Delhi District Court
State vs . Shiv Kumar & Ors. on 3 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM (MAHILA COURTS) :
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO. 494/04
P.S. TIMAR PUR
U/s. 498A/406 /34 IPC
02401R: 1221762005
STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS.
1. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : DURING SUBSISTENCE
OF MARRIAGE SINCE 15.04.1990
2. NAME OF COMPLAINANT : SMT. SUNITA GARG
D/O SH KANWAR BHAN
3. NAME OF ACCUSED PERSONS,
THEIR PARENTAGE & ADDRESS : 1. SH. SHIV KUMAR
S/O SH. JAI BHAGWAN GARG
R/O VIKAS NAGAR, GALI NO.2.
JAURASI ROAD NEAR GEETA SCHOOL,
SAMBHALAKHA PANIPAT, HARYANA.
2. SH. JAIBHAGWAN GARG
S/O SH. NANU RAM
3. SMT. KALAWATI
W/O SH. JAI BHAGWAN GARG
BOTH R/O VILLAGE KHANDARA,
PS MATLOTHA, DISTT. PANIPAT ,
HARYANA.
4. SH. PAWAN KUMAR
S/O SH. DHARAM SINGH
5. SMT. SAROJ DEVI
W/O SH. PAWAN KUMAR
BOTH R/O VILLAGE CHHAJPUR
KHURD, PANIPAT, HARYANA
6. SMT. SULOCHNA DEVI
FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 1/15
W/O SH. RAM KUMAR,
7. SH. RAM KUMAR
S/O SH. LACHNI RAM
BOTH R/O BHARAT NAGAR,
LINE PAAR, SAMBHALAKHA,
PANIPAT, HARYANA
8. SH. RAMESH CHAND
S/O SH. JAI BHAGWAN
9. SMT. KAMALA DEVI
W/O SH. RAMESH CHAND
BOTH R/O D67, MANSHA RAM
PARK, UTTAM NAGAR, NEAR
NAJAFGARH ROAD, DELHI.
10. SH. PREM
S/O SH. JAI BHAGWAN
11. SMT. SANTOSH RANI
W/O SH. PREM ( SINCE EXPIRED)
BOTH R/O E37, NANHE PARK,
UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI.
4. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : 498A/406 /34 IPC
5. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS : PLEADED NOT GUILTY
6. FINAL ORDER : ACQUITTED
7. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 03.11.2014
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
FOR THE STATE : SH. ANUJ PRAKASH
FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS : SH. RAVINDER PAL SINGH
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The present case has been registered against husband and in laws of the complainant. Accused Shiv Kumar is the husband, accused Jai Bhagwan Garg and Kalawati are parents in law, accused Ramesh Chand and Prem are Jeth, accused Kamla and Santosh are Jethani, accused Saroj and Sulochana are Nand and FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 2/15 accused Pawan Kumar and Ram Kumar are Nandoi of the complainant. The brief facts of the case as have been disclosed in the statement made by the complainant Smt. Sunita Garg D/o Sh. Kanwar Bhan R/o H. No. 1000, Gali No. 7, BlockD, Nathupura, Delhi, wherein it is stated that marriage between complainant and accused Shiv Kumar was solemnized on 15.04.1990 at Panipat Haryana, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and out of said wedlock three children were born. It is further stated that after marriage, complainant went to live at her matrimonial home at village Khandra, Distt. Panipat along with accused persons. It is further stated that soon after marriage, in laws of complainant started committing cruelties upon the complainant in furtherance of dowry demand.
2. It is further stated that accused persons used to quarrel and beat the complainant in furtherance of dowry demands. They also used to taunt by saying " tu toh bhikhariyo ke ghar set aayi hai". It is further stated that after some time, complainant and her husband started residing at Samalkha but accused persons did not stop committing cruelties upon her for dowry. Whenever complainant's in laws used to visit Samalkha, they would instigate complainant's husband, taunt and give beatings to complainant and her children. It is further stated that on 12.8.2004, her in laws came to their place. While watching Television, accused Kamla told her to bring new TV but when complainant did not give nod to bring the same then she dragged the complainant by catching hold her hair and told '' Ek tv apne ghar se nahi la sakti to tu humare liye aur kya karegi''. At that time, her Jeth and Nandoi also joined and started beating the complainant. The parents in law of complainant told '' ise aur marro humare ghar main kangalo ki koi jaroorat nahi hain'' .
