Fir No. 83/2008; Ps Oia State vs . Imran Khan & Ors. 1 Of 46 on 18 December, 2018

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 83/2008; Ps Oia State vs . Imran Khan & Ors. 1 Of 46 on 18 December, 2018

            Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan Magistrate
             (Mahila Court (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.

                                                               FIR No: 83/2008
                                                               PS: OIA
                                                               U/s : 498A/406/34 IPC
                                                              State v. Imran Khan & Ors.

                                                  JUDGMENT

Date of institution                                :  05.09.2018
Cr.C No.                                           :  9143/2016
Name of the complainant                            :  Husan Bano
                                                      D/o Sh.Yamin Khan
                                                      R/o T832/2, Tugalakabad Extn.
                                                      New Delhi
 
Name & address of the                              :1.Imran Khan 
accused                                                S/o Sh. Inayat Khan
                                                    2.Rahisa Begum 
                                                       W/o Sh. Inayat Khan
                                                       Both R/o 8A/1B 4th Floor,
                                                       Zakir Nagar, OIA, New Delhi.
                                                    3.Rehana 
                                                       D/o Inayat Khan
                                                       R/o Y816, Mangol Puri,
                                                       New Delhi. . 

Offence Complained of                              :  U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
Offence Charged of                                 :  U/s 498A/406/34 IPC 
Plea of the accused persons                        :  Pleaded not guilty
Final Order                                        :  Acquitted

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA                                 State  Vs. Imran Khan & Ors.                       1 of  46         
 Date of arguments                                            :  12.12.2018
Date of announcing of order                                  :  18.12.2018
BRIEF FACTS:

1. Brief facts of the case are that since the marriage of the complainant Husan Bano with accused Imran Khan, he alongwith other coaccused persons subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassed her for bringing less dowry and committed cruelties upon her.

2. As per the complaint of the complainant dated 18.04.2006, she was married to the accused Imran Khan on 03.12.2003 and the engagement ceremony had taken place on 05.11.2003. In the marriage of the complainant, her father had given dowry articles and stridhan more than his capacity, however, the family of the accused persons were unhappy with the articles given in marriage and when the family of complainant visited the matrimonial house of the complainant for the ritual of Chauthi, the accused persons ill treated them. Before marriage, the family of accused persons have given her wrong information regarding the qualification of accused and that he was employed as a building contractor and the complainant was educated and had qualified M.A. in history. After one month of the marriage, when the complainant returned back to the matrimonial house, her father had given her Rs.50,000/ to be handed over to the accused persons. After few days, the accused persons started illtreating the complainant like giving her beatings, not offering her food and locking her inside the room and when complainant objected, accused persons demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 2 of 46 Thereafter, the father of the complainant arranged Rs.70,000/. Thereafter, she was kept well for few days but soon the aforesaid amount was exhausted by the accused persons, and on one occasion, when the complainant was cleaning the floor and was five months pregnant, all accused persons gave her severe beatings. Since at that time, the condition of the complainant deteriorated, accused persons took her to Khetrapal hospital where accused persons got the child of complainant aborted and none of the family members of the complainant were informed. After several dates, when the parents of the complainant visited the matrimonial house of the complainant, they were not allowed to meet the complainant and sent from outside of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, for fourfive months, complainant again got pregnant and all the accused persons again gave a severe beatings and at that time, complainant made a call to her brother and he came to take her from her matrimonial house and thereafter, she narrated all the incidents to her parental family. Thereafter, complainant remained at her parental home and gave birth to a girl child on 24.10.2005 and all the expenses of the same were borne by the family of the complainant. On 27.11.2005, the younger sister of the complainant was to get married and the same was only attended by the husband of the complainant and he apologised and took the complainant again to the matrimonial home. On 18.04.2006, complainant was again given severe beatings by all the accused persons and at that time, the mother in law of the complainant had took a gun on the face of the complainant since she had given birth to a girl child. Further, the accused persons had kept a quilt on the face of the minor child but complainant saved the child. Thereafter, FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 3 of 46 complainant was given severe beatings because of which, she became unconscious and regained consciousness at about 10.00 PM in the night. At the same time, the brother of the complainant was talking on phone to the accused persons upon which, she requested by raising her voice for her brother to come and save her. At the same time, the brother and father of the complainant reached at 2.00 AM in the night and complainant was taken away by them to the parental home in her wearing clothes. Thereafter, the matter was settled before the Mahila Samiti and it was decided that the complainant and accused Imran Khan shall live in a separate accommodation rented at Nangloi. At the rented accommodation, accused did not take care of the complainant and when the husband of the complainant was not home, all the accused persons would come and extend threats to the complainant. During that time, daughter of the complainant fell from the first floor, but instead of taking her for any treatment, accused Imran Khan used to leave the house. On 27.03.2007, accused gave severe beatings to the complainant and tried to push the complainant on burning stove, but the complainant saved herself. During that time, complainant gave a call to her father and her father and brother immediately reached her house at Nangloi but accused Imran Khan ran away from the spot. Seeing the condition of the complainant, her father made a complaint at PS Paschim Vihar and she was referred to CAW cell. Thereafter, she was brought to her parental home but accused persons never contacted her. All the jewellery articles of the complainant were in possession of the accused persons.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 4 of 46

3. Pursuant to this complaint dated 18.04.2007 against the accused, FIR was registered on 21.10.2008 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 05.09.2008. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Charge was framed against accused Imran Khan u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC and accused persons namely Rahisa Begum and Rehana were charged for the offence u/s. 498A/34 IPC vide order dated 30.04.2014. Remaining accused namely Inayat, Ashim and Haroon were discharged. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven (07) witnesses.

