Delhi District Court
St. vs . Sh. Rajesh Bhola & Ors. on 7 February, 2011
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER,
MM (MAHILA COURTS, KKD COURT: DELHI
FIR NO. 211/97
UNIQUE I.D. NO. 02402R0000131998
P.S. SEEMAPURI
U/SEC. 498A/406/34 IPC
ST. VS. Sh. Rajesh Bhola & ORS.
1. Date of commission of offence: 16011996
2. Name of the complainant : Ms. Rohini
d/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
3. Name of the accused persons : 1. Sh. Rajesh Bhola
their parentage and address. s/o Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
: 2. Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
s/o Sh. Daljeet
: 3. Sh. Sonu Bhola
s/o Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
: 4. Ms. Shakuntala
w/o Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
: 5. Ms. Meena
d/o Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........1/36
: 2 :
: 6. Ms. Seema
d/o Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
:7. Ms. Neelam
d/o Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
: All r/o Kheda Pati Mohalla
Goswami Road,
Bharatpur, Rajashtan
4. Offence complained of or : 498A/406/34 IPC
5. The date of order : 07022011
6. The final order : 07022011
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Ms.
Rohini d/o Sh. B.K. Mehra r/o H. No. R31E, Dilshad Garden, Delhi
made to CAW Cell dated 10121996 wherein it is stated that the
complainant got married with accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola on 16011996
as per Hindu Rites & Customs. The complainant's father had spent a
huge amount of money in the marriage and the dowry articles were given
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........2/36
: 3 :
as per the instructions of the parents of accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola
through Mrs. Rani Khanna, who had settled the marriage. It has been
stated that after the marriage, the complainant resided at Bharatpur and
the father in law Sh. Tilak Raj and the mother in law Smt. Shakuntala
Devi had taken all the jewellery articles and the costly clothes of the
complainant with the plea that there were number of guest and workers
in the family and the same would be handed over to the complainant
after sometime. It has been stated that the complainant remained at
Bharatpur till 25021996 but the complainant were not given back her
jewellery and clothes. It has been alleged that the sisters in law namely
Ms. Poonam, Ms. Rita, Ms. Meenu, Ms. Neelam and Ms. Seema criticize
the dowry articles and did not permit the complainant to use the same
and all the sisters in law stated that the articles are of inferior quality and
all the dowry articles were to be taken by the unmarried sisters in law
namely Ms. Meenu, Ms. Neelam and Ms. Seema. It has been stated that
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........3/36
: 4 :
the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his family members were unhappy
with the dowry articles as they were expecting a Maruti Car in the
dowry. It has been alleged that on 25021996, on the occasion of Chulha
Chari ceremony, the complainant was told by her husband, mother in law
and father in law that she has to go to her parents and has to bring clothes
for all the family members and a cash of Rs.25,000/. The complainant's
father gave clothes for all the family members, however, he could not
fulfill the demand of Rs.25,000/ and when the complainant reached her
matrimonial home, she was not treated well. The complainant was forced
to do the entire domestic work and was not given proper food. It has
been alleged that on 23041996, accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola went to the
parental home of the complainant and represented that he required a sum
of Rs.50,000/ as loan for his jewellery business and on 24041996, the
father of the complainant gave Rs.20,000/ to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola
and again on 11051996, the father of the complainant gave Rs.15,000/
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........4/36
: 5 :
to the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola. It has been stated that in the month of
May, 1996, the married sisters in law alongwith their husband came to
Bharatpur and the father in law Sh. Tilak Raj after consuming liquor with
his sons in law passed vulgar remarks against the complainant. It has
been alleged that in the end of May, 1996, the brother in law Sonu and
his sister pushed the complainant from the staircase due to which the
complainant received leg injury and the complainant was threatened not
to inform about the incident to anyone. The accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola
used to beat the complainant in the day and Smt. Shakuntala alongwith
her daughters used to give beatings to the complainant at night and Sh.
