Delhi District Court
Fir No:930/93 Id No.02404R0026611994 ... vs . Ramdhari on 8 November, 2011
FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T.LAKHANPAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No.930/93
PS Mangol Puri
U/s. 498A/406 IPC
ID No.02404R0026611994
28.11.2011
STATE VS. RAMDHARI
Date of institution : 28.04.1994
Date of Commission of Offence : 30.11.1993
Name of the Complainant : Kiran Bala
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : 1. Ramdhari, s/o Chajju Ram
2. Ramphal s/o Chajju Ram(expired)
3. Sunehri w/o Chajju Ram(expired)
4. Smt. Angoori w/o Ramdhari
All R/o Noorwala, Hari Singh Chaula
Colony, Panipat, Haryana.
5. Smt. Kesar w/o Roshan
6. Sh. Roshan w/o Singh RAm
Both r/o Bustada, Village Gharoda,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana.
Offence complaint of : U/s 498A/406 IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date for reserve of Order : 03.10.2011
Date of announcing of order : 28.11.2011
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 1 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Mangol Puri against abovesaid accused persons ie., brother in law Ramdhari, husband Ramphal, mother in law Sunehri, sister in law Angoori, sister in law Kesar, and brother in law Roshan for the offences u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC. The case was registered after the complaint was made to DCP, CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar, Delhi by the complainant Smt. Kiran Bala. After conducting proceedings, the CAW Cell referred the complaint to the SHO, Mangol Puri, Delhi for registration of the case whereupon the IO had made an endorsement and the Duty Officer had subsequently recorded the FIR. Gist of the complaint is as under:
2. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused on 21.02.1988 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. After marriage, accused persons started harassing her physically and mentally in context with demand of dowry. They used to beat her for bringing insufficient dowry. She was not given even a single penny for her expenses. Her jeth Ramdhari and jethani Angoori used to ask her husband to leave her so that they may arrange second marriage. Once, her husband brought Rs.6,000/ from her father which he took from the committee. Her sister in law Kesar and her husband also used to taunt her along with the other family members. She stated that when her girl child born her husband demanded Rs.15,000/ for work and for Jhuggi which she brought from her father and her father had to take loan but her husband wanted to go to Panipat with this money. Therefore, dispute arose. Complaint had to be made to PS Shalimar Bagh on 15.06.1992. In between, the case proceedings happened in Panipat Court and on 17.04.1993 after compromise she was taken back. It is further case of the complainant that about two years back prior to FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 2 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari filing of the complaint( that means November, 1991) all the in laws started beating and left her at home. When she demanded back her stridhan articles accused persons refused to return the same.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was made. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC was framed on 15.09.1995 against the accused Ramdhari, Angoori, Kesar and Roshan to which they opted to face trial. As accused Ramphal and Sunehri were expired proceedings against him were stood abated.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses.
1. PW1 is the father of the complainant.
2. PW2 HC Krishan Kumar who along with SI Din Dayal recovered the dowry articles.
3. PW3 is the complainant herself.
4. PW4 Lady Ct. Usha who along with HC Krishan Kumar and SI Din Dayal recovered the dowry articles.
5. PW5 Hari Ram who is the neighbour of the complainant.
6. PW6 Giani Ram Jaglan who is the Pradhan of Ror Biradari.
5. Statement of the accused persons namely Ram Dhari, Angoori, Kesar and Roshan Kumar have been recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the allegations made against them and had stated that after marriage complainant resided separately with the accused/husband Ram Phal in Delhi. They had not any visiting terms with the complainant and they do not know why she has implicated them in this case.
6. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of accused FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 3 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari persons as well as on behalf of the State and record has been meticulously perused.
7. The charges against the accused persons are two fold. First U/s. 498A IPC and second U/s. 406 IPC. Before proceeding further to prove and analyze various testimonies, I shall deem it appropriate to enumerate the essentials of offence which the prosecution is under a mandate to prove. I shall deal with them one by one.
8. The first charge against the accused persons is for having committed offence u/s.498 IPC.
For better appreciation of facts Section 498A IPC is reproduced as under: "Section 498A IPC provides as under;
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or physical) of the woman:
or FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 4 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet her such demand. "
The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such fermentation is done with a view to coerce any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to "harassment" as contemplated by S. 498A. Word 'Coercion' means persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute offence following ingredients/tests are essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.
FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 5 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari
(ii) Such act should be with a view to pursuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security;
9. In the instant case, there are major contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW3 who is the complainant deposed before the court that after marriage she went to Panipat. Her all the in laws used to harass her and beat her for insufficient dowry. There are general allegations against all the relatives..
10. In the instant case accused/husband Ramphal and accused Sunehri ie., mother in law have expired. Now, the case remains against accused Jeth, Jethani, Nand and Nandoi. She has stated in her complaint before the police that for one year she was kept properly and when they started harassing her, husband of the complainant and complainant came to Haider Pur. She has not mentioned any date when they started harassing her. As per her own version, her kids born in Haiderpur in Delhi. Further she stated that when her girl child born her husband demanded Rs.15,000/ for work and for Jhuggi which she brought from her father and her father had to take loan but her husband wanted to go to Panipat with this money. Therefore, dispute arose. Complaint had to be made to PS Shalimar Bagh on 15.06.1992. In between, the case proceedings happened in Panipat Court and on 17.04.1993 after compromise she was taken back.
