Delhi District Court
State vs . Om Prakash Etc. on 29 October, 2013
FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA
State Vs. Om Prakash etc.
IN THE COURT OF Ms. MONIKA SAROHA :
M.M.(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs. Om Prakash etc.
FIR NO. : 447/07
P.S. : OIA
U.S. : 498A/406 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Date of its institution : 04.09.2008
b. Name of the complainant : Ms. Indu D/o Sh. Karanpal R/o Jhuggi No.
A50, Janta Jeevan Rajiv Camp, Okhla,
PhaseII, New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 20.02.2006 onwards.
d. Name of the accused : (1) Om Prakash S/o Late Sh. Indrasen
(2) Kamlesh W/o Sh. Om Prakash
(3) Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash
All R/o 2590, Bagichi Raghunath, PS Sadar
Road, Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Case reserved for orders : 29.10.2013
h. Final order : Acquitted
i Date of such order : 29.10.2013
Page No. 1 of 16
FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA
State Vs. Om Prakash etc.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. It is the case of the prosecution that from 20.02.2006 onwards, all the accused conducted themselves in such a manner so as to cause grave injury to the mental and physical health of the complainant Indu by beating her, mentally harassing her and demanding dowry. It is further the case of the prosecution that all the accused were entrusted with or had dominion over 'stridhan' of the complainant and dishonestly misappropriated the same.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court.
Copies were supplied to the accused. Thereafter, this court had proceeded to frame charge for offence U/s 498A/406/34 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. This charge was framed on 29.09.2012.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution examined three witnesses. The gist of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is discussed in the paragraphs that follows:
4. PW1 Smt. Indu is the complainant/victim. She deposed that she got married to accused Raj Kumar on 20.02.2006 at Meethapur, Delhi as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. According to her after her marriage she went to her matrimonial house at Sadar and as soon as she reached her matrimonial house on 21.02.2006 her father in law and mother in law demanded Rs.50,000/ from her. She deposed that when she refused, her mother in law pulled her by hair and locked her in the room. She Page No. 2 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. alleged that her Nanad Nikki slapped her and when she talked to her husband about this incident he also gave her beatings with belts. Further, accused deposed that on 28.02.2006 she was brought back to her parents house by her husband, father in law, Nanad and MausaSasur. On this occasion her husband, father in law and Mausa sasur had liquor in her parental house and quarreled with her family members. It is her allegation that her Nanad asked her for all her jewelleries and she handed over the same out of fear. She stated that her husband and father in law again demanded Rs. 50,000/ from her father and when her father could not arrange the money they left her at her parental house and went back. She alleged that her husband and father in law also asked her father to send her to the matrimonial house only when Rs.50,000/ is arranged and sent with her. It is her averment that after about a month of the incident she made a complaint in the Women Cell which she exhibited as Ex.PW1/A (dated 20.05.2006). She also gave list of Stridhan Ex.PW1/B and Ex. 1/C to the police along with marriage photographs as Ex.P1 to P5. She stated that she does not remember if police official recorded her statement or not during investigation. She alleged that the accused persons also used to abuse her and particularly her husband abused her by saying "Bahan ki lodi, phone karegi apne ghar, haramjadi tujhe me karata hun phone, tere baap ne diya hai ye phone". She also alleged that her mother in law also threatened her to kill by burning her using kerosene oil and then to get his son remarried.
Page No. 3 of 16
FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc.
5. PW2 Ms. Prakashwati is the mother of the victim. She deposed that her daughter got married to Raj Kumar on 20.02.2006 at Meethapur, Delhi as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. According to her even on the occasion of marriage, the accused fatherinlaw of her daughter demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/ in cash, however, the marriage was solemnized with the intervention of persons of locality only as the demand could not be fulfilled. Further according to her after marriage her daughter went to her matrimonial house. After two days, thereafter the husband of this witness (Karanpal) went to the matrimonial house of her daughter but the in laws of her daughter did not allow him to speak to her daughter, therefore he had to come back without meeting her. Further according to her on 27.02.2006 her daughter was brought back to her house by her husband, father in law, Nanad Nikki and Mausa Sasur Ajay Bharti where all these people had liquor in the house of this witness and quarreled with them. She alleged that the Nanad of her daughter asked for all the jewelleries from her daughter and she handed over the same out of fear. She also alleged that the accused husband of her daughter and father in law again demanded Rs. 50,000/ from her husband and when they showed their inability to arrange the money, they left her daughter at her house and went back. Allegedly they also threatened the husband of this witness to send their daughter to her matrimonial house only when Rs.50,000/ is arranged.
