3/C colly. In the said case accused gave the undertaking that he will not dispossess the complainant from the said flat. On 3 & 4 September 1999, complainant started arguing with accused that the house should be sold and a separate house should be purchased in her name. She also called her parents who pressurized the accused for the same. When accused refused to do the same, the parents of the complainant made a call at 100 no. Police came and a compromise was entered in the presence of the police which was signed by accused, complainant, her father and other common relatives. Compromise is Ex. DW3/D. Subsequently, complainant filed a complaint before the CAW Cell Ashok Vihar where FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 6 of 19 FIR No:588/01 7 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel sincere efforts were made to settle the matter amicably but the complainant remained adamant to get the flat transferred in her name and after the failure of settlement talks accused filed a divorce petition. In said petition after the counselling sessions, accused was allowed to reside with the complainant in the said flat of Rohini but even after the court order complainant did not allow the accused to reside in the said flat. One day when the accused reached the said flat the father and brother of the complainant were present there and pressurized the accused to transfer the flat in complainant's name. On refusal they hit with something on the head of the accused and police was called. Accused was taken by the police to the BSA hospital where the treatment was given to the accused and MLC was prepared. Copy of complaint with DD no. 17A dated 06.4.2002 is Ex. DW3/F and MLC is Ex. DW3/G. Accused further stated that thereafter he never dared to enter the said flat. DW3 was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he denied the suggestion that the injury on the head was inflicted by accused himself. He further denied the suggestion that he demanded money from the complainant after loss in business. He further categorically denied the suggestion that complainant was ever tortured or harassed by the accused for demand of money.
9. Final arguments were heard on behalf of accused persons as well as on behalf of the State and record perused.
10. The charges against the accused person are of two fold first U/s. 498A IPC and second U/s. 406 IPC. Before proceeding further to prove and analyze various testimonies, I shall deem it appropriate to enumerate the essentials of offence which the prosecution is under a FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 7 of 19 FIR No:588/01 8 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel mandate to prove. I shall deal with them one by one.
For better appreciation of facts Section 498A IPC is reproduced as under: "Section 498A IPC provides as under;
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet her such demand."
The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such tormentation is done with a view to coerce any FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 8 of 19 FIR No:588/01 9 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to "harassment" as contemplated by S.498A. Word 'Coercion' means persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute offence following ingredients/tests are essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.
(ii) Such act should be with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security.
11. In the instant case, complainant Renu alleged that she was harassed and tortured mentally and physically by the accused Arun Kumar Goel and the accused Arun Kumar Goel has threatened the complainant to throw her out as well as their minor child from the flat bearing no. B42, Overseas Apartment Sector 9, Rohini. Accused did not provide care and concern to the complainant as well as her son and offer threats of life to the complainant due to which she left the matrimonial home i.e. the said flat no. B 42, Oversease Apartment, Sector 9, Rohini leaving behind her entire istridhan. She also alleged that she had given a complaint dated 02.11.2000 wherein it is alleged that accused committed cruelty to the complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry from the parents. Upon her complaint FIR was FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 9 of 19 FIR No:588/01 10 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel lodged.