3. It is further stated that on 23.8.2004, all accused persons turned her and children out of matrimonial house with demand of Rs. 50,000/ and made clear that she shall not be allowed at matrimonial house till their demand is fulfilled.
FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 3/15 Thereafter, complainant and her children were forced to live without any provision for maintenance. It is also stated that accused persons used to assault complainant by baton blows and pouring of hot water and tea. Thereafter, finding no other alternative, complainant got a complaint lodged before CAW Cell, where reconciliation proceedings were conducted but matter could not be sorted out . Thereafter, on the basis of statement of complainant, a case under section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
4. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied with copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under section 208 Cr. PC. Arguments on the point of charge heard and vide order dated 4.12.2007, charge under section 498A/34 was directed to framed against accused Shiv Kumar and Kamla Devi and under section 406 IPC against accused Shiv Kumar and remaining accused persons were discharged. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred on behalf of the complainant, which was allowed vide order dated 24.10.2008. In pursuant to said order, charge under section 498A/34 IPC was framed against all discharged accused persons. The accused persons individually pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, accused Santosh unfortunately expired, on receiving her death verification report, proceedings against her were abated vide order dated 25.8.2011.
5. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution produced following ten witnesses :
(i) W/ASI Sushma appeared as PW1 and proved FIR Ex. PW1/A, (OSR)
(ii) ASI Rani, appeared as PW2,
(iii) Rtd. SI Chander Singh appeared as PW 3, FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 4/15
(iv) Smt. Sunita Garg/Complainant appeared as PW4 and proved list of dowry articles Ex. PW4/A, Complaint of CAW Cell vide Ex. PW4/B,
(v) W/Ct. Rakesh appeared as PW5 and proved arrest memos of accused Shiv Kuamar, Jai Bhagwan and Kalawati vide Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C and personal search memos Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E and PW5/F,
(vi) Sh, Sumit Kumar, nephew of complainant appeared as PW 6,
(vii) HC Vinod Kumar appeared as PW7,
(viii) Rtd. SI Ramphal appeared as PW8,
(ix) Ct. Mukesh appeared as PW9,
(x) IO / SI Babu Ram appeared as PW10 and proved arrest memo of accused Saroj Devi, Sulochana Devi, Ram Kumar, Pawan Kumar , Ramesh Chand , Kamla Devi and Santosh Rani Ex. PW 10/A,B,C, D, E, F, G and H,
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr PC. The statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC. were recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to them, to which they denied as false and incorrect and claimed to have been falsely implicated. In order to disprove charge against them, accused persons examined Sh. Jagminder as DW 1 and Sh. Shiv Kumar as DW2 ( on an application under section 315 Cr. Pc.) Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. During the course of final arguments, following arguments were made on behalf of accused persons:
(i) Admittedly, complainant and accused Shiv Kumar were residing separately in exclusion of other accused persons,
(ii) No medical evidence with respect to incident dated 22.8.2004 has been placed on record ,
(iii) No complaint was made with local police station despite allegations of continuous torture and harassment. The present complaint was filed after coming to Delhi and after due deliberation and in consultation with the family members, FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 5/15
(iv) Allegations are general in nature without specific details
(v) Matter was earlier settled between the parties and in pursuant to said settlement, complainant was duly compensated but she did not comply with terms and conditions to be done on her part. She did not come forward for quashing of present FIR after receiving compensation. The factum of settlement is established through the testimonies of defence witnesses as well as documents Ex. DW 2/AB and Mark A and B,
(vi) No recovery of dowry articles was effected and in lieu of dowry articles, a sum of Rs. one lac was given during bail proceedings.
8. The arguments of the prosecution are given below:
(i) PW 4/ complainant has mentioned facts with specific details but no cross examination has been conducted on said facts,
(ii) Settlement / compromise of the matter has no bearing on the merits of the case and accused persons cannot be acquitted on the basis of said settlement,
(iii) Payment of Rs. one lac and non recovery of dowry articles have no effect upon the merits of the case,
(iv) Accused had the opportunity to return the dowry articles during CAW Cell proceedings but same were deliberately not returned,
9. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through entire record including testimonies of witnesses. Before appreciating evidence on record, let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions given U/s 498 A /406/34 IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life,limb or health,whether mental or physical or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or(2) on account of failure by such woman or any FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 6/15 person or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand Section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust.
