Delhi District Court
State vs . Rama Aggarwal & Others on 4 August, 2014
In The Court of Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM, Mahila Court, NW,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Rama Aggarwal & Others
FIR No.527/02
U/s 498A/ 406/ 34 IPC
PS: Saraswati Vihar
JUDGMENT
S.No. of the Case : 83A/2 15/1/07
Date of Commission of offence : Since 9.7.2000 to 5.2.2001
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Shweta Aggarwal
Name of the accused persons : 1.Smt. Rama Aggarwal
W/o Sh.Ram Rattan Aggarwal
R/o 100, Nimri Colony, Delhi.
2.Raman Aggarwal
S/o Sh.Ram Rattan Aggarwal
R/o 100, Nimri Colony, Delhi.
Offence Complained of : 498A/406/34 IPC
Plea of accused persons : Plead not guilty
Date of order : 04.08.2014
Final order : Acquitted
Brief Reasons For Such Decision:
1. The case of the prosecution is based upon the complaint made by the Complainant stating that during the subsistence of marriage of complainant Smt. Shweta with accused Raman Aggarwal which was solemnized on 09.07.2000 both the accused persons i.e. Raman Aggarwal and Rama Aggarwal in furtherance of their common intention being the FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 1 of 19 husband and motherinlaw of complainant subjected her to cruelty on account of their unlawful demands for property or valuable security. Further, both the accused persons being entrusted with the dowry articles gifted at the time of marriage, as per list, at the time of marriage, having dominion over the aforesaid dowry articles of the complainant in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to their own use and accordingly after completing the investigation chargesheet was filed under sections U/s 498A/406/34 IPC on 26.08.2004 before the Court.
2. After supplying documents to the accused persons, charge for the commission of offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was framed on 06.12.2008 against the accused persons namely Rama Aggarwal and Raman Aggarwal to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case the prosecution has cited as many as six witnesses i.e.(1) HC Jagpal Singh, (2) Smt. Shweta, (3) HC / Driver Randhir Singh, (4) Neeraj Aggarwal, (5) Retired ACP Smt. Kusum Lata and (6) SI Manoj Kumar.
PW1 H.Ct. Jagpal Singh deposed that on 11.07.2002, he was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar as Duty Officer. On that day, the SHO PS Saraswati Vihar had given the complaint for registration of the case. On the basis of the complaint, he got the FIR registered which is FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 2 of 19 Ex.PW1/A and bears his signature at point A. PW2 Shweta (complainant) deposed that her marriage was solemnized on 09.07.2000 at Gola Banquet Hall with accused Raman Aggarwal according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Having seen the dowry articles her inlaws started taunting that they were receiving offer of about 30 to 40 lacs in marriage. Besides this they were also receiving offer of car and other valuable articles . They used filthy language against her nanaji and nani ji and further said that they were cheated by them.
She further deposed that thereafter, her mother in law started taunting her that her nanaji and nani ji had defrauded them. They had not paid the amount as per their expectations and that the accused persons were getting better proposals for marriage. When she requested her to desist from using such language against her nanaji and naniji , her mother in law gave a slap to her and said that she should not open her mouth in front of her. When she brought the above to the notice of her husband accused Raman Aggarwal instead of asking his mother to desist from repeating such acts in future he sided up with his mother and told her that she was correct. The demands of dowry were continuously raised by both the accused persons and when she tried to raise any objection the accused persons used to threaten and physically abuse her. Accused Raman Aggarwal used to hold her arms tightly in order to stop her from raising the objections. Her marriage with accused Raman Aggarwal was not consummated due to his impotency. Despite best efforts, the marriage FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 3 of 19 between them could not be consummated as a result of which the accused Raman Aggarwal used to become frustrated. In his frustration, he used to physically abuse her with fists and kicks without caring that it might hurt her. She also requested him to consult to a physician for his impotency but he used to become furious on her request and abuse her and leave the room. When she got the factum of impotency of my husband to the notice of her mother in law instead of understanding her problem she shouted at her and called her " Raand ,Vaishya, Tujhe to kothe pe baithna chahiye". After this incident, she became more violent and the demands of dowry became more frequent. Her entire dowry articles/istridhan including the articles gifted to her at the time of marriage by her relatives and from the side of accused persons as well as the cash amount given to her at the time of her marriage, was taken away by accused persons and they assured her that all the said articles shall be returned to her as and when she will ask for them. Till date the said articles have not been returned by the accused persons despite repeated requests made by her. The accused persons always abused her physically and mentally. When the physical abuse and torture continued against her and it became unbearable for her to stay in the matrimonial home with the accused persons, she gave a telephonic call to her nanaji on 05.02.2001. Her head was also hit against a wall by the accused persons. When her nanaji came to the matrimonial home, he found that it was not safe for her FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 4 of 19 to reside there any longer and therefore, he took her with him in wearing apparels. At that time she was wearing a gold chain, one ring and one pair of ear rings. Apart from these articles, nothing was brought by her. In between reconciliation efforts were made by family members. However, all the efforts made by them went in vain and the demands for dowry continued from the side of accused persons. The accused persons threatened her nanaji to implicate him and her in criminal case. Thereafter, accused Raman Aggarwal sent a legal notice on 25.06.2001 to her Nanaji and herself alleging that she had taken away all the dowry articles /istridhan with her. Thereafter, on 06.08.2001, she lodged a complaint against the accused persons with CAW Cell, Nanak Pura,Delhi which is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. During the proceedings before the women cell, some of the dowry articles/istridhan were returned by the accused persons but they were very less in comparison to the list given by her along with complaint which isEx.PW1/A. The list is running into seven pages is Ex.PW1/B and bears her signatures at point A on each and every page.