PW1 Husan Bano (complainant) deposed that she got married with accused Imran Khan on 03.12.2003 according to Muslim rights and customs and in her marriage, her parents had given dowry articles including jewellery items (as per list of dowry articles), utensils, clothes and cash amount of Rs. 51,000 to father of Imran Khan on the demand of accused persons. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial house at H. No. 8A/ 1B, Gali No. 6, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. After 4 days of marriage according to ritual ceremony, her father, brother, sister, aunty and uncle came to her matrimonial house to take her back at parental house but in her matrimonial house, her fatherinlaw Inayat Khan, motherinlaw Raisa Begum, Nanad Rehana and her husband started to insult her family members, saying that "itna kam dahej le kar ayi hai. Mera beta conductor hai uske anusar dahej nahi diya, sirf FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 5 of 46 51,000 rupya mila". However, her parents had given one Maruti car also to accused Imran at the time of marriage. The further told her that he will have to cash amount of at least Rs. 1 Lac. When she will come back at her matrimonial home from her parental house. On that day she came to her parental house with her aforesaid family members, but again no one from her matrimonial house came to take her back according to rights and customs and when her parents requested them to take her back they used to avoid saying that now it was Poose (Hindi month). After more than one month i.e. the month of January, 2004, her motherinlaw along with her husband came at her parental house to take her back and at that time her father gave Rs. 51000 to her husband as per his earlier demand of at least 1 Lac. Thereafter, she was taken to her matrimonial house. She remained well for some time in her matrimonial house and thereafter, her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, nanad and dever namely Harun started to torture her for illegal demand of cash of Rs. 2 Lacs and they send her back through her brother Buland Akhtar at her parental house and instructed her to bring aforesaid amount of 2 Lacs. Despite of several requests made by her father to take her back to her husband and his family members but no one from family from matrimonial house came and after 15 to 20 days her husband Imran and his father came at her parental house and her father had given them Rs. 70000. Thereafter, she was taken to her matrimonial house. In the month of Feb March 2004, while she was pregnant, her husband and her motherinlaw used to take her at medical clinic situated at Patel Nagar for her regular check up where her ultrasound was conducted. She through it was for sex determination of the child.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 6 of 46 Thereafter, her husband and motherinlaw used to start beating her saying that "mujhe beta chahiye beti nahi". During the period of her pregnancy, she was cleaning floor in her matrimonial house, suddenly her nanad Rehana and her motherinlaw came and started to abuse her without any reason and meanwhile her husband Imran also came there and he along with his mother and sister started to beat her. Due to which she faced down on the floor and she also sustained several injuries in her legs and hands and blood was oozing from her wrist due to breaking her churies and bleeding was also started in her pregnancy. Thereafter, she was laid down on her bed but bleeding was not controlled and she got afraid as it was her first pregnancy. The bleeding was continued for whole day and night and then next day she was taken to Khetrapal Hospital situated at Patel Nagar, where she was admitted for four to five days and her child was aborted. Thereafter, she was taken back to her matrimonial house and she was suffering from high fever but even at that time her motherinlaw taunted her saying that "duniya me ye paheli aurat hai jiska baccha abort hua hai". Pure din padi rahti hai". After knowing the aforesaid fact, her parents came to her matrimonial house to see her but her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw did not allow her parents to meet her. Thereafter, her brother Buland came at her matrimonial house and took her to her parental house and after one week accused Imran came to her matrimonial house to take her back. Thereafter, her motherinlaw again started to harass her and she did not provide her food and accused Imran along with his family members again started to harass her by giving beating to her. As she was again become pregnant in FebMarch 2005 and her husband along with his FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 7 of 46 family members again used to beat her then, she informed about the incident to her parents and they brought her to her parental house as at that time she was three months pregnant and she was blessed with girl baby in her parental house. After birth of her child her father informed to her fatherinlaw. Then, he replied that "Kaun sa jhanda gaad diya bar bar beti paida kar rahi hai". Accused Imran Khan, Rayeesa Begum and Rihana Khan were present in the court and correctly identified by the victim. No one from her matrimonial home came to take her back despite of several requests made by her parents to them. In November, 2005, her father went to her matrimonial house to invite her husband and inlaws to attend the marriage of her younger sister scheduled to be held on 27.11.2005 but on that very day no one came from her matrimonial house except her husband Imran came to attend that marriage. After marriage, her husband assured to her parents there will no further issue and requested them to send her with him. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband came to her matrimonial house at night time, but no one ready to talk with hee and to take her child. After some days, her husband and inlaws started to harass her, beat her and taunt her again saying that 'tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, tu hamesh hi beti paida karti hai'. They also used to beat her without any reason and not giving her food. On 18.04.2006, her husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw and nanand started to abuse her from the very morning and at noon time suddenly her husband Imran started to beat her meanwhile her motherinlaw and nanad came there and they also stared to beat her and her fatherinlaw had instigated them saying 'maro ise maro'. During the aforesaid incident, her nanand caught FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 8 of 46 hold her and she was with a tamancha in her hand and the said tamancha was put into her mouth and said 'main tujhe maar dalungi'. She tried to save her then her fatherinlaw said, 'main teri beti ko maar dalunga' and he started to push her child by putting a blanket over her. She tried to save her child from them then Imran came and started to beat her again. All the accused persons had beaten her so badly that she became unconscious. She regained her consciousness in the night and she saw that one of her inlaws might be talking with her brother on phone and she shouted and trying to tell my brother on phone saying that 'veeru bachao'. After sometime, her father and brother came to her matrimonial house. She narrated the whole incident to them. She was taken to parental house by her brother and father at about 1.00am and at that time, she left her matrimonial house with her child and one pair of clothes. Her father had tried to settle the matter with her inlaws but no one was ready to take her back. Thereafter, her father had filed an application to Mahila Samiti for reconciliation of the issue with her inlaws. At several times, accused persons were called by Mahila Samiti but no settlement took place between her and her inlaws. Finally, there was settlement on the condition that she was taken to another house at Nangloi, Delhi and the said offer was made by her husband and inlaws. Initially her father was not ready but finally they were ready and accept the aforesaid condition of her husband and inlaws. Thereafter, he alongwith her child and husband started to reside at Nangloi measuring 50 sq. yards and he was kept in a kitchen of the said house which was in scraped condition. Her husband used to not provide meal or food and milk for her child and he used to absent FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 9 of 46 from there for 3 to 4 days. Whenever her husband came there, he used to beat her. In the absence of her husband, her motherinlaw and nanad used to visit her there and they used to threaten her by saying that 'ki tujhko to hum yahan maarne ke liye laye hain'. On 27.03.2007, when she was cooking, her husband came there and trying to put her face on burning heater (cooking heater) and she threw the said heater to save herself and then accused started to beat her severely. She started bleeding from her mouth and swelling appear on eyes and face. She somehow saved herself from her husband and after coming out of the house, she called her father on mobile phone and narrated about the incident. Thereafter, her father came there and at that time, Imran had already left the house. Her father took her and her child to police post Miyanwali Nagar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, where she and her father gave a written complaint, copy of which was Mark X1. Thereafter, her father took her and her child to parental house. Her father tried to settle the matter by calling several persons of Biradari but no one from her matrimonial house came to settle the issue. Thereafter, she decided to file a complaint in CAW cell and filed a complaint to CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi, Ex.PW1/A. During the course of investigation, she had given photographs of stridhan given at the time of her marriage were MarkX2, marriage card and Nikahnama were Mark X3 and X4. She had also given list of dowry articles and stridhan, photocopy of the same attached with judicial file having four pages was Mark X5. She had also given medical report pertaining to admission and treatment during her first pregnancy and abortion which was Mark X6. The report of Khetrapal hospital pertaining to aforesaid treatment FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 10 of 46 and admission and abortion dated 21.04.2008 was Ex.PW1/B. On 03.06.2008, She had received her stridhan articles as per seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW1 deposed that her marriage with accused was an arranged marriage. She did not remember the exact date of her engagement with the accused, however, it was in the month of November, 2003. She did not meet with the accused before marriage. Her marriage with the accused was solemnized on 03.12.2003 at Kalkaji in Delhi. The Nikah was solemnized at Kalkaji, Delhi. After marriage, she first time visited her parental home after 34 days. Thereafter, she return back again to her matrimonial house after about one and half month. She was taken back to her matrimonial house by accused Imran, her mother in law and father in law. She did not remember as to for how many days, she remained in her matrimonial house after she was brought by the aforesaid persons. Subsequently, she again went back to her parental home after about two and half months. She did not remember the exact time or duration for which she remained in her parental home. She first time became pregnant in the month of February, 2004 and at that time she was at matrimonial home. During her pregnancy, she was taken for treatment to private doctor in a clinic at Patel Nagar. She came to know that her ultrasound during pregnancy was conducted for the purpose of sex determination of the child during a conversation between the accused persons upon heated arguments. She did not inform at that time regarding the aforesaid fact to any person in her parental house. She informed regarding her pregnancy to her parents after some time, when she received a call from FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 11 of 46 her mother. During her first pregnancy, she did not visit her parental home. Her first aforesaid pregnancy was aborted when she was four and half months pregnant in the last week of May, 2004 at Khetrapal Hospital situated at Patel Nagar. She did not remember the exact time when she returned back to her parental home after the termination of pregnancy. She had informed regarding termination of pregnancy to her parents when she reached her parental home that is after few days of the same. She did not inform regarding the same to the police, nor her parents. She never got herself medically examined thereafter to verify her health condition. She could not say who had come to take her from her matrimonial home after the aforesaid incident, it might be her father since she never used to go back alone to her parental home. She could not tell the date on which she visited her matrimonial home. She came to know about her pregnancy again probably in the month of January or February 2005. She remained at her matrimonial home only for three months after her second pregnancy and remained at her parental home till the birth of her child and her child was born at her parental home. Child was born at home. She was showing private doctors namely Dr. Karuna and Dr. Sheetal who had their clinic at Tughlakabad, but she did not remember the address of the same. She had again visited her matrimonial home during November 2005. Thereafter, she remained at her matrimonial home for about 5 months till April 2006. She could not tell the exact time when she fell unconscious on 18.04.2006. She did not remember as to who had received the call of her brother from the accused persons, soon after when she had regained consciousness. Veeru was her brother's nick name and his FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 12 of 46 actual name was Bulland Akhtar. She could not say with certainty as to what time her brother and father had reached her matrimonial home in the night of 18.04.2006, however it might be around 10.30 PM or 11.00 PM. She could recall her daughter immediately once she regained consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she found her daughter sleeping in her room. Neither she nor her brother and father made a call to the police to inform regarding the incident. Her father and brother did not take her or her child to the hospital on that day. She did not remember as to when she filed the complaint with Mahila Samiti. At Mahila Samiti a settlement was arrived between her and her husband and it was decided that both of them would live in a separate accommodation and they shifted to Nangloi. On 27.03.2007, when accused gave her beatings, she alongwith her father had gone to chowki Miawali, Paschim Vihar and gave a written complaint on which they had put stamp. The copy of the same was mark X1. She had got herself medically examined on 27.03.2007 however, she had not filed any medical document pertaining to the same on 27.03.2007. Her child had fallen down from the first floor accidentally. She got her daughter examined at private clinic but she did not remember the name of the same and she had not filed any document pertaining to the same. She got remarried on 30.12.2011 and her first child from the second marriage was born in the year 2013. Witness denied all suggestions put to her.