Tilak Raj used to beat the complainant after consuming liquor. The
complainant was not allowed to make any call to her parents and was not
even allowed to talk to any neighbour and with lot of difficulty the
complainant could post two letters to her parents. It has been alleged that
in September, 1996, the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and Sh. Tilak Raj
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........5/36
: 6 :
approached to the father of the complainant and asked for the loan of
Rs.50,000/ and when the father of the complainant showed his
helplessness, the accused Sh. Tilak Raj and Sh. Rajesh Bhola brought
Smt. Rani Khanna, who told the father of the complainant that it was in
his interest to give money to the accused persons, otherwise, the
complainant would be turned out from the matrimonial home. It has been
also alleged that on 01101996, the complainant was told that there was
a function in Delhi and the complainant was brought to her parental
home where the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and Sh. Tilak Raj stated to the
parents of the complainant that they cannot keep the complainant as the
parents of the complainant are not fulfilling their demand and the
complainant was left at Delhi. During this period, there was no
telephonic conversation and whenever the complainant or her parents
tried to telephone the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his family members
they did not care to respond. On 14111996, the father of the
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........6/36
: 7 :
complainant took the complainant to Bharatpur and the complainant and
her father were abused by the accused persons and the father of the
complainant left the complainant at Bharatpur. Accused Sh. Rajesh
Bhola and Sonu asked the complainant if she has brought the list of
dowry articles and the complainant gave the list of dowry articles to her
father in law Sh. Tilak Raj on which the accused Sh. Tilak Raj, Sh.
Rajesh Bhola and Sonu got furiated and gave severe beatings to the
complainant and forced the complainant to give the list of dowry articles
as per their instructions in their own hand. The sisters of the accused Sh.
Rajesh Bhola and the mother in law gave severe beatings to the
complainant and even attempted to take her life. All the belongings of the
complainant were snatched from her and only Rs.100 note was left with
the complainant and the complainant came to her parental home on 17
111996. The complainant and her parents made efforts for
reconciliation, however, the complainant received a legal notice from
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........7/36
: 8 :
accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola through his advocate. The complainant has
stated that she has come to know that the accused persons would
misappropriate and sell or dispose of the dowry articles lying at her
matrimonial home.
2. Subsequent to the present FIR, investigation was conducted and
after completion of chargesheet same was filed in court against accused
persons. Accused persons were summoned by my Ld. Predecessor Judge
and a charge u/s 498A/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons
and a charge u/s 406 IPC was framed against accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola
only. An application us/ 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by Ld. APP for State
and the said application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge vide
order dated 05082006 and additional charge u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act was also framed against the accused persons. The prosecution has
examined eight witnesses.
3. DO Constable Samsuddin appeared as PW1 and exhibited the
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........8/36
: 9 :
present FIR as Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination by ld. Defense
Counsel, PW1 stated that he cannot say whether the complainant Ms.
Rohini was present in the police station when he had formally registered
the FIR.
4. The complainant Ms. Rohini appeared as PW2 and deposed that
she got married with the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola on 16011996 and
she had been given the dowry articles as per list Ex.PW2/A. All the
dowry articles were handed over to her in laws and were taken to
Bharatpur, Kheda Patti Mohalla, Devi Goswami Marg, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. PW2 has stated that after marriage when she went to
Bharatpur at her matrimonial home, next day all her istridhan articles
were taken away by her husband and her mother in law on the pretext
that they were workers and guests in the house and her istridhan articles
are to be kept in the safe custody. PW2 has also stated that all her sisters
in law, father in law and husband commented that all her dowry articles
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........9/36
: 10 :
are of inferior qualities and stated that all her istridhan articles i.e. the
articles given by her parents as well as the articles given by her in laws
will be distributed among her sisters in law. PW2 has deposed that on 25
021996, her husband stated that as per the ceremony of 'Chula Chari', all
her in laws should be called for lunch at her parental home and be given
clothes. The husband, father in law, mother in law, Poonam Khanna,