In her crossexamination, complainant / PW2 deposed that no receipts, vouchers, purchase bills etc, in respect of purchase of dowry articles was handed over by him to the IO. It is correct that he had no such bills, receipts, vouchers in respect of purchase of dowry FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 5 of 19 articles and neither those bills were available with her parental family. She further deposed that she had accepted and taken back some of her dowry articles from her in laws during the pendency of my complaint in CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi, through a list and the said list is singed by her at point A and the said list is Ex.PW2/D4. She further deposed that she do not remember whether she had attended the marriage of her friend Neelam on 04.02.2001 at Karol Bagh. She denied the suggestion that before a week of 04.02.2001 she had collected all the jewellery and costly clothes from her mother in law on the pretext of attending marriage of her said friend. She further deposed that it is correct that she had neither handed over any documentary record to the IO and nor she had filed any such documentary evidence to prove that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/ was spent by her nanaji and naniji on her marriage. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion A to A1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion B to B1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion C to C1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she told to the IO the portion D to D1 mentioned in FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 6 of 19 her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further told to the IO the portion E to E1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion F to F1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion G to G1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion H to H1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that she had told to the IO the portion I to I1 mentioned in her examination in chief. The witness was confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. She further deposed that it is correct that she had already received the items gifted to the accused persons as per Ex.PW1/D6 which items are also mentioned in Ex.PW2/D4. She further deposed that it is correct that in para 2 sub para A of her said complaint at portions Y to Y1, she had stated that her parents invested about Rs.9,00,000/ in her marriage. She voluntarily submitted that by parents she meant her maternal grand parents as she was born and FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 7 of 19 brought up there only. She further deposed that it is correct that in her divorce petition and evidence by way of affidavit filed in the same case which runs into 46 and 35 pages respectively she had not mentioned at any place that the accused persons ever demanded dowry from her Nana Nani or that they used to use abusive language against my Nana Nani. She further deposed that she left her matrimonial house on 05.02.2001. She filed a complaint at CAW Cell on 06.08.2001. It is correct that she filed her divorce petition Ex.PW2/D7 only after receipt of legal notice from accused Raman Aggarwal wherein he had called upon me to join matrimony.
PW3 HC/Driver Randhir Singh deposed that on 16.12.2002, he was posted in CAW Cell, SW Distt., Nanak Pura, Delhi as Constable/ driver. On that day he joined the investigation in this case along with IO/SI Manoj and he went with him to Bahadurgarh Road and at Nimri Colony to effect the recovery was effected on that day from both the above said addresses. He do not remember the presence of any other person who accompanied them at the above said addresses. His statement was not recorded by the IO. Again said he do not remember whether the IO had recorded his statement or not. In his crossexamination he deposed that it is correct that IO had recorded his statement. It is correct that the complainant and her Nana Sh. MM Aggarwal also accompanied them to effect the recovery of case property. He further deposed that he remained in vehicle and IO had entered into the said premises. At both the addresses FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 8 of 19 he did not enter the house.
PW4 Neeraj Aggarwal deposed that the complainant Shweta is his niece in relation. The marriage of Shweta was solemnized with Raman Aggarwal on 09.07.2000 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Gola Banquet Hall. Raman and his mother were not happy to this marriage from the very beginning due to dowry. They used to beat the complainant Shweta and their behavior towards her was inhuman. He further deposed that they tried their best to save the matrimonial life of his niece but Raman and his mother did not stopped their earlier behavior. The facts of the harassment and beating by the accused husband and the demands of dowry by them was told by his niece on telephone and whenever his niece Shewta used to meet them. He did not file Income Tax Petition. He further deposed that he had spent money on the marriage of his niece Shewta but today she did not remember the amount. He cannot say whether the ornaments were purchased or not at the time of marriage as the shopping was done by his parents.