PW2 Yamin Khan (father of the complainant) deposed that in the month of October or November, 2003 on the occasion of engagement of his daughter Hussan Bano with accused Imran Khan he had given an amount of FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 13 of 46 Rs.50,000/ and clothes for the whole family and relatives of accused Imran Khan on his own and the said amount was given to the accused for the purpose of purchasing motorcycle as agreed between families of both parties. After 45 days of the engagement, father of accused namely Inayat Khan came at his house and told him that he should give one car in the marriage as his son was a software Engineer and he also demanded a car in the marriage in place of motorcycle. Thereafter, he had given further amount of Rs.2Lacs for fulfilling aforesaid demand of car to Inayat Khan. After marriage, he came to know that accused Imran Khan and his family members had purchased a car Maruti Zen on loan and the aforesaid amount of Rs.2.5Lacs had been kept in their possession. On 03.12.2003, his daughter got married to accused Imran Khan according to Muslim rites and rituals. In the marriage, he had given on his own, clothes to all family members and relatives of accused, all necessary furniture items, utensils and jewellery items as per list of stridhan. His daughter went to her matrimonial home on the same day of marriage and on the fourth day of marriage, his son Buland Akhtar with other relatives went to the matrimonial house of her daughter on the occasion of Chauthi to bring back his daughter as per tradition. In the matrimonial home of his daughter, son Buland Akhtar and other relatives were taunted by accused Imran and his family members for giving less dowry. However, on that day, his daughter was allowed to go her parental home. Within a week accused Imran alongwith 23 relatives came to his house to take his daughter and on that occasion he had given Rs.51,000/ to Imran on the occasion of bidai with a purpose not to harass his daughter by them. After 34 months his FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 14 of 46 daughter was brought to her parental home by his son Buland Akhtar and he came to know that his daughter was pregnant. His daughter narrated him and other family members that she had been harassed and beaten by accused Imran, his mother Rahisa Begum, sister Rihana and brother Harun for demand of Rs.2Lacs as per dowry. The fatherinlaw of her daughter also instigated them to harass her in such a manner for fulfilling the said demand. After a week, accused Imran came to his house to take back his daughter and on that occasion, he had only given Rs.70,000/ to him as per their demand of Rs.2Lacs. After about 15 days, he was informed by his daughter telephonically that his daughter was taken to Khetarpal Hospital for sex determination test and when they came to know about the female fetus, her motherinlaw, husband and sisterinlaw started to beat his daughter so as to terminate her pregnancy and her fatherinlaw had instigated them to do the same and thereafter she was again taken to hospital as his daughter suffered bleeding and in the Khetarpal Hospital his daughter got aborted her fetus. Thereafter, he brought his daughter to his home with his son and his daughter narrated the entire incident to him that she had been beaten by her husband and his family members and during to said beating, her nanad Rihana caught hold her hands and her motherinlaw put tamancha in her mouth threatening to kill her. After 1520 days, accused Imran came to his house and apologized about the said incident and assured him that the aforesaid incident and any kind of harassment would not happen again with his daughter in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, he allowed him to take his daughter back to her matrimonial home. On the second pregnancy of his daughter, he brought FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 15 of 46 his daughter to his home through his son as he was apprehensive about the well being of his daughter and her child. In the month of October, 2005, his daughter had given birth to a girl child. All the expenses were borne by him. After two months of birth of child to his daughter, accused Imran came to his house to take back her daughter and he took her back. Thereafter, his daughter was again harassed and taunted by her motherinlaw and nanad for giving birth to a girl child. On one occasion, his son Buland Akhtar went to the matrimonial house of his daughter to meet her and came to know that his daughter had been harassed by her inlaws regularly and they used to beat her and his son brought back his daughter and her child as he had directed him to bring her to their home, if she would found under any harassment. His daughter narrated the whole incident to him that accused Imran alongwith his family member used to beat her and to threat her by putting rajaai on her girl in order to kill her. Finally, they decided to make a complaint against the accused persons and his daughter had filed a complaint against accused persons in Mahila Samiti at Ashoka Road. The members of Mahila Samiti tried to settle the matter with accused persons and suggested both parties to reside separately from her inlaws. Consequently, accused Imran with his daughter and their child started to reside at Nangloi in the house of his elder brother namely Aseen and for the want of premises in the house which was measuring 50 Sq. Yards, they were arranged to live in a kitchen measuring 7x. The behaviour of accused did not change and he used to beat her daughter. On one occasion, he did not remember the exact date of the same, inadvertently, the child of his daughter had fallen down from the first floor FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 16 of 46 and she had sustained severe injury. His daughter had given a call to accused Imran and narrated about the incidence but he did not come back at the spot. Thereafter, his daughter went to local hospital for medical treatment of her child. The elder brother also instigated the accused Imran to beat his daughter. On one day, he did not remember the exact date, his son, Buland Akhtar received a call from his daughter who narrated that her husband had tried to give electric shock to her with the help of electric heater and the said fact was also informed to him by him son. Thereafter, he along with his son reached there and she further told that her husband had done aforesaid act in order to kill her and he also threatened her to kill her. Accused Imran was not found present as he had already run away. Thereafter, they along with his daughter went to the nearest police post Miawali Nagar and his daughter had given a written complaint about the aforesaid incident occurred on that day to the police officials and police officials further directed them to make a further complaint before CAW Cell. After fourfive days, his daughter had filed the present complaint before CAW Cell.