For offence under this section the prosecution must prove :
(i) that the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it,
(ii) that he (a) misappropriated it or(b) converted it to his own use or (c) used it or (d) disposed of it
10. In the light of aforesaid legal provisions, the court would now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain if alleged acts of accused persons amount to cruelty in terms of provision given U/s 498 A IPC and if accused Shiv Kumar is guilty of criminal breach of trust. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly, the complainant has built her case on explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J page 3019 , the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498A IPC observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must have the nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation(b). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed that cruelty under section 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 7/15
11. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of aforesaid legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
The testimony of complainant Smt. Sunita/PW4 is reproduced and appreciated as below: (11.1) She has deposed that sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage. It be observed that no evidence has been brought on record to prove the source of said dowry articles. ( Reference may be had to the judgment of Narender Kumar & Anr.Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) I (2008) DMC 337, ) (11.2) She has further deposed that her parents and brother used to give money whenever they used to visit her matrimonial home and her husband used to enjoy said money. She has further deposed that accused was not working himself but a grocery shop was being run by her in laws. It be observed that these facts are not mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW 4/B as well as statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC. It also be observed that allegations are against accused Shiv Kumar and no allegation has been leveled against other accused persons and allegations leveled against accused Shiv Kumar are general in nature without any specific details, (11.3) She has further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar used to assault her in furtherance of demand of money to be brought from her parents. It be observed that this fact is not mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW 4/B as well as statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC. It also be observed that allegation pertains to accused Shiv Kumar only and nothing has been stated against other accused persons however allegation leveled against accused Shiv Kumar is again general in nature without any specific detail, (11.4) She has further deposed that accused persons were not satisfied with the quality of articles given in the marriage and they used to demand high quality articles. It be observed that these facts are not mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW 4/B as well as statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC. It also be observed that allegations are general in nature without any specific details, (11.5) She has further deposed that on 22.8.2004, all accused persons made FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 8/15 demand of new colour TV and when complainant expressed her inability then she was assaulted by the accused persons. In this regard, it be observed that though no cross examination on this point has been conducted but the allegation are general in nature as complainant has not mentioned the role of each accused in commission of cruelties. It also be observed that this allegation is not supported by corroborative evidence, (11.6) She has further deposed that on 23.08.2004 she along with children were turned out of matrimonial house in furtherance of demanded Rs. 50,000/ and it was told that complainant shall be allowed at matrimonial house only if their demand of Rs. 50,000/ is fulfilled and therefore, she went to her parental house. She has further deposed that she was assaulted by the baton and sometimes hot tea was thrown on her face by accused Shiv Kumar. It be observed that allegations are not supported corroborative evidence. It be also observed that during crossexamination of PW4 and in the testimonies of DW1 & 2, it has come on record that complainant and accused Shiv Kumar were residing separately at Samalkha and therefore claim of complainant regarding having been turned out of matrimonial house by the accused persons is falsified.
12. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the complainant was made to CAW Cell on 01092004 more than one week after the alleged incident of being turned out from the matrimonial home and about fourteen years of cruelties, which are claimed to have been committed since the very beginning of the marriage for the reason of nonfulfillment demand of dowry Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of the coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result or deliberations and consultations, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 9/15 lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 577) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao). In the present case also, no explanation worth the name for delay in filing the Complaint with the police has come on record. Though in the testimony of DW1, it is mentioned that earlier complainant had filed a complaint against him before CAW Cell, Sonipath but matter was compromised with the intervention of CAW Cell officials and they lived together peacefully. However, no such facts have been mentioned in the testimonies of complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Even for argument sake, it is presumed that a complaint was filed against the accused but the matter was settled and therefore, acts of cruelties if any, committed by the accused are deemed to have been condoned. In her entire testimony, PW4/complainant has not mentioned that earlier she did not prefer to file complaint against accused persons as she wanted to save her matrimonial life.
