Delhi District Court
Sc No. 28397/2016, Fir No. 385/2007, ... vs . Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 1 Of 24 on 4 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 28397/2016
CNR No. DLCT010001832009
FIR No. 385/2007
U/s: 307/323/498A/506 IPC &
3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
PS: Chandni Mahal
STATE
Versus:
1.Matloob Alam S/o Mohd. Alam.
R/o H. No. 1767, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, New Delhi Permanent Address:
Village Akbarpur Jhojha, Tehsil Galaohti, District Buland Shahar, U.P.
2. Irsad Alam S/o S/o Mohd. Alam.
R/o H. No. 1767, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, New Delhi Permanent Address:
Village Akbarpur Jhojha, Tehsil Galaohti, District Buland Shahar, U.P. Date of Institution : 04.03.2010 Date of Reserving Judgment : 04.02.2017 SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 1 of 24 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2017 Conclusion : ACQUITTED Pages: 1 to 24 J U D G E M E N T CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Naushan Naz D/o Shahzama Khan R/o Village Akbar Pur, Jhaujha PS Gulawathi, District Bulandshaher, UP had married on 01.05.2005 with Matloob Alam S/o Mohd. Ali R/o House no.1767, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi110006 according to Husb Customs and Ceremonies. She was blessed with a son. Her husband Matloob Alam, his brothers Mehboob Alam and Irshad Alam, their wives Mst. Mohsina and Mst.
Musatfishra respectively and her sistersinlaw Chaand, Farhad and Mst. Amreen were not happy with the dowry which was given to her at the time of her marriage though her brothers had spent about Rs. four lacs on her marriage. They used to taunt, harass, beat, keep her hungry for many days and used to take heavy household work. She somehow tolerated all that, however, about three months back prior to the incident, all the aforesaid persons pressurized her to bring an amount of Rs. one lac from her brothers as her husband Matloob Alam wanted to purchase a house. She brought the aforesaid sum from her brothers and gave the same to her husband Matloob Alam, but the aforesaid persons did not stop to harass her. They keep her hungry and compelled her to leave her matrimonial home. On 01.10.2007, all the aforesaid persons, in a planned way, pressurized her to bring a Maruti Car from her parental house. She told them that her brothers are unable to give Maruti Car and SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 2 of 24 they have already given Rs. one lac, due to which the aforesaid persons got annoyed and on 07.10.2007 they brought her from Delhi to her village Akbar Pur, Jhojha in a big car and near the periphery of her parental village Akbar Pur, Jhojha, they with an intention to kill her, put a "chunni" around her neck and strangulated her and believing her to be dead, they pushed her out from the said car. When she was going to her brothers' house, Mohd. Sehbar and Minhaj Alam, who are from her village and are just like her brothers, brought her from the outskirts of her village to her real brothers' house. Her brothers tried to contact her inlaws on telephone but they did not talk to them. On 08.10.2007, she was medically examined and on the basis of complaint made by her dated 11.10.2007 an FIR no.235/2007 U/s 498A/323/307/506 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered on 11.10.2007 in PS Gulawathi UP.
Thereafter, the aforesaid FIR was turned into a "Zero" FIR and on the directions of Sh. Vijay Kumar, DIG, Meerut, UP, the investigation of the case was transferred to PS Chandni Mahal, where on the basis of aforesaid compliant, a case FIR no.385/2007 was registered on 28.11.2007 U/s 498A/323/307/506 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196.
After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against all the aforesaid accused persons under Section U/s 498 A/406/323/506 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and besides the aforesaid offences, chargesheet under Section 307 IPC was also filed against accused Matloob Alam and Irshad Alam in the court of concerned Ld. Area Magistrate.
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 3 of 242. The concerned Ld. Area Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, summoned the accused persons and as the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.
3. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons were heard on the point of charge and after considering their submissions and perusal of record an order on charge was passed on 06.07.2010 vide which; all the accused persons except accused Matloob Alam and Irshad Alam, were discharged, A prima facie case under Section 307/34 IPC, 406/34 IPC, 498A/34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was revealed against both of them, therefore, on 28.07.2010 charges under the aforesaid sections were framed against accused Matloob Alam and Irshad Alam, the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular and were asked in their vernacular, whether they plead guilty or claim to be tried. Both the accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. The opportunities were given to the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to lead evidence and prove the charges against the accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP for the State examined following witnesses: PW1 Mst. Naushan Naz; who is the complainant/victim in the present case.