During crossexamination PW2 deposed that he was 10th passed. The engagement ceremony of his daughter was performed one month prior to the marriage. The engagement ceremony was performed at the house of the accused persons. The marriage was performed at Tuglakabad in a park, DDA Flats. Family of accused stayed at Zakir Nagar and they stayed at Tuglakabad Extension and the distance from his house to the house of the accused persons was about 10 km. After the engagement ceremony when the accused persons approached him to give a car in the marriage, he told them that he was not in FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 17 of 46 the capacity to give the same but he still consoled them by saying that he shall arrange for it. He had given Rs.2,00,000/ from his own earnings and savings. The same was given in cash. He was an income tax payee in the year 2003. He did not know as to in whose name the Maruti Zen car was purchased by the accused persons. He did not know the registration number of the car but he could not tell the colour of the car. His son, brother in law and his wife had gone to the "chauth" ceremony of his daughter to her matrimonial home. His daughter had returned back to her matrimonial home almost after a month after the chauth ceremony. The amount of Rs.51,000/ given by him in vidai was arranged by him from his personal savings. He came to know about the first pregnancy of his daughter only when her child was aborted at the instance of the accused persons. The same was informed him by him wife when she received a call from the matrimonial home of his daughter that the child had been aborted. He had not informed the police regarding the same. He did not remember the exact time when his daughter came to meet him in the parental home after the aforesaid incident. He was told by his wife that the fetus was about 4 to 5 months when it was aborted. He had not shown his daughter to the doctor at that time. Thereafter, his daughter had stayed with him for about 23 months and went back to her matrimonial home only after a Panchayat was conducted. From the side of the accused, accused Imran Khan alongwith his chacha had participated in the Panchayat settlement and thereafter had taken his daughter to matrimonial home. From his side, his relatives, family members and some neighbours had participated in the Panchayat. In the Panchayat, one of his neighbour namely, Somwati and her FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 18 of 46 husband (already expired) had participated. Even his neighbour Somwati had left that house. He had given Rs.70,000/ after taking from his family members and younger brothers who all are earning. He came to know about the pregnancy of his daughter on the second time in the earlier months of the year 2005. His daughter told him about her second pregnancy when she was fourfive months pregnant. He did not remember the exact date of bringing his daughter to his house from her parental house during her second pregnancy. The treatment of his daughter was carried out during her second pregnancy in the clinic of Dr. S. Kumar situated at Gali no. 20, TKD Extension. One "Dai" also look after his daughter during that period. The delivery of his daughter was conducted at his house by aforesaid doctor and Dai. After two or three months of the second delivery of his daughter, she was taken back by her husband Imran. He did not inform the police regarding the alleged beatings given to his daughter by her husband. However, he tried to make him understand on several occasions as he wants to save matrimonial life of his daughter. He had taken his daughter to doctor for treating her upon aforesaid beatings given by her husband. He did not have any medical record regarding the aforesaid treatment. He never endeavour to make arrangements for separate settlement or residence of his daughter and son in law. He did not know as to how his grand daughter had fallen from first floor as he was not present there. After taking back his daughter alongwith granddaughter to his parental house as the child was treated by a local doctor. He did not have any prescription regarding the aforesaid treatment. He did not make any complaint regarding the incident of fallen his granddaughter. However, they FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 19 of 46 were taken back when he knew that accused persons had threatened to give electric shock to his daughter. He did not have any medical record pertaining to aforesaid electric shock. His daughter married second time in the month of NovemberDecember of 2011 after taking divorce by accused Imran Khan. Divorce was taken in the year of 2011. He did not want to disclose the name of the second husband of his daughter as they might be harassed by accused persons. During the proceedings before Mahila Samiti, one settlement between complainant and accused persons was arrived at in which it was decided that complainant alongwith her husband would reside at separate residence and thereafter on 15.08.2006, his daughter was taken at Nangloi as per aforesaid settlement. In reply of notice given by accused for institution of conjugal right, he had given his statement before the court that he had no objection if his daughter was sent to her matrimonial home. He did not remember the exact date of giving statement. At that time, accused Imran had not given divorce to his daughter due to which he had not stated before the court that his daughter has been divorced by accused Imran. Statement of his wife was also given in reply of aforesaid notice. He did not wish to tell about the personal life of his daughter after her second marriage. He had not seen happening any incident occurred with his daughter at her matrimonial house as he was not present there and all the incidents were narrated to him by his daughter.

PW3 Nargis Begum (mother of the complainant) deposed that her daughter Husn Bano got married with accused Imran Khan on 03.12.2003 according to Muslim Rites and Ceremonies. In the marriage of her daughter, FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 20 of 46 they had given all furniture items, utensils, fridge, washing machine, TV, Almirah and jewellery items for mother in law of her daughter and clothes for all relatives of inlaws of her daughter. On the occasion of fera (chauthi), her brother, sister and bhabhi went to the matrimonial house of her daughter to meet her and to take her back. They had been misbehaved by the mother in law namely Rahisa and nanad Rehana of her daughter by saying that nothing has been given as a dowry in the marriage of accused Imran by them. On the occasion of fera, her daughter was taken back to her matrimonial home and her daughter told her that she had been regularly beaten by her mother in law, husband and nanad for not bringing sufficient dowry. Despite having seven daughters, she had given sufficient dowry to her daughter only with the intention to keep her happy in the matrimonial home. After one month of the marriage, her daughter was taken back to her matrimonial home by her husband and at that time Rs.51,000/ had been given to accused Imran so that her daughter would remain in matrimonial house very well and she could not be harassed for bringing lack of dowry. After 56 months of marriage, her daughter became pregnant and one day, she did not remember the exact time, she was taken to hospital situated at Patel Nagar and got her sex determination and after detecting female child, her daughter was purposely aborted in Khetrapal hospital. This fact was told her by her daughter when she visited at her parental house. Whenever, her daughter used to visit her parental house after seeing her health condition, she asked her about the same then the complainant told her that she had been beaten by her mother in law, nanad and brother in law namely Harun @ Munna for bringing dowry. On the FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 21 of 46 second time of pregnancy of her daughter, her daughter was taken to her parental house through her son namely Buland Akhtar and she has been kept at her house for nine months and she gave birth to a female child. After about 11/4 months of the birth of child, accused Imran came to her house for taking back her daughter and at that occasion, they had given Rs.70,000/ to him so that she would keep happily in her matrimonial house, in lieu of his aforesaid demand from her daughter. After 23 days of taking back her daughter to her matrimonial home, her daughter had made a call on landline number and told that she had been beaten brutally by her mother in law, nanad and other in laws and at that time, her nanad had caught hold her and her mother in law took tamancha in her mouth and thereafter, threatened her by putting blanket on the face of newly born female child saying that the said child would kill as she again gave birth of female child as they want to a male child. Thereafter, she sent her husband to the matrimonial home of her daughter and her husband tried to pacify the matter and mother in law of her daughter finally decided to keep her daughter and accused Imran Khan separately at their another house situated at Nangloi so that she has not been face harassment and cruelty further. Thereafter, her husband came back to his house and her daughter alongwith accused Imran Khan and child started to reside at the house of Nangloi where jeth of her daughter namely Aseen with his family members was also residing. After 23 days of staying at the house of Nangloi, Aaseen started to harass her daughter by taunting "phir yaha ladki paida karke aa gai". At the house of Nangloi, someone had purposely flowed electric supply in a heater with intend to inflict with electric shock to her FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 22 of 46 daughter and when her daughter was doing kitchen work, she had inflicted with electric shock from the said heater and fortunately she survived. The said fact was informed to her by her daughter on mobile phone. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home at Pusa apartment and made complaint to mother in law of her daughter upon which, she replied that she would not keep her daughter as she had given birth of female child and finally her daughter had been left by accused Imran by giving triple talak at once. Thereafter, her daughter filed the present complaint against the accused persons.