PW5 Retired ACP Smt. Kusum Lata deposed that on 15.07.2002, she was posted at CAW Cell Nanakpura as inspector on that day investigation of the present case was marked to her. She recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C of the complainant her Maternal Grandfather, i.e, Nana, Maternal Grandmother i.e, Nani and Maternal Uncle i.e, Mama. FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 9 of 19 She gave notices to the persons named in the FIR and she also visited personally at their addresses but they were not available. Then she obtained NBW against the accused persons and on 09.12.2002 investigation of the present case was transfered to SI Manoj. During her crossexamination, witness was asked to see the police file and judicial file and show the Statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of Nana of the complainant to which she deposed that it is correct that the statement is not on judicial file or police file. She further deposed that it is correct that the statement of Nana of the complainant was not recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. She further deposed that she had interrogated him but may be the statement was not recorded. She did not record the statement of mother and father of the complainant. She made efforts but the complainant informed her that they cannot come. She further deposed that she did not feel it necessary to record statement of the parents of the complainant. PW6 SI Manoj Kumar deposed that on 09.12.2002, he was posted at CAW Cell, Nanak Pura. On that day, he received the case file for further investigation. He perused the file. On 13.12.2002, he arrested Raman Aggarwal who is present int the court today vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that mother of the accused was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A. He collected the marriage card vide memo Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point A. Photographs of marriage are mark as FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 10 of 19 PW6/A and PW6/B. Marriage card is Ex.PW6/D. He recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. He prepared the charge sheet and filed in the Court through SHO.
In his crossexamination, he deposed that he did not record statement of father of the complainant regarding the source of Rs. 9,00,000/ spent at the time of marriage of the complainant. He asked complainant about the same and she did not give any details of the same and he did not consider it necessary to record the statement of the parents of the complainant. Investigation in this regard was already done by the first IO. No one from the neighborhood came forward for recording of his/her statement. He further deposed that it is correct that he had not served any notice U/s 160 to the aforesaid persons. Complainant did not submit any MLC regarding the physical torture. Complainant did not hand over previous complaints/vouchers/bills regarding the purchase of istridhan or dowry articles to him. He further deposed that there is no independent witness in the present case. It is correct that there is no previous complaints at local police station or any local authority ,PCR call, MLC, purchase bills, vouchers,receipts etc, were provided by the complainant or her relatives during the investigation.
Afterwards PE was closed.
4. Both accused persons were examined U/s. 313 Cr. PC wherein all the incriminating evidence on record alongwith documents were FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 11 of 19 put to them whereby accused Rama Aggarwal chose not to lead evidence in her defence but accused Raman Aggarwal chose to lead evidence in his defence.
Accused Raman Aggarwal has examined himself as DW1 after allowing of application moved u/s 313 Cr.PC.
DW-1 Raman Aggarwal deposed that his marriage with the complainant was solemnized as her maternal grand parents and her mother belongs to the same native place of Narnaul Haryana. The complainant stayed in her matrimonial home for about three months and she used to allege that her marriage was solemnized against her wish and she was interested in the marriage with some other boy. She was cruel and even used to man handled his mother and on 29.08.2000 she turned and twisted finger of his mother. When the pain did not subside he took her mother for X Ray at Khan Baba Safa Khan. And came to know about the ligaments were ruptured. Today, he had brought X Ray plate and receipt of Khan Baba Shafa Khan. The same are Ex.DW1/A colly. In lieu of dowry, istridhan etc., Nana of the complainant gave an amount of Rs. 50,000/ through cheque and Rs.15,000/ collected by the complainant by Muh dikhai, Sagun etc., these amount of Rs.50,000/ and Rs.15,000/ were deposited in the bank account of complainant bearing No.54902 Canara Bank, Branch Kamla Nagar which is Ex.PW2/D2 and D3. He further deposed that the complainant started threatening him to implicate him and his family member in false dowry cases. DW1 further deposed that he FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 12 of 19 gave a written complaint in this regard also at PS Darya Ganj (Kotwali) which is Ex.DW1/C and another complaint at PS Karol Bagh which is Ex.DW1/D. DW1 served a legal notice of Restitution of the Conjugal Rights Ex.PW2/D1 but the complainant filed a divorce petition of frivolous grounds as a counter blast. DW1 further deposed that during the investigation, he gave numerous applications at Delhi Commission for Women and CAW Cell to request the complainant to take back her remaining dowry articles on many occasion. He also made even numerous oral request to her to lift the dowry articles to which she along with her relatives started demanding cash instead of the articles. The said applications are Ex.DW1/G, Ex.DW1/H, Ex.DW1/I and Ex.DW1/K. In fact the dispute was not of cruelty, dowry articles etc., the motive of the complainant was to extort money and marry her boy friend. The complainant married her boy friend on 31.1.2005 during the pendency of the matrimonial appeal in the High Court of Delhi.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The record has also been perused carefully.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that the testimony of the complainant is not trustworthy as there are discrepancies in the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC , the complaint and the testimony given before the Court. It has further been submitted that it is a clear case of after thought in order to harass the accused persons. FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 13 of 19 Reliance has also been placed on Ex.DW1/I wherein a request has been made to ask the complainant Shweta Gupta to lift the remaining articles. It has further been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that despite their repeated requests to lift the dowry articles time and again, complainant demanded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ lacs as total compensation and threaten the accused persons to implicate in false dowry cases. Ld. Defence counsel also relied upon Ex.DW1/C, Ex.DW1/D, Ex.DW1/H and Ex.DW1/G.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for commission of offence U/s. 498A IPC, the prosecution was required to prove: a. That the complainant was subjected to cruelty or harassment; b. That the cruelty or harassment was caused by her husband or his relatives;
c. That cruelty was (a) with a view to drive her to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, either mental or physical;
d. That harassment of the complainant was (a) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (b) On account of failure of the complainant or her relation to meet such unlawful demand.
7. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention here the observation made in "Appashaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Mahrashtra 2007 (1) JCC 147 wherein it was observed as under: "that demand for money on account of some financial FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 14 of 19 stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry."
8. To constitute offence U/s. 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it or domain over it, by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to its own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. (Reliance placed upon 2001 V AD (Delhi) 411 Annu Gill Vs. State and another).
9. It would be relevant to mention here, Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was observed as under: "In a criminal trial,it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks 'credibility', benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to accused".
Perusal of the evidences shows that testimony of the complainant i.e. PW2 Shweta is improved one mentioning certain facts FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 15 of 19 which have not been stated earlier either in the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC or in the complaint addressed to CAW Cell and it appears to be a clear case of afterthought. PW4 is a hearsay witness. PW1,3,5 and 6 are the formal witnesses qua investigation.
10. Under the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Rama Aggarwal and Raman Aggarwal are acquitted in case bearing FIR No.527/02, PS Saraswati Vihar u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Pursuant to provision of section 437 (a) Cr.PC, bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each be furnished by both the accused persons which shall be applicable for a period of next six months from today. Announced and dictated in the open Court today i.e. on 04.08.2014 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM, Mahila Court, NorthWest Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 16 of 19 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others FIR No.527/02 PS : Saraswati Vihar U/s : 498A/406/34 IPC 04.08.2014 Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Both accused persons namely Rama Aggarwal and Raman Aggarwal in person.
Fatherinlaw of the complainant (as complainant has remarried) in person alongwith complainant's mama.
Vide my separate Judgment announced and dictated in the open court today, both the accused persons namely Rama Aggarwal and Raman Aggarwal are acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Their bail bonds stands cancelled. Their respective sureties stands discharged. Original documents of the sureties, if any, be released to them under receipt after cancellation of endorsement as per rules.
Pursuant to provisions of Section 437 (a) Cr.PC all the accused persons are directed to furnish Bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ each.
Bail bonds furnished. Same are considered and accepted and the same shall be applicable for a period of six months from today.
At this stage, fatherinlaw of the complainant has requested to release the FDR of Rs.1,50,000/ in name of the complainant which is retained on record as per the order at the time of granting bail to the accused.
FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 17 of 19 Per contra, accused has submitted that he has given cash amounting to Rs.1,50,000/ to the complainant at the time of granting bail and has also deposited FDR worth Rs.1,50,000/ in name of the complainant which is retained on record and he has requested to release the said FDR of the aforesaid amount to him and also to direct the complainant to return the cash given to her of Rs.1,50,000/ as he has already been acquitted u/s 498/406/34 IPC and the said amount was given towards istridhan articles vide order dated 04.01.2003.
Heard. Record perused.
Vide order dated 04.01.2003, the accused Raman Aggarwal being the husband of the complainant was admitted to bail after he has given cash to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/ to the complainant in the court. It was also stated by the accused in the said order that he shall further deposit FDR of Rs.1,50,000/ which remains deposited in the court during the trial of the case and trial Court shall pass appropriate order after the outcome of the case in accordance with law.
The complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.
1,50,000/ without prejudice to her rights and contentions as contented by her in the complaint on the basis of which FIR of the present case is registered. But nowhere in the said order it has been mentioned that this amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/ has been given to the complainant towards the istridhan articles. Therefore , it is construed that the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/ was given to the complainant in cash towards her maintenance and sustenance and the same cannot be returned to the accused.
FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 18 of 19 The FDR of Rs.1,50,000/ has been retained on record which shall be dispensed after the outcome of the case in accordance with law and as accused has already been acquitted u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, the FDR of the aforesaid amount be released to the accused persons against due acknowledgment on showing proof of identity.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM: MC: NW: Rohini 04.08.2014 FIR No.527/02 State V. Rama Aggarwal & Others 19 of 19