Pappu Khanna and Rani came to the parental home of the complainant
and accused Rani Khanna demanded clothes for all and Rs.25,000/ in
cash. The father of the complainant gave clothes but he could not give
Rs.25,000/ in cash. Upon return of PW2 to Bharatpur, she was beaten by
her sisters in law, mother in law, father in law and husband saying that
they were expecting Maruti Car in the marriage and her parents have not
given bed. The husband and father in law of PW2 used to beat her after
taking liquor. PW2 was not provided even proper food and her father in
law used to misbehave with her and when PW2 complained to her
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........10/36
: 11 :
husband about misbehavior of her father in law, her husband did not pay
attention. PW2 was not allowed to talk to any neighbour and she was not
even allowed to telephone her parents. PW2 has stated that she was
treated like a servant and none of her istridhan articles were ever given to
her for wearing. The father in law, mother in law, husband, brother in
law Sonu and sister in law used to demand Maruti Car and when PW2
showed her inability to bring Maruti Car, she used to be beaten by all the
accused persons. In the month of April, the mother in law, father in law
and husband of PW2 came to her parental home alongwith her and
demanded Rs.50,000/ from her father on the pretext that they needed the
amount for business. PW2 has testified that on 24041996, her father
took out Rs.20,000/ from the bank and gave the said amount to her
husband and father in law. On 11051996 again the father of PW2 gave
Rs.15,000/ to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola. PW2 has stated that her
husband, father in law, sister in law and Rani Khanna, mother in law of
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........11/36
: 12 :
her sister in law used to tell her that her father should arrange a shop in
Delhi. PW2 has also stated that in the month of May, 1996, her two
married sisters alongwith their husband came to Bharatpur and when her
mother in law and father in law showed the list of dowry articles, they
stated that they would throw the list in dustbin and PW2 was asked by all
the accused persons to prepare list as per their saying and wishes and
when she refused she was beaten up by the accused persons. PW2 was
also threatened with death by burning. PW2 has testified that on 1711
1996, when she smelled danger to her life, she returned to Delhi by bus.
On 03121996, PW2 received a notice and on 10121996, the
complainant lodged a complaint in the CAW Cell, which is Ex.PW2/B
bearing her signatures at pointA. PW2 exhibited the letters, which were
written by her to her parents and family members as Ex.PW2/H and
Ex.PW2/J respectively. The statement of account of Canara Bank for the
period 01041996 to 18041996 as MarkX another statement of
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........12/36
: 13 :
account of Canara Bank for the period 01051996 to 31051996 as
MarkY and the notice received by her as MarkZ. In her cross
examination by Ld. Defense Counse, PW2 stated that she had stated to
the police that on 230496 accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola came to her house
and demanded Rs.50,000/ as a loan as he was facing difficulty in
jewellery business. PW2 also deposed that he did not state to the police
that in the month of September, 1996 accused Rajesh and Sh. Tilak Raj
came to her house and demanded more Rs.50,000/ as a loan. In his cross
examination by Ld. Defense Counse, PW2 deposed that both the letters
were posted by her form Bharatpur. He was allowed to go out for posting
these letters. She had posted the letters in white envelopes. She had given
those letter to the IO of the case alongwith the envelopes. PW2 further
deposed that accused Ravi Khanna demanded the clothes for all and
Rs.25,000/ in cash at that time, his father gave clothes for all her in laws
but could not give Rs.25,000/ in cash as they were financially tight.
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........13/36
: 14 :
PW2 stated that she had told to the police that in the month of August,
1996, Rani Khanna came to Bharatpur alongwith his son Pappu Khann
and daughter Punam Khanna. She advised her husband, mother in law
and father in law that she should be sent to Delhi at her parental home
and only her father be able to arrange a shop for them. PW2 also stated
that she had told to the police that on 14111996, her father took her to
Bharatpur, all the accused persons quarreled with her father and told that
they could not give Rs.50,000/, nor Maruti Car and a shop in Delhi.
PW2 further stated that she had stated to the police that she was beaten
by accused persons and said that they would remarry accused Rajesh
Bhol and would take Maruti card and other dowry articles in the
marriage. PW2 admitted that she was being served with a legal notice
from the side of accused persons before registration of FIR and lodging
complaint in CAW Cell. PW2 deposed that Rajesh might be earning
more than Rs.50,000/ p.m. She had not given any reply to the legal
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........14/36
: 15 :
notice given by the accused persons. PW2 also admitted that Punam
Khanna, Rani Khanna, Neetu, Pappu Khanna and Rita used to live in
Delhi.