During crossexamination PW3 deposed that she was not educated and was aged about 60 years. The engagement ceremony of her daughter was conducted one month prior to the date of marriage which was 03.12.2003. The marriage was solemnized upon the consent of family and her daughter. The engagement ceremony was performed in the house of accused Imran Khan. The marriage was performed in a park next to her house at Tuglakabad. The ceremony of "chauth" was performed after four days of marriage. It was correct that her daughter was not given beatings for bringing less dowry before the ceremony of "chauth" but she told her that she was given beatings when she went back to her matrimonial home after the "fera" ceremony. Her daughter had gone for "fera" after one month of her marriage to her matrimonial home. They had obtained Rs.51,000/ which was given to accused Imran Khan after taking loan from someone. She did not remember the name of the person from whom they had obtained loan. There was no documentation from that person at the time of obtaining loan. She could not FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 23 of 46 tell the exact time after which her daughter again visited her to the parental home after the ceremony of fera. It was correct that her daughter told her that she was given beatings by the accused persons when she visited again. After her daughter visited her upon seeing her beatings, she had taken her to a doctor namely, S. Kumar who was having his clinic at Tuglakabad. There was no medical document prepared at that time of her daughter. She did not inform to the police regarding the same. During that time, her daughter used to visit them but she could not tell the exact dates on which she visited her. She did not remember the date when her daughter informed her that she was pregnant for the first time. Her daughter did not visit her during her pregnancy period. However, she used to talk on phone. She alongwith her husband had visited the matrimonial home of her daughter twice to meet her but she was not allowed to meet her daughter by the accused persons. She had not called the police when her daughter was not allowed to meet her. She did not know how many months pregnant was her daughter when she went to see her. The pregnancy of her daughter was terminated when she was about three months pregnant. After her pregnancy was terminated, her daughter had visited her and she narrated her that her child was aborted. She did not inform the police regarding the same. She did not remember the exact date when her daughter again went to her matrimonial home. However, she used to visit her often. Her daughter informed her in the second month of her pregnancy about her being pregnant for the second time. However, she did not remember the date or year of the same. She could not tell the date on which she brought her daughter to the parental home when she informed her of being apprehensive FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 24 of 46 that her second child shall be aborted by the accused persons as they were insisting for an ultrasound of her daughter and she was two months pregnant at that time. They did not show her to any doctor at that time. The child was born at home and she had not shown her to any doctor. They had arranged for an amount of Rs.70,000/ by obtaining loan from someone on interest but she did not remember the name of the person from whom they had obtained the loan. Shd did not know if any document was executed with that person at the time of obtaining loan. She did not know as to how the aforesaid amount of Rs.51,000/ and Rs.70,000/ was returned and when alongwith interest. After the birth of the first child, her daughter returned back to her matrimonial home after about 45 days. Soon after her daughter had gone to her matrimonial home, she again informed her that she was beaten by the accused persons since she had given birth to a baby girl. However, even after hearing this, she had not brought her daughter back to the parental home. She had not complaint to the police regarding the same. Her daughter alongwith accused Imran Khan shifted to Nangloi to live separately from her matrimonial home. When her daughter shifted to Nangloi she again complained that she was given beatings. She had no occasion to show her to the doctor since she was residing at Nangloi. She had not visited her daughter at Nangloi. Her daughter had informed her after few days of shifted to Nangloi that she was given beatings by the accused. She did not remember the year or the date on which accused Imran Khan pronounced Talaq to her daughter. However, it was sent to their residence by the accused Imran Khan by writing on a paper through post. She had not appeared before Tis Hazari Court before Ld. Civil Judge FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 25 of 46 Sh. Jitender Singh in any civil proceeding. Her husband was working as a tailor in the year 2003. However, he was unemployed. She did not remember the earnings of her husband which he was getting in the year 2003. Her daughter had not informed her ever that her motherinlaw had refused to name her property of Okhla in the name of her daughter. Her daughter was not earning when she was residing at her matrimonial home. She never wanted her daughter to live separately from her inlaws or from her matrimonial home and she had never endeavour to arrange for separate accommodation for her daughter. She did not know the date when her daughter solemnized second marriage to Sh. Mohd. Uzair. Her daughter was not knowing Mohd. Uzair prior to her marriage. The second marriage of her daughter was solemnized after her consent. She did not remember her landline number and the same was picked by her. Witness denied the suggestions put to her.