PW2 W/Ct. Meenakshi; who was with IO when IO arrested accused Matloob Alam and Irshad Alam and SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 4 of 24 interrogated Mst. Mustafishra, Mst.Amreen and Mohsina.
PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar; who examined the complainant on 08.10.2007 at Community Health Centre, Gulawathi, Buland Shaher, UP.
PW4 Minhaz Alam; who was one of the brothers of the complainant who took her to her parental house on 07.10.2007 after the accused persons left her at the periphery of her village.
PW5 HC Banwari Lal; who was the MHC(M).
PW6 ASI Ompal Singh; who was the Duty Officer.
PW7 Sh. B.S. Sanger; who was the Reader to the I.G (Meerut Range), Meerut UP and deposed that as per directions of Sh. Vijay Kumar, the then DIG, Meerut the FIR was treated as "Zero FIR" and investigation was transferred from PS Gulawathi UP to PS Darya Ganj Delhi.
PW8 Ct. Anil; who was with IO at the time of arrest of accused Matloob Alam.
PW9 HC Mohd. Ahmed; who was with IO and went to village Akbar Pur with accused Matloob Alam.
PW10 Inspector Mahesh Chand Yadav; who was the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR no.235/2007 u/s 498A/323/307/506 IPC & 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act PS Gulawathi, UP.
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 5 of 24PW11 Adeel Rashid; who was S.O. of PS Gulawathi who made endorsement on the complaint dated 11.10.2007 for transfer of the same to PS Darya Ganj Delhi.
PW12 PW Rehmat Khan; who was the husband of Naushapa Rehman, the Pradhan of the village who deposed that the complainant was thrown into the village by her inlaws after beating her.
PW13 Inspector Narsi Lal Meena; who was the 2nd IO of the case and had filed chargesheet against the accused persons and PW14 Inspector Atul Kumar; who deposed that "Zero FIR" along with other relevant papers and photocopy of MLC was received to PS Chandni Mahal by Dak, he made endorsement on the same and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of the case in PS Chandni Mahal.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating evidences on record against the accused persons, were brought into their notice and their explanation were recorded separately on 04.12.2014. The accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case, but they did not lead any defence evidence despite opportunity given to them.
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 6 of 246. The accused persons were directed to furnish their bail bonds under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C before conclusion of trial. They furnished the same by producing their respective sureties on 23.07.2015 in the Court.
7. I have patiently heard the submission made by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record.
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the ingredients of all the offences for which the charge has been framed against both the accused persons have been proved by concrete evidence led by the complainant and other public persons and the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, both the accused persons may be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged.
Ld. defence counsel Ms. Maldeep Sidhu has submitted that essential ingredients of any of the offences for which charges have been framed against both the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the testimony of PW1 the complainant, and other public witnesses are not reliable and there are material contradictions in their deposition, therefore, the accused persons may not be convicted for the offences they are charged with and they may be acquitted forthwith.
9. A perusal of the record shows that the accused persons have been charged under Section 307, 406, 498A r/w Section 34 IPC and SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 7 of 24 under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The offence under Section 307 IPC is defined as under :
Section 307 IPC: Attempt to murder--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Section 406 of IPC provides punishment for criminal breach of trust which is defined in Section 405 of IPC, the same is as under :
Section 405 IPC: Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
Section 406 IPC: Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
--Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 8 of 24 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 498A IPC is defined as under :
498A IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is defined as under :
Penalty for giving or taking dowry.--1[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 9 of 24 years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.] SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 10 of 24 Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.--If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]
10. A perusal of the aforesaid Sections shows that to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove that the accused persons had acted with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the act which they had committed, death was caused then they would have been guilty of murder.
For offence under Section 406 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove that the accused persons were entrusted with property of complainant or they had dominance over the same. They dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property or they dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the said trust was to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which was made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do.
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 11 of 24For offence under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution is the duty bound to prove that the accused persons being husband or relative of the husband, subjected the complainant to cruelty and that cruelty was of, (a) such a nature and it was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; (b) the conduct of the accused persons was as such that they harassed the complainant with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or was on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
For the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution is to prove that the accused persons gave or took or abetted the giving or taking of the dowry.
For the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution is to prove that the accused persons demanded dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of the complainant.
Therefore, now by scrutinizing the evidence on record, it has to be seen whether the aforesaid ingredients of the offences for which the accused persons have been charged have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt or not.