12. PW1 i.e Complainant Renu deposed in her examination in chief that initially for few months the behaviour of the accused was good towards her but thereafter he became rude for not bringing sufficient dowry and he always compelled the complainant to bring money from the parents as he has suffered business loss. PW1 has not stated any specific day, date, time and month of the alleged business loss and demand of money. PW1 further stated that in the month of June / July 1997 accused set her room on fire when she was sleeping alone. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no documents on record to support this contention of the complainant. PW1 further stated that accused was in the habit of beating her and her son to remove his frustration of business problem. Perusal of the record further reveals that there is not even a single MLC on record to prove the alleged beatings. PW1 further stated that in the month of June / July 1999 her husband tried to put her face on the gas stove and she made a call on 100 no. and she had received severe beatings at the hands of the accused on said date. Again there is no MLC on record and as per the further deposition the said matter was compromised. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused and in her cross examination she categorically admitted that she was shifted to the flat of Overseas Apartments, Sector 9, Rohini in the month of October 1999. She further deposed that she will not leave the present flat even if she was provided with an alternate accommodation by the accused. This categorical statement of the complainant reflects that she is adamant to reside in said flat which corroborates the defence of FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 10 of 19 FIR No:588/01 11 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel the accused that the motive of filing the present FIR is only to get the flat in question transferred in the name of the complainant. Furthermore she also admitted in her cross examination dated 17.9.11 that she filed a suit for injunction against the accused to not to dispossess the complainant from the said flat and on the very first date of hearing accused gave the statement that he will not dispossess the complainant from the said flat. By no stretch of imagination it can be believed that the accused who is bent upon to cause physical and mental cruelties to the complainant for the sake of dowry as per the allegations of the complainant, will so easily allow the complainant to reside in the flat purchased by the accused and will give the statement in the court on the very first date of hearing in favour of the complainant, instead of harassing her by delaying the case. Complainant herself also admitted in her cross examination that it is correct that accused has not visited the flat thereafter which shows that complainant alone is residing in the flat of the accused and the accused himself is out of that house. It is incredible that complainant who is being tortured to a great extent by the accused as alleged is living in the property of the accused and the accused who is so cruel as alleged by complainant is out of his own house. If the allegations of cruelty and harassment are taken to be true then why the accused is not residing in his own flat and making the life of the complainant miserable goes unexplained. PW1 complainant has also stated that her husband gave various beatings to her father and mother on the occasion of Grah Pravesh and accused also gave beatings to the complainant. However, again not even a single MLC has been placed FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 11 of 19 FIR No:588/01 12 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel on record to prove the allegations of beatings. PW1 further deposed that she wrote some letters to her parents with respect to dowry demand and cruelty caused by the accused which were marked as mark A, B, C & D but the perusal of the letter reveals that it contains no stamp and no covering letter and furthermore, letter is related to the date 04.5.1999 and on the same date complainant was in the company of her parents only. This again shows that the said letters were false and fabricated and filed on record to create evidence only. PW1 has alleged merciless beatings caused to her by the accused on various occasions, however she has not placed on record even a single MLC and she categorically deposed in her cross examination dated 28.5.11 that she never got medically examined after any of the beatings. Court is not inclined to accept this contention of the complainant that a person does not require medical treatment after getting merciless beatings as alleged by the complainant. She further stated that on 45 incidents police officials visited her house and at that time also she was not medically examined by the police officials. When the matter is so much serious that police officials were called then it is understood that if merciless beatings has been done, the complainant would have been examined by the doctors. It is not acceptable that cruelty was committed to such a extent that police officials were called but despite such cruelties and merciless beatings no MLC was ever prepared either by the police officials or by the complainant. This gives an inference that no merciless beatings ever took place and no medical treatment had ever been taken for the same. PW1 further deposed that amount in the dowry list is mentioned as Rs. 85,000/ and deposed in the court FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 12 of 19 FIR No:588/01 13 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel as Rs. 80,000/. By such deposition she has admitted that she has given contradictory statements. She further deposed that she do not remember the exact date when the said amount was demanded by her husband. She further deposed that it is correct that she told the police that during first 8 10 months of marriage everything was normal. She has mentioned about an incident of Fire in the month of June / July but she has not stated the exact date of incident. She admitted that she has not told about the police about the harassment caused to her at the time of Diwali and she further admitted that at the time of marriage financial condition of accused and his family was better than the family of complainant. She admitted that she never worked for the earnings till date either before marriage or after marriage. This gives an inference that she was maintained by her husband only. Furthermore the fact that she is living in the house purchased by the accused cannot be ignored and this fact clearly proves that complainant was maintained by the accused. She admitted in the cross examination that complainant and accused used to fight regularly. In view of aforesaid appreciation of evidence it is clear that allegations of the complainant qua dowry demand and harassment is not supported by any of the documents and she has categorically failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against the accused.