PW4 Buland Akhtar (brother of the complainant) deposed that his sister Husn Bano got married with accused Imran Khan on 03.12.2003 according to Muslim Rites and ceremony. In the marriage, his parents had given sufficient dowry more than of their financial capacity to accused persons. On the occasion of phera (chauthi), he alongwith his relatives went to matrimonial house of his sister and felt that the behaviour of accused Imran and his family members was not good towards them as they had taunted that they had not received sufficient dowry in the marriage of accused Imran. On that occasion, they took complainant Husn Bano to her parental house. Thereafter, after one month of the phera, accused Imran came to his house to FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 26 of 46 take his sister back to her matrimonial house and at that time, accused Imran was given Rs.51,000/ and clothes for him. After sometime, he came to know from his parents that his sister has been beaten by her husband and relatives for bringing Rs.2 lakhs and a four wheeler. His parents had arranged amount of Rs.70,000/ and the said amount was given to accused persons. Even after getting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/, accused persons could not stop demanding dowry and cash amount from his sister and consequently his father again paid some amount to accused persons. Whenever his sister visited at her parental house, she used to tell her parents that she has been beaten severely by her husband and his family members for bringing dowry from parental home. On one occasion, he came to know that she had been beaten by bending her finger with the help of bottle opener. On one occasion, he came to know that his sister was forcibly aborted in Khetrapal hospital knowing the fact that she has a female fetus and the sex determination of fetus was conducted at some other hospital. In April, 2005 when his sister was second time pregnant, she was again beaten by accused persons, then his sister informed him about the incident and she was taken back to her parental house, by him. His sister had been blessed with a female child in the month of October, 2005 at her parental home. In the month of November, 2005 on the occasion of marriage of his second sister namely Shabana, they invited accused persons but only accused Imran had attended the marriage and no one other family member came for attending the same. On the next day of the marriage of his sister Shabana, accused Imran told his parents that he wants to take his sister Husn Bano to her matrimonial house by assuring that he would FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 27 of 46 not harass her again. Thereafter, his parents and other relatives allowed the accused to take his sister to her matrimonial house. After sometime, he did not know the exact date, he came to know that on one occasion his parents were talking over phone to the inlaws of his sister meanwhile, they heard the sound from background that her inlaws has beaten her and upon that he alongwith his father went to her matrimonial home to bring their house, where his sister told them that she had been beaten by her husband and in laws saying that "phir ladki paida karke chali aai". At that time, face of his sister was found swollen. His sister also told them that her nanad had caught hold of her hand and her mother in law had put tamancha in her mouth. She further told them that the accused persons had kept quilt on the face of the minor child. Thereafter, they took his sister and her newly born child to their home. His sister had filed a complaint before Mahila Samiti and during proceeding before Mahila Samiti, matter was compromised and accused Imran had taken his sister to his another house at Nangloi and she was allowed to live in a small room measuring 7 feet and for sometime, his sister kept well but after sometime, she had been again beaten by accused Imran and she was tried to inflict with electric shock by felling down her on electric heater. Somehow, she escaped from there and made a call to his father. Thereafter, she alongwith his father went to the house at Nangloi and took his sister to PS Miawali Nagar where she gave her complaint in writing. Thereafter, his sister and her child were taken to their house. His sister had filed the present complaint before CAW cell.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 28 of 46 During crossexamination PW4 deposed that he was B.A. passed from Desh Bandhu College, Delhi. At the time of marriage of his sister (complainant) he was aged about 16 years. He was too small to judge as to how much expense incurred by his parents in the marriage. The amounts paid by his family to the accused persons had been paid in his presence. He was too small to suggest for any treatment of his sister to his parents. At the time of the alleged abortion, his sister was about five months pregnant. During the first pregnancy, his sister never visited the parental house. He came to know about her first pregnancy when his sister was aborted. In the month of MarchApril, 2005 after the alleged abortion took place, his sister came to her parental house. His mother took her sister to the doctor for check up. He did not remember the name of the doctor. In the month of November, 2005 his sister Shabana got married and after her marriage the complainant was taken back to her matrimonial home by accused Imran Khan. On being asked, witness submits that his parents did not take his sister to doctor for treatment of her swollen face. He did not remember whether any police complaint was made about this incident. He did not remember whether daughter of his sister was taken to the doctor for treatment when she was attempted to be injured by putting quilt on her face and he did not remember if at that time the police was informed. When daughter of his sister fell down from the first floor of the house situated at Nangloi, his sister had taken her to the doctor. He did not remember if at that time police complaint was made or not. He did not remember the injury sustained by her at that time. He did not remember as to when his sister became pregnant at second time. He did not remember by FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 29 of 46 whom his sister was treated during her second pregnancy, however, delivery of his sister had taken place at his residence. Upon being asked, whether his sister had solemnised second marriage, he refused to answer by saying that he did not wish to tell about the personal life of my sister after her second marriage.

PW5 ASI Ramdev (Duty Officer) deposed that upon receiving complaint he endorsed the same vide Ex.PW5/A and prepared the rukka. Upon the basis of rukka FIR was registered vide Ex.PW5/B. During crossexamination PW5 deposed that he did not meet complainant on the day when the aforesaid FIR was registered and signature of Yamin Khan on the original FIR was not taken in his presence. The written complaint was given to him by IO WSI Shanti.

PW5A Insp. Anuradha Chhabra (IO from CAW Cell) deposed that in the month of January 2008, she was posted as Inspector in CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi. On 07.01.2008, she received a request to reopen the case filed by complainant Husn Bano with endorsement marked to her Ex. PW5/A. The said request was made for reopening of the previous complaint made by complainant dated 20.04.2007 Ex. PW1/A. She conducted CAW Cell proceedings pertaining to aforesaid complaint and in pursuance of the same, both parties were called to appear in CAW Cell proceedings and tried to make counseling between them but no settlement was arrived at between the parties. During the aforesaid proceedings, complainant Husn Bano gave her written statement to her on 30.01.2008 Ex.PW5/B and she prepared a final report Ex.PW5/C with recommendation to register FIR on the basis of FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 30 of 46 aforesaid complaint and proceedings conducted by her and forwarded the same to superior officers for their approval thereon.

During crossexamination PW5A deposed that she did not inquire about the reasons as to why she reopened the case. She did not remember whether the complainant showed her any injury mark on her body. The complainant did not request for any medical examination. She prepared the report on the basis of previous inquiry officer's report. She did not inquire about the source of income of giving dowry from the complainant.

PW6 HC Hira Singh deposed that on 28.06.2008, he was posted as constable at PS OIA. On that day, he had joined the investigation at the request of W/ASI Shanti and accused Imran Khan was arrested at PS OIA and his personal search was conducted Ex.PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B. Accused was sent to hospital for his medical examination through him and after his medical examination he was handed over to the IO at PS. During crossexamination PW6 deposed that accused was arrested at PS OIA. It was correct that the arrest memo did not bear his signature. He had submitted the medical report of the accused given by AIIMS to the IO.

PW7 W/SI Shanti (IO of the case) deposed that on 21.02.2008, she was posted at PS OIA. On that day, she received a complaint from CAW Cell with approval of DCP concerned for registration of FIR. She prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A and got it registered as FIR. After registration of FIR, original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to her for further investigation of the present case. During the course of investigation, she visited the residence of the complainant situated at Tuglakabad Extension and recorded her FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 31 of 46 supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. She also recorded statement of father of the complainant and attached with the file. Complainant handed over photocopy of Nikahnama, photocopy of marriage card and marriage photographs to her which were Mark X2 to Mark X4 and the same were placed on record. Fatherinlaw of the complainant namely Inayat Khan had deposited stridhan articles which were seized in presence of complainant and her father and they identified the same at PS after identifying the same vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The aforesaid stridhan articles were released to complainant and her father. On 28.06.2008, accused Imran Khan was arrested at PS and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B. Accused Rahisa Begum and Rehana were arrested at PS vide memo Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C. Remaining accused persons Asin, Harun and Inayat Khan were also arrested at PS vide memo Ex. PW7/D, Ex. PW7/E and Ex. PW7/F. During the course of investigation, notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was given to the Incharge, Khetrapal Hospital for producing photocopy of complete records pertaining to complainant Husn Bano who had been admitted on 30.05.2004 vide memo Ex.PW7/G and collected photocopy of the medical records pertaining to complainant from Khetrapal Hospital including admission and discharge slip and entire treatment record which were Mark X6. She recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation challan was prepared and filed before the Court.

During crossexamination PW7 deposed that the complainant did not show any injury mark on her body and neither requested for any medical examination. She was aware that there was an advisory by Delhi Police that FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 32 of 46 in 498A cases the source of providing dowry has to be inquired into. The complainant and her family did not provide her any source of income for giving the alleged dowry in the complaint. The complainant did not provide her any medical evidence as to the alleged beatings. She did not inquire from any doctor about the medical records given to her by the Khetrapal Hospital as no doctor was available at that time. She had visited the Khetrapal Hospital but she did not remember the exact date and had collected the medical records. She never tried to do any counseling between the parties. She did not inquire as to where the complainant Husn Bano wanted to live.