6. PW3 is Sh. Karan Pal, father of the victim. He deposed that he got his Page No. 4 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. daughter married to accused Rajkumar and had spent around 34 lacs in the wedding, which included money spent on purchasing the victim's Stridhan. He deposed that he had given her all the daily utility articles like bed, dressing table, utensils and other articles. It is his own submission that all these articles were taken by him to his daughter's matrimonial house two days after the marriage in a hired vehicle but when he reached there, accused Rajkumar fought with the driver of the said vehicle and this witness was not allowed to meet his daughter. However, on his own he still kept all the above said stridhan articles in the daughter's matrimonial house and came back. Also it is his averment that accused Rajkumar said that his daughter was not in the house. It is further stated by him that soon after the wedding i.e. within 45 days accused Rajkumar and his father came to this witness's place and left his daughter at his house saying that till he gives them Rs.50,000/ they will not accept his daughter in the matrimonial house. It is alleged that accused Rajkumar and his father also tried to hit this witness while he begged them not to humiliate him that same day.
7. Accused admitted the arrest memo and personal search memo in statement u/s 294 CrPC. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was closed. Statement of all the accused were recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They denied that they had made any demand of dowry from the victim. Final arguments as advanced by Ld. Page No. 5 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel were heard.
8. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution for it is on the evidence of the prosecution and its strength that the fate of this case depends.
9. Coming first to the allegations u/s 406 IPC. To prove these allegations, the prosecution was required to prove that the complainant had entrusted her stridhan articles which were given to her by both sides of the family to the accused but the accused refused to return the same when she demanded her articles back.
10. Therefore, first of all, the existence of the stridhan articles and what they were had to be proved. Now, the complainant has placed on record a long list of household articles which she exhibited as Ex.PW1/B given to her by her parents at the time of the wedding and another list Ex.PW1/C wherein she has mentioned the gold articles and clothes given to her by her in laws at the time of her wedding. Now, admittedly these lists have been prepared three months after the marriage by the complainant herself, as per the prosecution version. This list has not been countersigned by the accused, therefore the complainant was required to prove the existence of these articles allegedly gifted to her and mere filing of a list does not do away with the requirement of proving that each item mentioned in the list was gifted to victim. However, no bills/receipts of the articles have been placed on record by the prosecution. The complainant, her mother and her father have not deposed even vaguely as to when these articles were purchased and from where. Therefore, Page No. 6 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. it is only a bald averment that the articles mentioned in the list Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C were given as stridhan to the victim. The complaint in the CAW Cell was made soon after the marriage i.e. within three months of the marriage and therefore it cannot be said that as the incident was reported after quite some time of the marriage, therefore, the bills could not be secured or details of the same could not be procured. Therefore not providing any bills in CAW Cell adversely affects the prosecution version as far as purchase of these articles and their gifting is concerned.
11. Coming now to the aspect of entrustment of these articles to the accused. The stridhan would be divided in two parts for the sake of convenience of discussion. Let us first discuss the issue of 'entrustment' of jewellery which formed part of stridhan and would then come to the household articles shown as 'stridhan'. In the witness box the complainant had stated that she had handed over all her jewellery to her Nanad and therefore, according to her, her Nanad was entrusted with the jewellery articles. However, regarding the jewellery in her crossexamination she has stated that her husband and fatherinlaw took her jewellery articles forcibly from her before she was taken to her matrimonial house. Further, on the other hand in her complaint Ex.PW1/A, she has stated that on 28.02.2006 her father in law, mother in law, sister in law, one Mausa Ajay of her husband and other members of the family took from her, her jewellery, other stridhan articles including cash Kanyadan also. Thus, now there are three versions regarding the taking away of Page No. 7 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. the jewellery articles from the victim. One in the chief examination of the victim wherein she has stated that she had handed over all her jewellery to her Nanad out of fear when she asked for the same, another in her cross examination where she has stated that all the jewellery was taken forcibly by her father in law and husband and yet another in her own complaint Ex.PW1/A where she has stated that her mother in law, father in law, sister in law, the Mausa of her husband had taken all her articles from her one by one including her jewellery.
12. Therefore, which of the three versions is to be believed, remains unclear.
13. Coming now to the remaining articles which also form part of 'stridhan' Now, the complainant has admitted in her deposition before the court that none of the stridhan was given to her from either side on the day of wedding and in fact her father had come on 23.02.2006 with the household goods to her matrimonial house but she was not allowed to meet her father. Neither she nor her father have stated that to whom the father had entrusted the stridhan articles of the victim when he visited his daughter's matrimonial house. To whom did he hand over the articles has not been mentioned by him in his deposition. Rather he has stated that he just 'left the articles at his daughter's matrimonial house' itself. This "mere leaving: does not amount to entrustment. Therefore, not only the existence of the stridhan articles, their entrustment to the accused has also not been proved beyond doubt. Page No. 8 of 16
FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc.