13. It be further observed that the complainant has alleged that she was physically, mentally tortured in furtherance of dowry demand by the accused persons but she has not placed on record any MLC or any medical record whatsoever for the alleged beatings and injuries caused to her. Though she has claimed to have been beaten on 22.08.2004 in furtherance of demand of new TV but this appears to be a bald allegation for not being corroborated by supporting evidence. She has not mentioned the role of each accused in commission of said offence and have leveled general and bald allegation. It also be observed that no complaint to police, any other higher authority or even to relatives was made. No other witnesses be it interested or independent witnesses have been examined to prove the allegations of beatings. It seems impracticable that the complainant would continue to live with accused persons despite getting repeated beatings.
14. It is also noticeable that though complainant has leveled various allegations against her in laws but it is established on record that she lived at matrimonial house only for sometime after the marriage, thereafter, she along with her husband shifted to Chhajiya village . During crossexamination, she has stated FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 10/15 that she stayed at matrimonial house at village Khandara for about one and half years thereafter, she along with her husband shifted to Samalkha but on further crossexamination, she has admitted that before shifting to Samalkha, they used to reside at Chhajiya village in rented premises and all her children were born there. The version of complainant to this effect is falsified through testimony of DW1 Sh. Jagminder, who has specifically stated that accused Shiv Kumar and complainant used to live as tenant at his house at village Chhajiya and their children were also born there. It be observed that during crossexamination, no question or suggestion has been put to this witness in order to rebut this fact and therefore deemed to have been accepted to be true.
(14.A ) DW2 has also deposed on similar line, he has stated that after marriage, he and complainant resided at Khandara for about one year only and thereafter, they shifted to village Chhajiya, where they resided for about 08 to 09 years peacefully and in the year, 2000, they shifted to Samalkha. During cross examination, no counter question or suggestion has been put to rebut this fact. Though the complainant has claimed that her in laws used to visit them at Samalkha also and used to commit cruelties upon there complainant but these allegations are not supported by any other evidence. Whereas DW1 has stated that no one including parents, brother and sister of accused Shiv Kumar used to visit them or complainant used to visit them as she would not like them. During crossexamination, no question has been put to the witness to disprove this fact and only suggestion has been given that complainant used to like accused persons and he did not remember the date, time, month or year because complainant never told him that she did not like the accused persons. DW1 has specifically stated that during the period complainant and accused Shiv Kumar lived at his house, there was no major quarrel between them. This fact has not been rebutted by cross question and only suggestion has been given that accused Shiv Kumar used to quarrel and harass the complainant in furtherance of dowry demand, which has been denied by the witness. It also be observed that in the testimony, FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 11/15 most of the allegations are against husband of complainant and only sweeping allegations have been leveled against other accused persons, which are general in nature and are without specific details.
15. It be observed that accused persons have taken the plea that matter was earlier settled with the complainant but despite fulfillment of terms and conditions of said settlement by the accused, complainant did not cooperate in getting the FIR quashed. From the testimony of DW1 and admissions made during crossexamination of complainant, the plea of accused persons with regard to settlement is proved. During crossexamination, complainant has admitted that compromise talks were initiated by the accused. She has further admitted that she had received Rs. one lac against dowry articles during bail proceedings. She has also admitted that 50 Sq. Yds. out of 150 Sq. Yds. of accused Shiv Kumar shall be handed over to her.
(15.A) In his testimony, DW1 has stated that on 16.09.2004, he and complainant entered into a compromise vide Mark A i.e. certified copies of compromise dated 16.09.2004 and 08.10.2004 and as per agreement , he permitted the complainant and children to reside at Property situated at Vikas Nagar, Samalkha but complainant did not come to reside there. Thereafter, at the time of bail matter he paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ as per court order and in proceedings under section 125 Cr. PC., he transferred 50 yds. property in favour of the complainant vide Ex DW2/A. He has further stated that on transfer of said property, complainant started residing with him but continued with her quarreling, when the accused objected ton it, she shunted him out of said property with the help of his brother and lodged a false complaint against him at Panipat.