5. The father of the complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Mehra appeared
as PW3 (wrongly examined as PW2) and deposed that his daughter
Rohini got married with Sh. Rajesh Bhola on 16011996 as per Hindu
Rites and Customs at Delhi and the dowry articles were given as per his
capacity and were entrusted to the parents of Sh. Rajesh Bhola, which
were taken to Bharatpur at their house. PW3 deposed that Sh. Rajesh
Bhola, father in law Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola, mother in law Smt. Shakuntla
Devi, Neelam, Meenu, Seema, Poonam and Rita were not satisfied with
the dowry articles given in the marriage and they started abusing his
daughter Ms. Rohini and also started to harass her and his daughter had
told to him that they were expecting a Maruti Car in the marriage and if
his daughter did not bring the Maruti Car, she will not be allowed to live
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........15/36
: 16 :
in the matrimonial home. PW3 stated that on 23041996. Accused Sh.
Rajesh Bhola came to his house and demanded Rs.50,000/ as a loan on
the pretext that he was facing difficulty in jewellery business, PW3 gave
Rs.25,000/ to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola on 24041996 and Rs.15,000/
on 11051996. PW3 withdrew this amount from his account in Canara
Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. It has been alleged that sisters of accused Sh.
Rajesh Bhola namely Poonam Khanna and Reeta with their husband
Neetu Khanna and Pappu Khanna used to outrage the modesty of his
daughter whenever they got the opportunity, his daughter made a
complaint to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola but the behavior of her husband
accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola did not change. His daughter also wrote two
letters to PW3. It has been alleged that in the end of month of May, 1996,
his daughter was pushed from stairs. His daughter was given beatings by
the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his family members. In the month of
Sept., 1996, accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his father Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........16/36
: 17 :
came to his house and demanded Rs.50,000/ and when PW3 showed his
inability, they left his daughter at his parental home. PW3 made best
efforts to reconcile the matter but all went in vain. PW3 was cross
examined by the Ld. Defense Counsel and PW3 in his cross examination
by Ld. Defense Counsel deposed that he had told to the police that Ms.
Rani Khanna was the mediator, however, he did not tell that the dowry
articles were entrusted to the parents of accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola, which
were taken to Bharatpur. PW3 deposed that he did not tell to the police
that married sisters of accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola namely Poonam and
Rita with their husband Neetu Khanna and Pappu came to Bharatput
where Sh. Tilak Raj Bhola and his two sons in law passed remarks on his
daughter. PW3 has stated that he did not tell the police that in the month
of September, 1996 accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his father Sh. Tilak
Raj Bhola came to his house and demanded Rs.50,000/ as loan. PW3
stated that he had received the letters which were written by his daughter
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........17/36
: 18 :
by ordinary mail. PW3 stated that his daughter was harassed and tortured
by the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his family members. PW3 denied
the suggestion that he fabricated the letter when her daughter had come
to reside at his house. PW3 also denied the suggestion that he did not pay
Rs.35,000/ in cash to the accused.
6. The mother of the complainant Ms. Rajkumari Mehra appeared as
PW4 (wrongly examined as PW3) and deposed that her daughter Rohini
got married with Sh. Rajesh Bhola on 16011996 as per Hindu Rites and
Customs at Delhi and the dowry articles were given as per capacity and
were entrusted to the parents of Sh. Rajesh Bhola, which were taken to
Bharatpur at their house. Her daughter was given beatings by accused
Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his father and they demanded a Maruti Car. Her
husband gave Rs.35,000/ to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his father as a
loan and lastly they turned out her daughter from her matrimonial home.
Her daughter was tortured by sisters of accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola namely
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........18/36
: 19 :
Poonam Khanna and Reeta. PW4 in her cross examination by Ld.
Defense Counsel deposed that her daughter had obtained divorce from
accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola. PW4 stated that she cannot tell when they
received two letters which were written by her daughter. PW4 denied the
suggestion that her daughter lodged a false complaint against the accused
persons and her daughter wrongly refused to join the company of the
accused and the accused persons did not demand dowry from her nor
harassed and tortured her.