14. Coming now to the aspect of the victim demanding her articles back from the accused prior to approaching the police, but the accused refusing to return the same. Nowhere in her entire testimony before the court the victim has informed that when she demanded back her articles from any of her in laws before approaching the police. Even in her complaint to the police Ex.PW1/A she has not stated that she has demanded the return of her articles but the in laws refused to return the same. Therefore, there was no demand for return of stridhan made by the complainant except when she approached the police for the first time. Thus, in view of the discussion above, it cannot be said that criminal breach of trust with respect to the stridhan of the accused has been established by the prosecution. Accordingly, all the accused are acquitted of the offence u/s 406 IPC.
15. Coming now to the offence u/s 498A IPC. At the outset it is important to mention that according to the complainant herself she has stayed in her matrimonial house only from 21.02.2006 to 28.02.2006 and it is her own statement in her cross examination that during these six days she had even attended a marriage in the extended family of her husband in a village. Thus, this was a short matrimony which lasted only 7 days in total. This fact becomes important when deciding on the allegations of cruelty allegedly extended by the accused.
16. Coming now to the appreciation of evidence for offence u/s 498A IPC. The three important witnesses examined by the prosecution for proving its case are PW1 Page No. 9 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. Ms. Indu, PW2 Ms. Prakashwati i.e. her mother and father of the victim PW3. Ms. Indu is the victim. From her testimony one of the necessary ingredients for proving the offence U/sec. 498A IPC are made out against the accused.
17. The charge u/sec. 498A IPC has been framed against the accused on the ground that they demanded dowry from this witness and when the same was not provided they treated her with mental and physical cruelty. All the allegations were made for the time between 21.02.2006 to 28.02.2006 only. It is her allegation that when she had entered in her matrimonial house for the first time in her life, father in law and mother in law demanded Rs. 50,000/ from her and when she refused she was locked in a room. According to her as she had refused there and then to make payment therefore she was beaten by her Nanad Nicky and accused husband also the same day. On the other hand, in her complaint Ex.PW1/A (made to police within three months of the marriage), on the basis of which this FIR has been registered, it is nowhere stated that on the next day of marriage this demand of Rs. 50,000/ was raised from the victim. In fact in para 2 of her complaint Ex.PW2/A, she has written that as soon as she reached the matrimonial house, her parents in law, Nanad, brother in law and Mausa Sasur all of them started abusing her and all of them together started beating her, which continued for many days. She has not mentioned that her mother in law locked her in a room as soon she reached in the matrimonial house. Now, it is kept in mind that the complainant had only to depose regarding the Page No. 10 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. incident of 7 days and therefore she was expected to be consistent in her testimony/ averments before different forums, as it is not the case that she was deposing regarding long period of married life and therefore loss of memory on some facts could be justified. She has not mentioned in her complaint to the police that her husband had given her any beatings on the next day of the marriage. She has only stated that the husband was a drunkard, having illicit relation with many women and when she complained about the behaviour of her in laws to the husband all the family members started beating her. Now, which of two version regarding what happened on 1st day of marriage is correct, is not clarified or established beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Yet another allegation made by victim to establish offence u/s 498A IPC is that regarding the incidents of 24.02.2006.In her complaint Ex.PW1/A, she has also mentioned that on 24.02.06 she was not allowed to go out of her house and she was threatened if she would go out of her house she would be made a handicap. No such allegation of any threats extended by any of the accused has been deposed by complainant before the court and she has not deposed anything about the incidents of 24.02.06 at all. In fact to the contrary, she has deposed in her crossexamination recorded on 22.01.13 that she was not present in her matrimonial house on 24.02.06 and had gone to attend a wedding with her in laws in the village where one of the relative of her husband was residing. These two contrary statements also cannot Page No. 11 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. be reconciled as on one hand she has stated that on 24.04.06 she was not allowed even to go out of the house and was given threats of injury and on the other hand she had stated that she was attending a wedding with her in laws at one of their relative's house on 24.02.06 itself.