13. PW3 i.e. father of the complainant also mentioned about the merciless beatings for dowry caused to complainant as well as one incident of setting the room of the complainant on fire while she was sleeping and throwing the complainant on the gas chulha. Again there is no MLC and no complaint filed on record qua said incidents. PW3 FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 13 of 19 FIR No:588/01 14 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel admitted in his cross examination that in the year 1998 he got a heart attack and all the three son in laws including accused took him to the hospital. It is again unbelievable that the accused who is causing harassment and cruelty for the dowry to the daughter of the PW3 will take PW 3 to the hospital for treatment. PW3 deposed in his cross examination that he was maintaining the expenses of her daughter even after her marriage, however he has not given any day, date and month as well as amount of the expenses incurred by him. In absence of any specifications qua said expenses it cannot be take to be proved that he incurred any expenditure on the complainant after her marriage. PW3 also deposed that accused used to give sleeping pills to the complainant before trying to burn her and he has not disclosed this fact to the police till date. Again why this fact was not disclosed to the police officials goes unexplained and the fact that this fact has come on record for the very first time in the evidence raises serious doubt about the truthfulness of the said fact as there is no explanation given for non disclosure of the aforesaid fact earlier at the time of lodging of FIR or in the examination in chief. PW3 further stated in his cross examination that he alongwith his wife visited the house of accused one day and on that day quarrel took place. This shows that parents of the complainant were interfering in the matrimonial life of the complainant as it is the parents of the complainant who had gone to the house of the accused and took part in the quarrel and not vice versa. PW3 further deposed that he does not remember whether the incident written in the letter dated 07.9.99 is the incident of 04.9.99 and he further do not remember the dates of the letter as well as the FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 14 of 19 FIR No:588/01 15 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel contents of the same. Therefore he has not supported the version of the complainant regarding the complaints made to the parents by use of letters regarding cruelties committed by the accused. During cross examination father of the complainant voluntarily deposed that all istridhan of the daughter / complainant are with the mother of the accused, thereby destructing their own case of istridhan articles lying in possession of accused. In view of aforesaid discusssion PW3 also miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.
14. PW4 i.e. the brother of the complainant also deposed about merciless beatings, gas stove incident and cruelty caused to complainant by the accused but again there is not even a single MLC or any other documentary proof with respect to alleged depositions furthermore, allegations are general in nature and no specific day, date, time of alleged beatings and harassment is mentioned. PW4 stated in his cross examination that many times he visited the matrimonial home of the complainant and saw the accused beating his sister (complainant ) mercilessly and he never made any complaint for any beating. He also deposed that even his father had also not made any complaint. By way of aforesaid deposition admittedly no complaint was ever lodged by the father or brother even when their daughter and sister respectively had been beaten mercilessly in front of them which is not acceptable to this court as no father or brother could tolerate his daughter or sister to be beaten like anything in front of their eyes and will not take any action against the person responsible for causing alleged beatings. PW4 has mentioned about an incident of throwing her sister on gas stove by accused but he has categorically FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 15 of 19 FIR No:588/01 16 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel admitted in his cross examination that the said incident has not happened in his presence. Therefore this incident is also not proved in accordance with law. PW4 admitted in his cross examination that the letter ExPW3/A and PW3/B were written by my sister and not in hand writing of accused and accused never demanded anything in writing. This again proves that there is no documentary proof for the alleged dowry demands and the merciless beatings. PW4 also admitted in his cross examination that marriage could not be successful due to the fault of both husband and wife and it is correct that complainant is still residing in the flat of the accused. By way of aforesaid deposition PW4 also failed to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. PW6 SI Hira Lal IO of the present case deposed in his cross examination that he did not visit the Jeevan Mala Hospital to verify the fact that master Nikunj Goel was treated there or not and he tried to verify the allegations regarding burning of the house in which he came to know that said house had already been sold. He also deposed that he did not try to found out from where the alleged letters were posted and where they were received. He also deposed that he do not remember whether he saw the original letters or not. IO also stated that he did not verified the alleged fact of confession / compromise of accused in complaint and the complainant did not provide any medical record with regard to beating or injury to her and he meets the complainant whenever required on the flat no. B42, Overseas Apartments, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi. All these depositions clearly reflects that IO has not done the investigation of the case properly and has not verified the various relevant facts of the case. In view of FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 16 of 19 FIR No:588/01 17 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel aforesaid discussion and appreciation of evidence prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts and accused stands acquitted U/s 498A IPC.