7. Sh. Naresh Kumar appeared as PW5 (wrongly examined as PW4)
and deposed that he had attended the marriage of Rohini on 16011996
at Jhankar Banquet Hall, Preet Vihar, Delhi and it was a decent marriage
and the arrangement was good. Dowry articles were also given as per the
customs. After marriage, PW5 came to know through Sh. Vinod Kumar
Mehra that disputes had taken place in the matrimonial house of Ms.
Rohini due to insufficient dowry. Police had recorded his statement. In
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........19/36
: 20 :
his cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel, PW5 deposed that no
dowry demand was made in his presence and he also do not know what
articles were given in the marriage of Rohini. He does not know the
accused persons.
8. Sh. Ravinder Singh Kalra appeared as PW6 (wrongly examined as
PW5) and deposed that he had attended the marriage of Rohini on 1601
1996 at Jhankar Banquet Hall, Preet Vihar, Delhi. Dowry articles were
also given as per the customs. After marriage, PW6 came to know that a
dowry case has been registered as Ms. Rohini was harassed and tortured
by the accused persons for brining insufficient dowry. Police had
recorded his statement. In his cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel,
PW6 deposed that no dowry demand was made in his presence by the
accused persons. He also deposed that in the marriage, double bed
(palang), almirah, sofa set, and other articles were given and he had not
specifically stated to the police what items were given.
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........20/36
: 21 :
9. HC Shrichand appeared as PW7 (wrongly examined as PW6) and
deposed that on 12061997, he was posted at police station Seemapuri
as Constable. He had gone to Bharatpur Rajasthan with ASI Narpath
Singh. Accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola was formally arrested by IO and IO
recorded his statement and conducted enquiry from the neighbourhood
but noone became ready to give statement. PW7 was cross examined by
the Ld. Defense Counsel and deposed that no statement was recorded by
IO in his presence. He and IO had enquired that matter from the
neighbourhood of the accused but no one became ready to give
statement.
10. The brother of the complainant Sh. Amit Mehra appeared as PW8
(wrongly examined as PW7) and deposed that his sister Rohini was got
married on 16011996 with accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola as per Hindu
Rites and Customs and after marriage she was taken to her matrimonial
home at Bharatpur Rajasthan. PW8 in his cross examination by Ld.
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........21/36
: 22 :
Defense Counsel deposed that when the petitioner came to Delhi from
Bharatpur, there were blue marks on the face of his sister Rohini. PW8
further deposed that they had given fridge, colour T.V., cooler, double
bed in the marriage but he cannot tell how it was sent on which vehicle.
He does not know as to who is the owner of the truck in which dowry
articles were loaded and had gone to the respondent's house. PW8 denied
the suggestion that accused persons had never demanded any dowry from his sister or any other family members and FIR has been lodged as his sister wanted to stay in Delhi.
11. The friend of the father of the complainant Sh. B.K. Kapoor appeared as PW9 (wrongly examined as PW8) and deposed that he knows the father of the complainant Ms. Rohini as he is their C.A. and he is known by the name of Mr. Mehra. PW9 deposed that Ms. Rohini got married with accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola on 16011996 at Jhankar Banquet Hall, Preet Vihar, Delhi and the said banquet hall was booked FIR NO. 211/97 P.........22/36 : 23 : with his efforts. After one and a half and two months Mr. Mehra told him that his daughter was not being kept properly and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home. He advised Mr. Mehra for compromise, however, Mr. Mehra told that everything had gone beyond their control. In his cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel, PW9 deposed that he knows Mr. Mehra for the last 1213 years. At the time of marriage, Mr. Mehra did not make any complaint against the in laws of Smt. Rohini regarding any dowry demand. He does not know when Ms. Rohini came back to her parental home from her in laws house. He has met with Ms. Rohini after her marriage after about 56 months.
12. The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons stated that the Complainant wanted to reside at Delhi and when accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola expressed his unwillingness to reside at Delhi and to leave his parents, the FIR NO. 211/97 P.........23/36 : 24 : complainant filed the present false case against them. The accused persons have not preferred to lead D.E.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defense counsel. It is argued by Ld. APP that prosecution has proved the present case beyond reasonable doubts. However, I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the prosecution.