11. A perusal of record shows that the case of the prosecution is solely based on the deposition of PW1 Nausheen Naaz; the complainant, PW4 Minhaz Alam; the brother of the complainant and PW 3 Dr. Arun Kumar, Sr. Medical officer, Community Health Centere, Gulawathi, SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 12 of 24 Bulandshahar, U.P. PW1 Nausheen Naaz deposed in her examinationin chief that all the accused persons against whom she made complaint had harassed her for bringing less dowry. They also used to beat her. They also asked her to bring Maruti Car. The demand of Maruti Car was raised after 56 months of her marriage. They demanded Rs. one lac. She had given Rs.50,000/ to them on 07.10.2007. The accused persons against whom she had complaint, had beaten her and they had tried to press her throat with "chunni" and thereafter, had pushed her outside the car at the periphery of her village. Her cousin Shehbar and her real brother Minhaz Alam met her there and took her to her parental home. On 08.10.2007, she was examined in the hospital at Gulawathi, Bulandshaher, UP. The accused persons had attempted to kill her as she could not fulfill the demand of dowry. She reported the matter to SHO PW Gulawathi vide Ex.PW1/A. The police had recovered some of her dowry articles but she did not claim them as those articles were not her articles. She gave photographs of her marriage and marriage card, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. She exhibited marriage card as Ex.P1 and photographs as Ex.P2 to Ex.P12. The prescription slip of Swathya Kendra, Bulandshaher was SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 13 of 24 seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. She also exhibited seizure memo of some articles as Ex.PW1/D. During crossexamination, she deposed that her father was a farmer who died about 11 years ago. He was also a government servant. She is having three brothers and ten sisters. Her brother Minaz Alam is in government service on compensatory ground. She admitted that all the burden of family was on the shoulder of her brother Minaz Alam after death of her father. She admitted that she cannot name anyone who first made demand. She stated that she does not remember which one of the accused persons made the demand complained by her. She admitted that Maruti Car was not given by her parents. Her husband had demanded Maruti Car from her. She stated that she does not remember when and how that demand of the Maruti Car was made. She did not remember the month and year when the same was demanded. She admitted that her husband had a car but she does not know if it was a Ceilo. Her husband had demand Rs.1 lac to buy a house. The said demand was made before she left for her parental house about one year after her marriage. She had given the said money to her husband by way of cheque. She did not know if the said cheque was encashed. She did not know from whose account this SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 14 of 24 cheque was issued but the same was given by her brother. She admitted that she did not give any amount of Rs.50,000/ to her husband or her family members. She was beaten first by her husband but she did not remember as to how many days, months or year after her marriage, she was beaten. She admitted that nobody else had given beatings in her matrimonial house. She admitted that her parental house is 80 kilometers away from her matrimonial house. The periphery of the village is at a short distance away from her matrimonial house. Her husband had pushed her and her child out of the car on reaching periphery of the village. She received injuries but the child did not. She did not know if her husband had gone to work in the morning of 07.10.2007. Her husband used to go to work at about 9 to 10 am in the morning. She voluntarily stated that she was in the village on that day. She had reached at her village Akbar Pur on 07.10.2007 at 12 noon. She could not tell if it was bleeding on any part of her body, or there was any swelling or any scratch or any injury on her body. Her brother Minaz Alam and cousin Shehbar had accompanied her to the hospital. From her parental home in the village the hospital is at a distance of about 56 kilometers. She cannot tell which articles were seized by the police and the same did not belong to her.
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 15 of 24She admitted that she was present at the time when police took dowry articles in its custody. She could not tell whether her matrimonial home was damaged or was under repair on 07.10.2007. She stated that on that day she was at her parental home.