5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused persons. Accused persons denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication. Accused Imran Khan stated during his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC that he got married to the complainant in the year 2002 and thereafter, complainant lived with him for very less time and used to usually live at her parental home. Further, that the complainant was of quarrelsome nature and did not adjust with his family. He upon the request of the complainant, even agreed to reside with the complainant in a separate accommodation at Nangloi however, even then the complainant would quarrel with the accused and started forcing him to live in the matrimonial house of Okhla.

6. Accused persons examined only one witness in their defence.

DW1 Const. Bhagirath deposed that he was posted as constable at PS Paschim Vihar and had been appointed to depose before the court by the FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 33 of 46 order of ACP, Headquarter dated 13.04.2018 wherein the record pertaining to the period between 2007 to 2014 have been destroyed. The office order in respect to the same was Ex.DW1/A. Opportunity to crossexamine the witness was granted to Ld. APP for the State but he did not question anything from the witness.

7. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:

Observations qua offence u/s 498A IPC :

(i) The case of the prosecution rests on the assertion that during almost four years of the marriage between the parties, complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of failure by her to meet unlawful demands of dowry raised by the accused persons. It is admitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03.12.2003 and thereafter, she remained in her matrimonial house only till 18.04.2006 and thereafter, upon a compromise at Mahila Samiti, started living separately with the accused at Nangloi in a rented accommodation till 27.03.2007 i.e. she remained in her matrimonial home only for a period of two and half years. Accused has denied these allegations and raised manifold defences.

(ii) It is the foremost defence of the accused that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegations of cruelty of any nature upon the complainant by the accused. As per complaint Ex.PW1/A dated 18.04.2006 parties got married on 03.12.2003 in Delhi. The allegations in the aforesaid FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 34 of 46 complaint have not been reiterated in the testimony of complainant as PW1. It has also come in evidence in the testimony of PW1 that she was in constant touch with her family after her marriage, however, after sometime she was denied to meet her parental family or to visit them. However, PW2, PW3 and PW4 being the father, mother and brother of the complainant have stated that their sister used to meet them often after marriage and used to visit them and even they visited her at her matrimonial house and when the complainant narrated them the atrocities committed upon her by the accused persons, she was brought back to the parental home.

(iii) It has been stated by the complainant in Ex. PW1/A though not reiterated by her as PW1, that she did not visit her parental home during her first pregnancy but PW2 being the father of complainant had stated that her daughter had visited them at the time of her first pregnancy and he had the knowledge of the complainant being pregnant after 34 months and also had the knowledge of the termination of pregnancy, but during the cross examination PW2 contradicts his own statement. It is also argued on behalf of accused persons that PW5 Insp. Anuradha Chhabra has stated in her final report Ex.PW5/C at the CAW cell that the complainant was willing to live with the accused Imran Khan only at the matrimonial house of Okhla, and therefore, it can be inferred that she was kept well in her matrimonial home since she had shown her willingness to live with the accused persons against whom, she had alleged severe cruelties and extreme beatings on several occasions and the same are contradictory. It is further argued that it was accused Imran Khan who always wanted to live with the complainant and for FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 35 of 46 the same reason, he even agreed to live in a separate house with the complainant but it was the complainant who did not even adjust in a separate accommodation. It is also argued that the allegations of a complainant of a forceful abortion at a Khetrapal hospital is again not believable since no hospital or doctor shall terminate the pregnancy of a woman in the fifth month, without the consent and forcefully and also keep a medical record of the same since the act itself is an offence punishable under law. He has also argued that if the documents of Khetrapal hospital are carefully perused, it can be seen that the child of the complainant was terminated due to medical problem and also considering the health of the complainant and of the unborn child and the same was only upon medical advise of the doctor and in the supervision of experts and therefore, the aforesaid allegations are baseless and without any cogent evidence. It is also argued that there are several inconsistencies in the deposition of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 and the same are doubtful as far as the veracity of the witnesses are concerned. It is also argued that due to the false complaint filed by the complainant, the accused persons had to even undergo imprisonment and arrest against the standing order of Commissioner of Police dated 08.11.2007 wherein it is a mandatory direction to the police officials that a person cannot be arrested without any preliminary inquiry. It has also been argued that the complainant is liable to be prosecuted u/s 494 IPC for the offence of bigamy since she solemnised the second marriage without seeking divorce from the accused, which she disclosed only during the court proceedings vide her statement on 08.10.2013 before the court of her second marriage being solemnised on 30.12.2011. It is FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 36 of 46 also argued that the allegations levelled against the accused persons have not been substantiated by leading any cogent evidence by the complainant and the present complaint is false and fabricated and accused persons are liable to be acquitted. Credibility of such allegations are also dubious for the reason that there is not even any averment made by the complainant against the accused persons of having committed cruelty for demand of dowry which could lead the complainant to commit suicide.

(iv) On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the complainant and the other witnesses have deposed on the lines of the story of prosecution and there are no major contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which would amount to disbelieving them. It is also argued that all the allegations of the complainant are proved against the accused persons and they are liable to be convicted for the offences charged. It is also argued that the minor contradiction of the testimony of the witnesses is not stated to the prosecution case and the sole testimony of the complainant is reliable and remains unchallenged by the accused persons and therefore, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

(v) It has been stated by the complainant in Ex. PW1/A that "after few days of her marriage" accused persons and their family members started ill treating her by demanding money for which her father had given Rs.51,000/, but the accused persons were still unhappy and gave severe beatings to the complainant. Subsequently, complainant again went to her parental home and her father again gave her Rs.70,000/ and thereafter, the complainant was kept well only for few days and again ill treated by giving severe beatings by FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 37 of 46 legs and fist blows by which blood started oozing out from her leg which she had injured during the said quarrel with her. Further, during her first pregnancy, she was given severe beatings and her child was aborted at the behest of accused persons since they did not want a girl child from the complainant. Subsequently, complainant again became pregnant and was ill treated and given severe beatings because of which her father and brother came to take her from the matrimonial home and thereafter, she remained in the parental home till her child was delivered. She was again brought back to the matrimonial home by her husband on the pretext of keeping well but even then, she was ill treated and severely beaten on 18.04.2006 without any reason and accused persons even tried to kill her child by putting a quilt on the face of the child. Further, due to the aforesaid beatings, complainant became unconscious and upon regaining consciousness asked her parents to come and thereafter, her family members reached in the night and took her to the parental home in her wearable clothes. Subsequently, she filed a complaint with Mahila Samiti and settled the matter and started living with her husband in a separate accommodation, where again her husband did not look after her and her child and on 27.03.2007 tried to burn the complainant and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, she made a call to her father who came to take her away and also filed the complaint at Police post Miawali Nagar, Paschim Vihar and the copy of the same was mark X1. Finding no option, complainant filed her complaint at CAW cell Ex.PW1/A and complainant relied upon her marriage photographs mark X2 and Nikahnama mark X3 and X4 and list of dowry articles mark X5 and medical records FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 38 of 46 pertaining to her treatment after first pregnancy and abortion mark X2 and the report of Khetrapal hospital dated 21.04.2008 Ex.PW1/D and the dowry articles received by her vide Ex.PW1/C.

(vi) In the present matter, the complainant has alleged severe allegations of continuous beatings by all the accused persons on several occasions, however, on none of the occasion complainant even made a call at 100 number. Further as PW1, complainant vaguely stated that accused demanded money on different occasions from her. There is no specification of the amount of cash demanded by the accused or his family members after few days of marriage or even the amount paid by the complainant to the accused in fulfillment of any of his demand and the source from which such payments were allegedly arranged by the father of the complainant. The allegation of demand are unspecified and also obscure. As such, the allegations of demand of dowry by the accused lack credence.