It be observed that major contradictions have been made by the witnesses during their examination on record, which has shaken the credibility of the prosecution story. The complainant in her statement to the police has stated that her sisters in law commented that the dowry articles, which were given in the marriage were of inferior quality and in her examination in chief, the complainant has made an improvement by even accusing the father in law and husband of commenting about the dowry articles being of inferior quality. As such mere taunting for bringing insufficient dowry does not come within the purview of Section FIR NO. 211/97 P.........24/36 : 25 : 498A IPC. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment titled as Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., Crl. M. C. 7262/2006, dated 23022007.
The complainant has narrated the incident dated 25021996 when she has alleged that on the occasion of CHULA CHARI she was told by her husband, mother in law, father in law that she has to go to her parents and bring clothes for all the family members and a sum of Rs.25,000/ in cash. The complainant in her examination in chief has made a contradictory statement by deposing that on 25021996, only her husband stated that as per custom of CHULA CHARI, all her in laws should be given clothes. In her examination in chief, the complainant has attributed the role of demand of Rs.25,000/ to Ms. Rani Khanna, the mediator in the marriage. The parents of the complainant have also not corroborated the version of the complainant and have not deposed anything about demand of Rs.25,000/ being raised by Ms. Rani Khanna FIR NO. 211/97 P.........25/36 : 26 : at their house on the occasion of CHULA CHARI. The complainant in her statement to the police has stated that for the reason of non fulfillment of demand of Rs.25,000/, she was abused and harassed by her husband and in laws and in her examination in chief, the complainant has made an improvement by deposing that she was beaten up by her sisters in law, mother in law and husband. The complainant has not even specified the particular of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in subjecting her to alleged beatings. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement titled as Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharti 2010 (1) RCR (Cr.) 115.
Another incident narrated by the complainant is of 23041996, when it has been alleged that the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola came to the parental home of the complainant and stated that he requires a sum of Rs.50,000/ as loan for his business and on 24041996, the father of the complainant arranged Rs.20,000/ and gave the amount to accused Sh.
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........26/36
: 27 :
Rajesh Bhola and again on 11051996, the father of the complainant gave Rs.15,000/ to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola. In her examination in chief, the complainant has made an improvement by deposing that even her father in law and mother in law accompanied her husband and all of them demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from the father of the complainant. Even if is presumed that an amount of Rs.50,000/ has been paid in cash to the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola by the father of the complainant, the said amount cannot be said to have been given in pursuance to the unlawful demand raised by the accused persons. The complainant and her parents have themselves stated that the accused persons had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ as loan and there is no allegation of harassment or coercing the complainant or her parents to meet an unlawful demand and not in pursuance to any unlawful demand, the said amount of Rs.35,000/ has been paid to the accused Rajesh Bhola.
The complainant has further alleged that in the month of May, FIR NO. 211/97 P.........27/36 : 28 : 1996, both her married sisters in law alongwith their husband came to her matrimonial home and the father in law after consuming liquor with his sons in law, made vulgar remark against the complainant and had also misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant in her examination in chief has not deposed anything about remarks being passed against her and about the alleged misbehavior in the month of September, 1996.
The complainant has deposed that her brother in law Sonu and her sister in law had pushed her from the staircase as a result of which her right leg got fractured. The complainant has five sisters in law who are accused in the present case, however the complainant has not specified as to which of her sister in law pushed her from stair case. Further, the mother of the complainant has contradicted the version of the complainant as she has attributed the role of pushing her daughter from the staircase to her husband Rajesh Bhola.
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........28/36
: 29 :
As regards the incident of the month of September, 1996, the complainant in her statement of the police has stated that her husband and her father in law approached her father and again asked for a loan of Rs.50,000/ whereas in her examination in chief, the complainant has stated that her mother in law also accompanied her father in law and her husband and they all demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/.