16. DW2 has further testified that on 12.02.02, complainant entered into another agreement vide Mark B , wherein it was decided that said property shall be sold and there shall not be any relation between them and complainant shall cooperate in getting the present FIR quashed but even after sale of property vide FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 12/15 Ex DW2/B, complainant did not cooperate accused persons in getting the FIR quashed. It be observed that during crossexamination of DW1, nothing substantial could be elicited to disprove the claims of accused persons. During crossexamination, DW1 has admitted that Ex DW2/A contains his statement bearing his signatures at point A. The claims of accused persons are established through document Ex DW2/A i.e. Sale deed, which proves transfer of 50 Sq.Yard property in favour of the complainant, document Mark A proves undertaking of parties regarding transfer of property situated at Samalkha and severance of ties with each other and document Mark B further proves the factum of selling of property with mutual agreement, declaration by complainant with regard to having no grievance left against the accused, undertaking to withdraw the pending cases against accused and to cooperate in quashing of present FIR. The court is of the view that after settlement, the alleged acts of cruelties on the part of accused persons, are deemed to have condoned by the complainant. The court also can not turn blind eye to the fact that despite undertaking complainant did not honour the settlement, which should go against her. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that charge u/s 498A/34 IPC is not established against the accused persons.
17. It be observed that accused Shiv Kumar has also been charged under section 406 IPC for having misappropriated the stridhan articles of the complainant to his own wish. In order to to establish the charge of Section 406 IPC, the prosecution was under the obligation to establish the ingredients of section 405 IPC thus, it was required to be established that an entrustment was made in favour of the accused and he was having dominion over the articles of the complainant and with dishonest intentions the articles entrusted to him, have been misappropriated. PW4 has not mentioned about entrustment of dowry articles in favour of accused in her entire testimony, wherein she has merely stated that all her dowry articles have been retained by the accused persons since she was turned out of matrimonial house but it be observed that during FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 13/15 investigation none of the dowry articles could be recovered from the house of accused, which is admitted even by PW10/ IO SI Babu Ram and admittedly, in lieu of dowry articles, complainant was given Rs. 1,00,000/. The claim of complainant regarding retention of dowry articles by accused persons is falsified with the fact that she and accused Shiv Kumar were living separately from co accused persons since long.
18. The list of dowry articles Ex.PW4/ A is not witnessed by family members of the parties, which casts a serious doubt over the genuineness of above mentioned list. No bill, invoice etc. of the articles and or of the conveyance through which the articles reached the matrimonial home of complainant has been proved on record. In such circumstances being guided by the judgment of Neera Singh vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 138 (2007) DLI 152, the court is of the opinion that entrustment in favour of the accused is not established.
19. It be also observed that in the present case, there is no investigation regarding source of dowry articles. In the judgment of Narender Kumar & Anr.Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) I (2008) DMC 337, it has been held by the Hon'ble court that the court must be very cautious during trial of offences under section 498A/406 IPC as in all such cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by the police. Police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about claims made by the complainant. This all results into gross misuse of provision of law and investigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial and other evidence in respect of claims made by complainant. The courts should always be careful in considering credibility and truthfulness of statement of complainant and relatives. In the present case also, no investigation regarding source of dowry articles has been conducted.
In view of the fact that none of the ingredients of section 405 IPC is established and therefore no case u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused.
FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 14/15
20. In view of aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced on record in order to secure conviction of accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons are acquitted from the respective charges framed against them under section 498A/34/ 406 IPC .
21. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03.11.2014 CORRECTED & SIGNED ON 20.11.2014 (MONA TARDI KERKETTA) MM02 , MAHILA COURTS TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 15/15 FIR No.494/04 P.S. Timarpur U/SEC. 498A/34/406 IPC St. VS. Shiv Kumar & Ors.
03.11.2014
Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Santosh has expired
Other accused on bail with Ld. Counsel
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, accused persons are acquitted from the respective charges framed u/s 498A/34/406 IPC.
Previous bail bonds are cancelled, sureties are discharged. Documents if any, be returned against receiving and endorsement if any be cancelled.
In compliance of provision given under section 437A CrPC, fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs 10,000/ with one surety each have been filed, attested and accepted, which shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR NO. 494/04 PS TIMAR PUR STATE VS. SHIV KUMAR & ORS. 16/15