12. A scrutiny of the testimony of PW1 complainant Ms. Naushan Naz shows that the allegation made by her against accused persons are vague and general in nature. She has not mentioned the date and time when specific demand for dowry was made by any of the accused from her. She stated in her deposition that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was given to the accused Matloob Alam but she did not exhibit any document showing that the aforesaid amount was ever given to the said accused. The prosecution has not produced any other independent witness to prove that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was paid to the accused. She stated that the accused Matloom Alam had taken Rs. 1,00,000/ from her and a Maruti car was demanded by him but no documentary evidence has been led to prove the same. No independent witness has been examined either to prove the aforesaid fact. She has deposed that there are ten sisters and three brothers in total and four elder sisters and one elder brother are already married. Her father had expired a long time back. Her brother Minaz Alam got service on compensatory ground and he only was shouldering the burden of her parental family. Therefore, it cannot be believed that her brother might have spent an amount of Rs. 4 lacs in her marriage in the year 2005. In the crossexamination, she stated that she cannot name anyone, who had made the demands of SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 16 of 24 dowry first time or harassed her for the same first time. She stated in her crossexamination that her husband i.e Matloob Alam complained about her looks and about her cooking and used to call her mad which reflects that real dispute between her and the accused Matloob Alam may be something else and not the dowry. She admitted that Maruti Car was not given by her parents. She stated that she cannot tell that when and how her husband demanded Maruti car. She cannot tell the month or year when the said car was demanded. She admitted that her husband accused Matloob Alam is having a car but she did not know whether that car was a Ceilo car or not. She deposed that Rs. 1 lac was demanded by her husband from her to buy a house about one year after her marriage. This reflects that the demand was not made by the accused Matloob Alam with regard to the dowry and for continuation or subsistence of marriage but the same, if any, was for buying a house. She deposed that the said amount was given by cheque but she failed to give the details of the cheque and she also failed to tell that from whose account the said cheque was given to her husband accused Matloob Alam. She admitted in her crossexamination that she did not give any amount of Rs.50,000/ to her husband Matloob Alam or his family members. She deposed that she was beaten by her husband only but she did not remember when she was beaten. She cannot tell how many dates, months or years ago, she was beaten. She admitted that nobody else gave beatings to her in her matrimonial house. She deposed in the crossexamination that she was having a minor child with her when the accused persons took her and left her on the periphery of her village. She deposed that her husband Matloob Alam had pushed her and her child out of the car. She had SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 17 of 24 received injury on being pushed but the child did not receive any injury. This fact deposed by complainant cannot be believed as it is not possible that child will not receive any injury when the complainant with child is pushed from a running car. She deposed that all the accused persons had given beatings to her, tried to press her throat, took her to outside her village in a big car, have pressed her throat with a chunni and thereafter pushed her outside car at the border of the village. She has not deposed what articles she had entrusted and entrustment was made to which of the accused and when the demand to take back the dowry articles were made.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the aforementioned ingredients of offence under Section 307/406/498A/34 IPC & 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are not proved against both the accused persons from the deposition of PW 1, the complainant.
13. PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar (Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Gulawathi, Bulandshaher, UP) has deposed that on 08.10.2007 complainant Mst. Nausheen Naaz was medically examined by him at about 1:25 pm and noted the following injuries on the person of the complainant:
(i) Traumatic swelling over the top of skull measuring about 4.0x3.0 cm in size and 11 cm upward to right ear;
(ii) One contusion over the front and lateral both side of neck measuring about 16.0 x 1.6 cm in size and 8.0 cm upward to right collar SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 18 of 24 bone colour is red
(iii) One contusion over the left shoulder joint measuring about 8.0 x 2.0 cm in size and 10 cm inward to top of right shoulder, colour is red.
(iv) One contusion over right arm measuring 7.0 x 2.5 cm in size, 6.0 am upward to right elbow joint, colour is red
(v) One contusion over right side forearm, 9.0 x 2.0 cm in size, 10 cm below to right elbow joint, colour is red.
(vi) One contusion over the left arm, 7.0 x 2.0 cm in size and 9.0 cm upward to left elbow joint; colour is red.
(vii) One contusion over left forearm, 6.0 x 1.5 cm in size and 9.0 cm below to left writs, colour is red
(viii) One contusion over left forearm, 10.0 x 2.5 cm in size, 6.0 cm upward to left wrist joint
(ix) complaining of pain over the right side of chest but no mark of injury seen.
(x) One contusion over the right calf muscle, colour is red.
Opinion:
Above noted all injuries appeared to be caused by some hard and blunt object, simple in nature and about one day old in duration.SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 19 of 24
PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar exhibited MLC of the complainant as Ex.PW3/A. In crossexamination, PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar deposed that patient did not come back to him for followup or checkup at the Health Centre. He had given some medicine for pain. The patient had told him that she received injuries due to some "maarpeet". It is observed that PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar has not opined that any of the injuries dealt in Ex. PW3/A was due to strangulation and was possible due to beatings or due to falling on the road. Therefore, deposition of PW1 is not corroborated by PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar. It is significant that if PW1 would have received any serious injuries, she would have been taken on the same day to the hospital for her treatment and not waited for the next date.