The complainant has alleged that on 01101996, she was told that there was a function at her parental home in Delhi and after reaching her parental home, the father in law and husband of the complainant told her parents that as they were not fulfilling their demand, they cannot keep the complainant at the matrimonial home and the complainant was left at her parental home. The father of the complainant has contradicted the version of the complainant and has stated that in the month of September, 1996 when the husband and the father in law of the complainant came to her matrimonial home and the father of the FIR NO. 211/97 P.........29/36 : 30 : complainant refused to fulfill the demand of Rs.50,000/, the husband and the father in law got annoyed and left the complainant at her parental home.
The complainant has also stated that on 14111996, her father took her to her matrimonial home but the accused person had abused the complainant and her father. The father of the complainant has stated nothing about taking the complainant back to her matrimonial home and abuses being advanced by the accused persons. The complainant has deposed that after her father left her at her matrimonial home, all the accused persons including her married sisters in law and their husband had beaten the complainant and had not even provided her food. The complainant has made a vague allegation involving every family member and the complainant has not made any specific allegation as to what particular offence was committed by each accused.
The complainant has further stated that during her stay at her FIR NO. 211/97 P.........30/36 : 31 : matrimonial home, she had written the letter dated 02041996 Ex.PW2/H and letter dated 07061996 Ex.PW2/J to her father, however, her father could not state the date, month or year of receiving the said letters. The envelopes with postal stamps have not been produced on record to prove that the letters Ex. PW2/H and Ex. PW2/J were posted by the complainant to her father during her stay at matrimonial home. Even in the letters Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/J, the complainant has not disclosed any specific date, month or year when she was subjected to cruelty or harassed by the accused persons in furtherance of demand of dowry. Hence, on the basis of the letters Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/J, the prosecution could not establish the charge u/s 498A IPC r.w.s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the complainant left her matrimonial home on 17111996 and the complaint was made to CAW Cell on 10121996, nearly after one month of the alleged incident FIR NO. 211/97 P.........31/36 : 32 : of being turned out from the matrimonial home for the reason of non fulfillment of 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 lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 577) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao). The brother of the complainant has stated that when the complainant reached her parental home she had blue marks on her face still neither the complainant nor her parents preferred to lodge the complaint immediately or get her FIR NO. 211/97 P.........32/36 : 33 : medically examined. No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant chose to file the complaint with the police only after receiving a legal notice from the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola to join his company.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that charge u/s 498A IPC r.w.s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not established by the prosecution.
It be observed that accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola has been charged for having misappropriated the istridhan articles of the complainant to his on 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 persons and they were having domination over the articles of the complainant and with FIR NO. 211/97 P.........33/36 : 34 : dishonest intentions the articles entrusted to them, have been misappropriated.
The complainant has stated that all the dowry articles were handed over to her in laws whereas the brother of the complainant has made an improvement and has stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola and his family members. In the statement to the police, the complainant has stated that when she reached her matrimonial home, her father in law and her mother in law had taken her jewellery and costly clothes. However, in her examination in chief, the complainant has stated that her istridhan articles were taken away by her husband and her mother in law. There is no specific and clear allegation against the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola as to which of the dowry articles or istridhan were entrusted to him. The complainant has deposed that the list of dowry articles was prepared by her and is in her handwriting and the said list has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. The list of the dowry FIR NO. 211/97 P.........34/36 : 35 : articles has not been witnessed by any of family members of the complainant. No bill, invoice etc. of the articles and or of the conveyance through which the articles reached the matrimonial home of complainant is revealed. In such circumstances being guided by the judgment of Neera Singh vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 138 (2007) DLI 152, I am of the opinion that entrustment in favour of the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola is not established. There is no demand of articles back from the accused Rajesh Bhola till the last date of complainant leaving the matrimonial home. In view of the fact that none of the ingredients of section 405 IPC is established, I am of the view that no case u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused Sh. Rajesh Bhola.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced in order to secure conviction. Accused persons accordingly deserve acquittal and are acquitted. Bail Bond of accused persons shall remain in force and sureties of accused FIR NO. 211/97 P.........35/36 : 36 : persons shall not be discharged for a period of 6 months in view of section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SHUCHI LALER)
ON 07022011 MM/MAHILA COURTS
KKD / DELHI
FIR NO. 211/97 P.........36/36