15. For punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust U/s.406 IPC, offence of Criminal Breach of Trust as defined under Sec.405 IPC is to be proved. Section 405 IPC is reproduced as under: Section 405 Criminal breach of trust Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffer any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
Considering the definition as mentioned above, the basic requirements to bring home the accusation u/s. 405 IPC is to prove cojointly (1) entrustment with property or with any dominion over property.
(2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention in misappropriating it or converting it to his own use to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.
16. In the instant case, In the court, PW1 Renu Goyal complainant has deposed in her examination in chief that an amount of Rs. 7 lacs in cash alongwith the dowry articles was given in her FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 17 of 19 FIR No:588/01 18 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel marriage and the list of the same is Ex. PW1/A. She has not mentioned in her examination in chief that aforesaid cash amount and the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused. So the entrustment goes unproved. Furthermore perusal of Ex. DW3/B i.e. document dated 17.5.1999 reveals that parents of the complainant categorically admitted that at the time of marriage and even after the marriage accused never demanded any dowry and no quarrel pertaining to demand of dowry took place between complainant and accused. They have also admitted the fact of bad health of father in law of the complainant which corroborates the testimony of DW1 and DW3. It further reveals that because of excessive work, due to bad health of the father in law of the complainant, complainant was annoyed and when she disclosed the said annoyance to her parents, her mother and brother went to complainant's matrimonial home in anger and uttered bad words to the accused and his mother. After few days complainant was taken back to her parental home alongwith some clothes and jewellery articles. It further reveals that parents of the complainant realised their mistake after discussion with some respectable members of the society and they made the complainant understand that she should respect the elders and shall not give threats to them for petty things. They further agreed that they will not behave in such a manner in the near future. This document Ex.DW3/B bears the signatures of complainant as well as her parents. Furthermore, perusal of the complaint also reveals that istridhan articles were in complainant's custody at flat no. B42, Overseas Apartments, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi and she left the said premises on her own leaving behind FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 18 of 19 FIR No:588/01 19 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel her istridhan articles. Therefore istridhan articles were never ever entrusted to the accused at any point of time. In her cross examination dated 17.9.2011 PW1 categorically deposed that the present flat where she is residing was purchased in the year 1999 after selling the house of Prashant Vihar. This testimony reflects that in the year 2011 complainant was residing at the flat of Rohini where according to complainant herself, istridhan articles are lying. Therefore istridhan articles are still in the custody of complainant herself and there is no question of entrustment. Therefore the essential ingredient of entrustment for the purpose of committing offence U/s 406 IPC is missing in the present case. Hence, as the prior ingredient of entrustment is not proved, there is no need to apply the second test of misappropriation. Therefore, the accused Arun Kumar Goel is acquitted U/s 406 IPC.
17. In view of the discussion above, the prosecution has failed to the prove that the accused persons had committed the alleged offences, U/s 406 & 498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons stand acquitted of the offence U/s 498A/406 IPC. However, their surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today U/s 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHILPI JAIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 26.05.2014 FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 19 of 19 FIR No:588/01 20 State vs. Arun Kumar Goel FIR No.588/01 PS - Pr. Vihar U/s. 498A /406/34 IPC 26.05.2014 Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused in person with counsel.
Vide separate order announced and dictated in the open court today accused Arun Kumar Goel stand acquitted of the offences U/s 498 A/406/34 IPC. However, his surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHILPI JAIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 588/01 State vs. Arun Kr. Goel 20 of 19