14. PW4 Minhaz Alam who is the real brother of the complainant Nausheen Naaz deposed that:
Nausheen Naaz was married to accused Matloob Alam on 01.05.2005. On her marriage Rs.4 lacs were spent. After one year of the marriage accused Matloob Alam and his family members namely Irshat Alam (jeth), Nanni (Nanad), Babli (wife of Irshad Alam) and Mohsina (jethani) started harassing his sister and made demands of dowry. They used to taunt her sister for not bringing sufficient dowry. They used to beat her and demanded more dowry. He had given Rs.1 lac to SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 20 of 24 accused Matloob Alam for purchasing a house. He had given that money as accused persons had sent his sister to his house for fetching money. The payment was made through her sister. Thereafter, accused persons started keeping his sister well but after sometime they started harassing, taunting and beating her and demanded a Maruti Car. His sister had refused to bring money from him to pay to the accused persons so accused persons again gave beatings to her and on 07.10.2007 they took and left her at the periphery of the village. She was having enough injuries. He had brought her home. On the next day i.e. 08.10.2007, the complainant was got medically examined and thereafter, reported the matter to the police at PS Gulawathi, District UP. His sister told him about the incident. The accused persons had produced the dowry articles in PS Chandni Mahal but the same was not taken by his sister as the same were not belonging to her. The recovery memo is Ex.PW1/D. In his crossexamination PW4 Minhaz Alam admitted that he cannot tell as to what was his salary in the year 2005 or in 2007 but presently he was earning about Rs.13,000/ to Rs.14,000/ per month. His father had expired on 24.10.1999. He got his sister married from the funds and gratuity of his deceased father but he failed to tell the amount of those funds and gratuity.SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 21 of 24
He failed to remember as to when "talakh" was given by accused Matloob Alam to his sister Nausheen Naaz. He was having agriculture income and also spent the same on the marriage but he did not tell the amount of the said agriculture income. He admitted that none of the accused persons harassed, taunted or gave beatings to his sister or demanded dowry in his presence. He admitted that he was not present when Rs.1 lac was given to accused Matloob Alam by his sister. He could not tell the date, month or the year when he gave Rs.1 lac to his sister. He had admitted that he had not withdrawn the aforesaid amount from the bank, it was cash lying with him from agriculture income. He failed to tell when accused Matloob Alam had purchased the property. He stated that 20 bighas of agriculture land in the name of his mother and they are ten sisters and three brothers. He could not tell the quantum of produce of rice and wheat in quintals in the year 2005 and 2006. He stated that agriculture produce was sold to the broker and the consumers directly. He admitted that the broker maintains the record of the produce, rate and amount of the wheat and rice purchased by him. He did not admit or deny if accused Matloob Alam has a Ceilo car but admitted that the accused was having a big car. He admitted that accused Matloob Alam used to reside with his sister in Okhala and other family SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 22 of 24 members are residing in Darya Ganj. After seeing his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC he admitted that the details of injuries are not mentioned in his said statement. He admitted that it is not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that son of complainant was also with her on 07.10.2007.
15. The deposition of PW4 Minhaz Alam, the brother of the complainant is in the nature of hearsay evidence as nothing had happened in his presence. No demand was made by the accused persons directly from him. He failed to show from the record or from any concrete evidence that he spent an amount of Rs. 4 lacs in the marriage of PW1 Nausheen Naaz or given an amount of Rs. 50,000/ or Rs. 1 lacs to the accused Matloob Alam.
16. The above discussion clearly shows that PW1, the complainant and PW4 Minhaz Alam, the real brother of the complainant have failed to prove the ingredients of the offences under Section 307/406/498A IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Their deposition is also not corroborated by the deposition of PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar, who had examined the complainant on 08.10.2007. The complainant and her real brother Minhaz Alam have also not given any plausible explanation why the complainant was not taken to the hospital on 07.10.2007 itself.
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 23 of 2417. There seems to be no need to analyze and discuss the deposition of remaining prosecution witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution as they are the witness of investigation only, nothing concrete happened in their presence to prove the aforementioned ingredients of the offences. The analysis of evidence of the remaining witnesses is dispensed with accordingly.
18. It is apparent that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, both the accused persons are acquitted forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN CHANDRA SHEKHAR
th
COURT ON 04 of FEBRUARY 2017 ASJ02 (Central)/THC/Delhi
SC No. 28397/2016, FIR No. 385/2007, State Vs. Matloob Alam & Anr. Page 24 of 24