12. In her statement before the police she stated that about two FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 6 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari years back prior to filing of the complaint( that means November, 1991) all the in laws started beating and left her at home. She brought Rs. 5,000/. Here, version of the complainant is itself contradictory. She has stated in her original complaint that she was living separately from 15.06.1992 from her husband. Prior to that she was living with her husband only, in Delhi since after one year of marriage. Had it been so, how can the incident of beating happen in the year 1991 by all the in laws, when she was living with her husband in Delhi?
13. Further more, she has stated in her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. before the police that about one year prior to filing this complaint (November, 1992) again all the in laws started harassing her and demanding Rs.10,000/ and her father gave Rs.6,000/ after taking a committee. This version also appears to as contradictory as in her oral complaint she has stated that from 15.06.1992 to 17.04.1993 she was living at her parents house. If that is so, how can the incident of beating by the in laws happen in November, 1992 when as per her own admission she was at her parents home.
14. Admittedly, all the accused were in Panipat and as per the version of the complainant, she herself deposed that she remained all the time in Delhi. it is her own version when they started harassing she came to Delhi. She has deposed before the court, that accused persons used to give beatings to her for insufficient dowry. She was not given even single penny for expenses. Her jeth and jethani used to ask her husband to leave her so that they may arrange second marriage. There is no other allegation against accused Ramdhari and Angoori.
15. Further, it has been deposed against the accused sister in law and husband that they used to taunt along with other family FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 7 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari members. There is no specific allegation against any of the accused here in. Mere taunting does not tantamount to cruelty as contemplated u/s. 498A. She has deposed before the court that her husband took Rs. 6,000/ from her father which he took from the committee. PW1 who is the father of the complainant deposed before the court that accused/husband took the committee and he did not pay the installment and he (complainant's father) had to make the payment for installment of the committee.
16. Nothing has been proved against the accused persons who are other relatives. Accused /husband has stated to be expired. If at all any money was taken, that was taken by the accused/husband. Further more, it seems on the basis of testimony of PW3 and PW1, that it was a help sought by the accused/husband. Mere help sought by husband does not amount to cruelty. PW1 father of the complainant himself admitted in the cross examination that her daughter used to take money on various occasions but she never took more than Rs.100/ from him. He admitted that he gave Rs.6,000/ for purchasing Kolhu for his son in law. However, such demand does not amount to dowry demand. It is his own version of the complainant's father that accused Ramphal took a committee in which he did not make payment towards installments. From this testimony it is apparent that it was not a dowry demand. It was rather accused/husband, himself took a committee for himself and for his family which, somehow he could not make payment. In that scenario this demand can not be presumed to be a dowry demand. Even otherwise, there is no case of cruelty is being proved against the accused Ramdhari Jeth, jethani Angoori, accused Kesar and Roshan nand because as per the testimony of PW1 and PW3, admittedly, as all the times complainant FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 8 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari was living separately in Delhi. Complainant has deposed before the court that after about one year of marriage she came to Delhi and complainant's father deposed before the court that he lodged the complaint on 15.06.1992 before the PS Shalimar Bagh and he admitted that prior to this the complainant was kept separately. Before the incident no demand was made. It signifies that prior to 15.06.1992 there was no cruelty. It further signifies that all the accused persons did not commit any cruelty because they were in Panipat and complainant and accused /husband started living separately after one year of marriage ie., in the year 1989. PW1 has deposed that his son in law has lodged 34 cases against daughter. Thereafter, he filed the present case which again weaken the case of prosecution.
18. PW5 has deposed that there was dispute between the parties. However he admitted that he can not say exactly what was the dispute between the parties whether it was 'Len den or not'.
19. PW6, who is Pradhan of the village was turned hostile. There is no other proof to prove the guilt. There are general allegations against the accused Ramdhari and Angoori, which even do not amount to cruelty. It has been alleged that sister in laws used to taunt. It is true tht mere taunting does not amount to cruelty. Thererfore, in view of teh above detailed discussion, prosecution has failed to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Hence, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. There are major discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses, which casts doubt upon the story of the prosecution case. Therefore, the guilt of the accused persons u/s.498A has not been established.
FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 9 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari
21. For punishment for criminal breach of trust (herein referred to as CBT) U/s.406 IPC, offence of CBT as defined under sec.405 IPC is to be proved. Section 405 IPC is reproduced as under: Section 405 Criminal breach of trust Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffer any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
22. Considering the definition as mentioned above, the basic requirements to bring home the accusation u/s. 405 IPC is to prove co jointly (1) entrustment with property or with any dominion over property. (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention in misappropriating it or converting it to his own use to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.
23. it is required to prove the offence u/s. 406 IPC, that prior entrustment was done. In the instant case, entrustment has not been proved. The disputes between the parties were regarding the misappropriation of jewellery articles. Prosecution has not been able to prove that which were the jewellery articles, entrusted to any of the accused persons. Prosecution was required to prove that what was entrusted and to whom it was entrusted, especially because of this reason, in the instant case the accused persons are jeth, jethani, two FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 10 of 11 FIR No:930/93 ID No.02404R0026611994 State vs. Ramdhari sister in laws whose entrustment can not be presumed. Prosecution was under mandate to prove the specific entrustment and specific demand. No such specific entrustment or demand has come on record.
24. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion offence u/s. 406 IPC is not proved against the accused persons as prosecution has even failed to prove entrustment of any specific article, leave aside the time, date and manner of entrustment.
25. In view of the discussion above, the prosecution has failed to the prove that the accused persons had committed the alleged offence. Accordingly, the accused persons Ramdhari, Angoori, Kesar, and Roshan stand acquitted of the offences U/s 498A/406/34 IPC. However, their surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court today on 28.11.2011. (RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHIL A COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No.930/93 State vs. Ramdhari 11 of 11