19. Coming now to the raising of the demand of dowry. In the complaint Ex.PW1/A, it is mentioned that even on the day of wedding itself the accused father in law raised demand of Rs. 50,000/ from victim's father upon which victim's father replied that he cannot pay this amount and therefore only with great difficulty the father in law allowed the marriage to be solemnized. It is alleged that on the wedding she even said that although he is taking the bride to the matrimonial house arrangement of Rs. 50,000/ should be made soon. This allegation nowhere find mention in the testimony of the complainant before the court. It is not her version that even on the day of marriage Rs. 50,000/ was demanded from her family members. Her father Karanpal, from whom this demand must have been made and who denied on the day of marriage itself to fulfill this demand has not said before the court that any such demand of Rs. 50,000/ was made on the day of marriage from him. He has not mentioned about any demand being raised on the day of marriage by the accused persons. He is silent on this important aspect. This makes the doubt the veracity of this allegation that Rs. 50,000/ was demanded on the day of marriage itself. It cannot reasonably be expected that the father of bride would Page No. 12 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. forget to mention this important fact before the court.
20. One other allegation made against the accused is that the victim has stated that the day she was left at her matrimonial house, i.e 28.02.2006 her husband, father in law and Mausasasur had liquor in her parental house and quarreled with them. However, in the complaint Ex.PW1/A no such averment regarding any of the in laws having fought with the family of the victim at her parental house is mentioned.
21. Yet another allegation made against the accused mother in law is that she threatened the complainant to kill her by burning her with kerosene oil. When this threat was made, where it was made and in whose presence it was made has not been mentioned by the complainant. Moreover in her complaint Ex.PW1/A she has not mentioned about any such threat being uttered to her. In fact to the contrary she has only stated that on 27.02.2006 she heard that all the accused had conspired to burn her if her father did not fulfill the demand of dowry. Here she has not stated that any threat was uttered by the mother in law and again even in the complaint where she has made the allegation on the accused that they were hatching a conspiracy to kill her, she has not mentioned as to how she came to know of the conspiracy. She has not stated before the court that she overheard the accused talking amongst themselves regarding this plan to kill her. Therefore, it is not clarified whether the mother in law threatened to kill the complainant as deposed in the court or whether all the accused had merely discussed the idea of killing her Page No. 13 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. amongst themselves as mentioned by her in her written complaint. Therefore, this allegation of uttering a threat to kill if dowry demand is not fulfilled also remains unproved and unbelievable.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the fact that the victim was left at her matrimonial house and never taken back by the accused is in itself an act of cruelty. Whereas it is indeed an act of cruelty to desert a married girl at her parental house, however, in view of the testimony recorded it cannot be said that the prosecution has established that the reason the victim could not join her husband was because she was not allowed to do so by the accused. The basis for this conclusion are the various admissions made on crucial factual aspects of the case by the complainant herself.
23. For instance, in her crossexamination, the complainant has specifically admitted that the accused even made an attempt to bring her back to her matrimonial house but her mother refused to send her back saying that she is of tender age and that she would send her to her matrimonial house after the next Holi. She has also admitted that an offer was made to her to live alone with her husband in a separate house but she herself refused this offer. She has also admitted that a condition was put by her and her mother that she would go to her matrimonial house only if some property of the inlaws is transferred in her name. Not only this in the crossexamination of PW2 i.e. mother of the victim also she Page No. 14 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. has admitted that she being the mother had also denied the suggestion that the bride and the groom should live alone for some time to settle their disputes, if any. She has also admitted that she wanted that some share in the property of the accused should be given to her daughter. Therefore, in view of these pre conditions admittedly put by the bride's family itself, is it fair to conclude that the complainant has been forced to reside in her parental house due to the conduct of the accused? It only appears to be a domestic feud which was blown out of proportion with each side adamant on its own preconditions before resolving the disputes.
24. As the accused Raj Kumar had admitted the arrest memo and registration of the present FIR against him u/s 294 CrPC, the factum of his arrest has been duly proved. However, this arrest in itself does not prove anything. Having perused the testimony of the important public witnesses this court has deliberately not summoned the IO for evidence. This was so as no path breaking investigation was conducted by the IO and only collection of routine documents and preparation of routine arrest memo, search memo etc. was carried out by the IO. Even if all the documents prepared during investigation are deemed duly proved still in view of the testimony of these public witnesses as discussed above, it cannot be said that the allegations made for offence u/s 498A IPC have been duly proved.
25. In view of the discussion above this court is satisfied that the prosecution has Page No. 15 of 16 FIR No. 447/07 P. S. OIA State Vs. Om Prakash etc. failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to what demands of dowry were raised from the complainant and what cruelties were meted out to her when she refused to fulfill these demands. Not only this, no such physical or mental conduct of the accused has been brought out clearly which would show that they conducted themselves in such a manner so as to cause danger to the mental or physical health of the victim.
26. Thus, in view of the discussion above the accused are acquitted of the offence u/s 498 A IPC.
27. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, all the accused are acquitted of all the offences charged with.
28. File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in (MONIKA SAROHA)
the open Court on 29.10.2013 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket
New Delhi.
Page No. 16 of 16