(vii) Further as per complaint Ex.PW1/A there is no specification of the manner in which the complainant was mentally or physically harassed by the accused or his family. The complaint as well as testimony of PW1 is silent on the specific date, month, year, event or occasion of any beating given to the complainant by the accused or the manner of such beating i.e. slapping, kicking, keeping her without food for days etc. Admittedly, the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding any such alleged beating or harassment prior to the present complainant and are, therefore ambiguous and vague.

(viii) It has also been alleged by PW1 that the behavior of accused Imran Khan was callous and indifferent to her and the minor child when they started FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 39 of 46 residing at Nangloi, however it has not been elaborately clarified as to how did PW1 infer the behavior of accused to be callous or found him to be indifferent when she was residing with him in a separate accommodation at Nangloi and has only stated that accused used to remain away from her and would be in the company of his family.

(ix) Further, there is neither any averment nor any piece of evidence in the form of a medical report or otherwise, to draw a logical inference of such a threat to be of a nature likely to have driven the complainant to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life limp or health. In absence of any assertion to this effect, it cannot be assumed that such a threat or alleged callous or indifferent behavior of the accused was with a view to coercing her to meet any demand for property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand. Reliance is placed upon decision in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 264553/2005 decided on 12.10.2007 wherein following observation was made : ".....Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

Explanation (b) to Section 498A provides that cruelty means 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 such demand.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 40 of 46 Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the Section...."

(x) Similar view was adopted in the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that 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. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 observed that offence U/s 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. Further, while interpreting the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section498A IPC.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 41 of 46

(xi) It has also come in evidence, during cross examination of PW1, that the complainant was in constant touch with her family members and on 18.04.2006 when her brother and father visited her matrimonial home and the accused persons had given severe beatings to the complainant because of which, she had even lost consciousness, none of her family members even informed the police or deemed it appropriate to give a call at 100 number when they saw the complainant in a critical state as alleged by the complainant and they took the complainant to the parental home. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the story of the complainant and out of four public witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW2, PW3 and PW4 are only hearsay and interested witnesses. In such an eventuality, veracity of allegations of cruelty appear to be in doubt. Further, Ex. PW1/A and list of dowry articles Ex.PW1/C and the photographs of the marriage or the marriage card does not reveal anything of the sort of marriage to have been ostentatiously displayed.

(xii) Even the allegations that the accused used to gave beatings to the complainant have not been corroborated by any reliable piece of evidence. There are discrepant statements regarding the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant are discrepant and devoid of specific details and as such does not inspire confidence of the court.

(xiii) Also, there is no evidence such as a medical report, photograph or otherwise to prove any physical injury to the complainant which she would have received had she been assaulted.

FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 42 of 46

(xiv) Further, during cross examination PW1 has stated that her parents had given Rs.70,000/ and Rs.51,000/ to the accused persons in view of their demand however, has not proved the same by any cogent evidence. Further, again, this averment is not corroborated by any independent witness such as elder brother of complainant or any documentary proof of such handing over of cash to the accused or even the exact date, month, year or occasion of such handing over of money. As such there is no convincing evidence on record to believe the allegations of the prosecution regarding commission of offence u/s 498A IPC. All accused are accordingly acquitted of offence U/s 498A/34 IPC.

Observation qua offence U/s 406 IPC against accused Imran Khan

8. As regards allegations pertaining to criminal breach of trust committed by accused Imran Khan, it has been alleged in Ex.PW1/A that the complainant received stridhan from her parents. However, there is no specification of the exact articles gifted to her by her parents or any receipt or bill of the gold articles alleged to have been taken away by the accused or his family. Even Ex.PW1/A and list of stridhan articles mark X5 which is the list of dowry articles allegedly in possession of the accused had already been received by the complainant and he has admitted the same during her cross examination. Further, the same if being taken away by the complainant after the settlement before the Mahila Samiti and when she shifted alongwith the accused in a rented accommodation of Nangloi cannot be ruled out and further it is complainant who has herself stated that after the incident of FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 43 of 46 27.03.2007, accused had run away from the spot and therefore, it is obvious that all the household articles were in the house when the accused allegedly ran away leaving behind the complainant with the minor child. There is no averment of entrustment of any kind of property by the complainant to the accused Imran Khan and its misappropriation by him. There is nothing on record in the complaint which suggested even remotely that the complainant entrusted her property to the accused Imran Khan or that he had dominion over it or the same were dishonestly converted to his own use so as to satisfy ingredients of section 405 of the Indian Penal Code since the same defines as to what shall constitute criminal breach of trust. Further, the complainant has failed to prove any mens rea. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that the property had been returned, it must also be shown that the accused persons had disposed off the same in some other way than that in which they were bound to apply it and the same was done dishonestly and therefore, I am in agreement with the arguments advanced on behalf of accused Imran Khan.

9. This view is supported by the decision Pehlad Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana II (1992) DMC 259, wherein it was held that a sweeping statement was made by the complainant that her stridhan was entrusted to the family of the husband. Holding that there was no specific allegation of entrustment against some of the family members, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the complaint and the consequential proceedings against the said family members and observed as under: FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 44 of 46

1. ".....From these we find that while there are specific allegations about the entrustment of certain articles to the husbandPehlad and mother inlaw, the allegations with regard to the entrustment to the other petitioners are general, vague and not specific. Though certain articles are enumerated, a sweeping statement has been made by the complainant that these articles have been entrusted to the other relations of her husband, namely fatherinlaw, her brother - inlaw and wife of one of the brothersinlaw. The complainant has not specifically mentioned as to which item of dowry was entrusted to which of these other petitioners. Therefore, on such vague and general allegations it cannot be stated that the complainant has made out a prima facie case against any of the other petitioners than her husband and motherinlaw under Section 406, IPC....."

Ms. Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr. 92 (2001) DLT 179, also lends support to the same view, wherein court observing that there was no allegation of entrustment in the complaint, quashed the FIR against the married sister inlaw (nanad) of the complainant under section 498A and 406 IPC and opined: " .....To constitute the offence under Section 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by the complainant; that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. Perusal of the allegations appearing against the petitioner do not show that the articles of stridhan were even entrusted to her. In the absence of the allegation of entrustment, question of FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA State Vs. Imran Khan & Ors. 45 of 46 misappropriation or conversion to her use does not arise. Thus the most vital ingredient to constitute the offence U/s 406 IPC is missing. In view of the above, no case U/s 406 ICP is spelt out against the petitioner...."

10. As such the allegations of criminal breach of trust u/s. 406 IPC are not proved against the accused Imran Khan beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused Imran Khan is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC.



Announced in the Open Court                (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
On 18.12.2018                                      Metropolitan Magistrate,
                                                  (Mahila Court02), SouthEast,
                                                            Saket, New Delhi.
                                      Digitally
                                      signed by
                                      SHEETAL
                            SHEETAL   CHAUDHARY
                            CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
                            PRADHAN   Date:
                                      2018.12.19
                                      11:40:48
                                      +0530




FIR No. 83/2008; PS OIA                                 State  Vs. Imran Khan & Ors.                       46 of  46

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 83/2008; Ps Oia State vs . Imran Khan & Ors. 1 Of 46 on 18 December, 2018