Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/288267/2016 on 17 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT)-02 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05
Police Station : Lahori Gate
Under Section : 498A/406/34 IPC
CIS/New No : 288267/16
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0426422006
Date of institution : 10.03.2006
Date of reserving : Oral
Date of pronouncement : 17.08.2016
JUDGEMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 418/2/09
b) Date of commission of offence : 08.11.2004
c) Name of the complainant : Smt. Pinki, W/o Sh. Lokesh
C/o Sh. Bhola
R/o 1042, West Gorakh
Park, Gali No.3, Shahdara,
Delhi
d) Name, parentage and address : 1. Sh. Hoshiyar Singh @
of the accused Mukesh
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
2. Sh. Lokesh Kumar @
Lajpat
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
3. Smt. Shakuntala
W/o Sh. Tara Chand
State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 1 of 8
4. Smt. Ritu
W/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh
5. Sh. Tara Chand
S/o Sh. Jai Narayan
All R/o E-116, Railway
Colony, D.R.P. Line, Pul
Mithai, Lahori Gate, Delhi
6. Sh. Kamal Yadav
S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan
R/o H. No. 1051/33 near St.
Thomas School, Alwar Gate,
Ajmer, Rajasthan
7. Sh. Manish Yadav
S/o Sh. Fateh Singh
R/o H. No. 24/37, Vinay
Nagar, Pal Bichada, Ajmer,
Rajasthan
8. Smt. Rajwala @ Rajjo
W/o Sh. Manish Yadav
R/o H. No. 24/37, Vinay
Nagar, Pal Bichada, Ajmer,
Rajasthan
9. Smt. Madhu Walla
W/o Sh. Kamal Yadav
R/o H.No. 1051/33 near St.
Thomas School, Alwar Gate,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
e) Offence complained of : Section 498A/406/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused persons : Accused Lokesh Kumar
pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused Lokesh Kumar
acquitted.
State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 2 of 8
Accusd Hoshiyar Singh,
Shakuntala, Ritu, Tara
Chand, Kamal Yadav,
Manish Yadav, Raj Wala,
and Madhu Wala already
stand discharged vide order
dated 12.12.2008 passed by
learned predecessor of this
Court.
h) Date of final order : 17.08.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgement, the accused Lokesh Kumar is being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 406/498A IPC in this case FIR No. 191/05 Police Station Lahori Gate for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The prosecution is that during the subsistence of the marriage of accused Lokesh Kumar with the complainant, which was performed on 08.04.2004, the accused Lokesh Kumar subjected the complainant to cruelty on account of his unlawful demands for property or valuable security. It is also alleged that the accused Lokesh Kumar dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the dowry articles gifted in the marriage and over which he exercised dominion.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant was previously married to one Sh. Prem Chand. The complainant had entrusted her stridhan/dowry articles i.e. Rs. 2 Lacs in cash, 15 tolas of gold and 50 tolas of silver to the accused Lokesh Kumar and his family members. It is alleged that all the dowry articles/stridhan including the mangalsutra and jewellery etc., except one engagement ring had been returned by the complainant's previous husband and after her marriage with the accused Lokesh Kumar, the same were taken away by his family members on the State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 3 of 8pretext that the same will be safe in their custody. It is alleged that the family members of the accused Lokesh had promised that as and when the complainant requires the said articles, they would be restored to her. It is alleged that, however, despite repeated demands and requests of the complainant, the aforesaid articles have not been returned to her.
4. It is further alleged that soon after the marriage, the accused persons started pointing out defects in the articles and the amount of cash brought by the complainant and stated that they had agreed to get the accused Lokesh married to the complainant only for the sake of money. It is alleged that the accused persons made the complainant sell her plot at Hardev Nagar, Burari and took the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4 Lacs. It is alleged that in December, 2005, the accused persons directed the complainant to do all household chores which the complainant did. It is alleged that the complainant was treated like a maid in the family. It is alleged that the accused persons remarked that the complainant was not good looking and rather ugly. It is further alleged that the accused sisters in law of the complainant alongwth their husbands were frequent visitors at the matrimonial house of the complainant and used to instigate the husband and parents in law of the complainant to throw the complainant out of the house as they could manage another beautiful girl for the complainant's husband and would also get huge amounts in cash in the second marriage. It is alleged that the husband and father in law of the complainant alongwith some friends of the complainant's father in law used to sit and drink in the bedroom of the complainant and pass cheap remarks and crack cheap jokes. It is alleged that when the complainant objected to the same, the accused persons abused her and her family members in filthy language and gave her severe beatings. It is alleged that after few days of the marriage, the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant on the plea that they had to repay the loan taken by them from the sister in law of the complainant and also that the complainant had cheated them by not disclosing the fact of her first marriage. It is alleged that on refusal of the State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 4 of 8complainant, the atrocities by the accused persons became more severe and her movement and interaction with others were restricted. It is alleged that the complainant was not provided with food, water or medicines. It is alleged that in the month of January, 2005, the mother in law of the complainant locked her in a room when the complainant wanted to go out. It is alleged that whenever the sisters in law of the complainant visited her matrimonial home, at their instigation, accused Lokesh used to beat the complainant mercilessly and the accused persons used to threaten the complainant to get the accused Lokesh divorced from her and arrange a second marriage of accused Lokesh. It is further alleged that on 29.01.2005, the complainant was beaten up by her sisters in law and mother in law. It is further alleged that on 15.03.2005, the complainant was again severely beaten by the accused persons, who threw her out of the matrimonial home. It is alleged that the complainant immediately made a complaint to the local police station, however, no action was taken and she, therefore, made a complaint to the DCP, Crime Against Women Cell, Sarai Rohilla, whereupon the present FIR was registered.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
5. Vide order dated 12.02.2008 passed by learned predecessor of this Court, accused Hoshiyar Singh, Shakuntala, Ritu, Tara Chand, Kamal Yadav, Manish Yadav, Raj Wala and Madhu Wala stood discharged.
CHARGE
6. Vide order dated 21.04.2008, charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC was framed against the accused Lokesh Kumar, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
7. Prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. PW-1 Assistant Sub Inspector Kishan Singh is the duty officer, who registered the FIR No. 191/05 Ex. PW1/A and State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 5 of 8made endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka. PW-2 Head Constable Surender, PW-3 Head Constable Joginder Pal (wrongly numbered as PW-2) and PW-4 Head Constable Ajay Kumar (wrongly numbered as PW-3) had joined the investigation with the investigating officer. PW-5 Assistant Sub-Inspector Bijender Singh (wrongly numbered as PW-4) is the second investigating officer in the present case. PW-6 Inspector Brij Mohan (wrongly numbered as PW-5) is the first investigating officer in the present case. PW-7 Constable Jawahar Singh (wrongly numbered as PW-6) is a witness to the formal arrest of accused Kamal Yadav, Madhubala, Manish and his wife Rajbala. PW-8 Inspector Dinesh Sharma (wrongly numbered as PW-7) is the third investigating officer in the present case.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the entire evidence put to him. He categorically stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. The respective submissions of Ms. Preeti Mishra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused have been considered.
10. In order to establish the charge under Section 498A/406 IPC against the accused Lokesh Kumar @ Lajpat, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that during the subsistence of his marriage with the complainant, the accused Lokesh Kumar subjected the complainant to cruelty in relation to non- fulfillment of his demands for dowry and also misappropriated the dowry articles gifted in the marriage and over which he exercised dominion as alleged. For that purpose, State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 6 of 8the prosecution had cited, in the list of witnesses, four persons namely Smt. Pinki (complainant), Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Pandit Vishnu Tiwari (priest who performed the marriage of the complainant and accused Lokesh Kumar and issued marriage certificate) and Sh. Bhoop Singh. No statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Sh. Bhoop Singh and PW Sh. Mahesh Kumar has been filed alongwith the police report. Thus, it cannot even be ascertained from the record as to for what purpose the said two witnesses have been cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses and as to whether they were material or formal witnesses.
11. Summons issued to the complainant PW Smt. Pinki through the investigating officer were returned unserved with the report that she had left the given address. Further, summons sent her through the DCP concerned were also returned with the report that no house by the said address was available and whereabouts of the complainant could not be traced despite enquiry from the neighbourhood. In view of the same, PW complainant Smt. Pinki was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 29.07.2011 passed by learned predecessor of this Court.
12. Summons sent to PW Pandit Vishnu Tiwari through the SHO and DCP concerned were also returned unserved with the report that he has left the given address. Accordingly, he was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 14.05.2012 passed by learned predecessor of this court.
13. PW Sh. Bhoop Singh was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court on the submissions of the investigating officer, endorsed by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, that he is one of the sureties of the accused persons.
14. PW Sh. Mahesh Kumar was firstly dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 26.02.2011 on the submission of the investigating officer endorsed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State that he is only a formal witness and has nothing material to depose. He was once again dropped vide order dated State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 7 of 814.05.2012 as summons sent to him through the DCP concerned had been returned unserved.
15. Except the above-named four witnesses, who have been dropped as aforesaid, no other eye-witness, who could have proved the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, has been cited by the prosecution. The eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are all police witnesses. From their testimony, nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused Lokesh Kumar @ Lajpat.
CONCLUSION
16. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Lokesh Kumar @ Lajpat is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A/406 I.P.C.
17. Necessary bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. with surety alongwith passport size photographs and proofs of residence of the accused as well as surety and proof of soundness of the surety has been furnished by the accused Lokesh and accepted.
18. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 17.08.2016 (MANIKA) Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17.08.2016 State v. Hoshiyar Singh & ors.
FIR No. 191/05 PS: Lahori Gate Page 8 of 8