Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 17 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR NO. 479/00
P.S : I.P. Estate
Case ID No. 02401R0206072003
Date of institution of case : 30.05.2003
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 11.03.2015
Date of judgment : 17.03.2015
Advocates appearing in the case:-
Sh. P.K Ranga, Ld. APP for the state.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Passey, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGEMENT U/S 498A/406/34 IPC:
1. Name of the complainant : Smt. Geeta Rani
2. Name of accused and Address : (1) Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Mehar Singh
R/o Village & Post Office
Bayanpur, Tehsil & Distt.
Sonipat, Haryana.
(2)Krishna Devi
W/o Late Sh. Mehar Singh
R/o Village & Post Office
Bayanpur, Tehsil & Distt.
Sonipat, Haryana.
(3)Mehar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Shri Chand
R/o Village & Post Office
Bayanpur, Tehsil & Distt.
Sonipat, Haryana.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 1/31
3. Offence complained of : 498-A/406 IPC
4. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1 The brief facts of the case as have been disclosed in the statement made by the complainant Smt. Geeta D/o Sh. Sunhera Singh, wherein it is stated that the complainant was working as pharmacist in G.B Pant hospital. Her marriage was solemnized with Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Mehar Singh on 30.04.1998.
After, few days of marriage, she was pressurized by her in-laws to bring scooter and an amount for opening of the chemist shop. Complainant was abused and beaten by her in-laws for not bringing the same. Her parents and relatives tried to pacify the situation by holding talks with accused persons but all in vain. Complainant's documents were lying at her matrimonial house, therefore, her father on 07.11.1999 alongwith Om Narayan went there to bring back the same. There, they both were beaten by her in-laws. On 17.04.2000, she was appointed on the post of pharmacist in G.B Pant hospital. On that day, her father-in-law Mehar Singh came to meet her and mistreated her. He also threatened her by saying if he would have had got her selected he could also got her fired.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 2/31 It is also alleged that on 22.04.2000 her husband Rajesh alongwith 3-4 persons came to the G.B Pant hospital and dragged her outside. They pulled her by hair, twisted her hand and took her towards the main gate. There, her Mama Dhanpat Singh suddenly came and let her free from the clutches of her husband and three to four other persons who accompanied her husband. All these persons misbehaved with her Mama also. Complainant had filed a written complaint dated 23.04.2000 in police station regarding the abovementioned incident. Chowki Incharge had also misbehaves with the complainant by saying that her father-in-law had given her social status. Sh. Mehar singh who was present at that time in the police Chowki misbehaved with her and she had separately filed the complaint before the DCP, Central regarding the same.
It is also alleged that she was framed by the accused persons before the court of Sonipat. On 11.09.2000 she was called to CAW Cell, Prasad Nagar and was forced to go back to her matrimonial house. She was threatened that if she would not do this, she would have to pay half of her salary to her husband as maintenance. Her in-laws had misbehaved with her in the ACP office also. It is further stated by the complainant that her father was manhandled and spitted on by her husband, father-in-law and one other person. Complainant had filed a separate complaint regarding the same. Her father in law had defamed her on various occasions. It is stated by the complainant that she was abused in FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 3/31 the hospital, bus stand and even on the telephone by her in-laws.
2. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and vide order dated 17.05.2005, charges u/s 498A/406/34 IPC were framed against accused Mehar Singh, Rajesh and Krishana, to which they individually pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, accused Mehar Singh unfortunately expired. On verifying his death certificate, the proceedings qua him were abated.
3. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution produced following fifteen witnesses:-
(i) HC Rajinder Singh has been examined as PW1. PW1 has proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW1 has also made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/A at point A.
(ii) Sh. Sunhera Singh (father of the complainant) has been examined as PW2.
(iii)Smt. Kamlesh (mother of the complainant) has been FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 4/31 examined as PW3.
(iv)SI Sharda Thakur has been examined as PW4.
(v) Bhupender Singh (brother of the complainant) has been examined as PW5.
(vi)Dhanpat Singh (maternal uncle of the complainant) has been examined as PW6.
(vii)Sumer Singh Dhania has been examined as PW7.
(viii)Retd. SI Phool Chand has been examined as PW8. PW8 formally arrested the accused Mehar Singh who was on anticipatory bail and immediately released him on bail after fulfilling the formalities. PW8 also filed the chargesheet in the concerned court.
(ix)HC Dhani Ram has been examined as PW9. PW9 produced copy of order dated 04.05.2005 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Central Distt. copy of which is Ex.PW9/A. PW9 proved the DD No 14A which is already Mark A and DD No. 42 A dated 03.09.2005 which is Ex.PW9/C.
(x) Rajinder Singh (Fufaji of the complainant) has been examined as PW10.
(xi)Shilawati has been examined as PW11.
(xii)Dinesh Chandra has been examined as PW12. PW12 deposed that on 21.02.2000 Mehar Singh handed over stridhan articles to Geeta at Women Cell, Rajender Nagar in his presence. He also deposed that the seizure memo FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 5/31 Ex.PW5/DA also bears his signatures at point B.
(xiii)SI Parveen Kumar has been examined as PW13. PW13 deposed that on 06.12.2000, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He further deposed that on 06.01.2001 accused Rajesh and Krishna Devi were formally arrested as they were already granted anticipatory bail, vide memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B. PW13 filled the contents of personal bond vide bonds Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D.
(xiv)Khem Chand has been examined as PW14.
(xv)Inspector Ram Cahnder has been examined as PW15.
PW15 deposed that on 25.04.2000 written complaint was moved by Geeta and an appropriate reply was given to the senior officer. He also admitted the photocopy of that complaint which is already marked as Ex.PW2/D.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to them, to which they denied as false and incorrect and claimed to have falsely implicated in this case. They also claimed that the complainant and her family members were forcing the accused Rajesh to live at Delhi and on refusal, complainant implicate the accused persons in false case. Both the accused FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 6/31 also claimed that they never raised any demand of dowry from the complainant or her family members in any form whatsoever. They also claimed that they never treated the complainant with cruelty at any point of time. Both the accused preferred to lead evidence in their defence. In order to prove their case, accused produced following six witnesses:-
(i) SI Sukhraj Singh examined as DW1. DW1 brought the copy of complaint dated 09.07.2001 lodged by Sh. Rajesh againsti SI Mehar Singh which is Ex.DW1/A. Reply to the said complaint filed by SI Mehar Singh is Ex.DW1/B. After conducting enquiry, Mr. N.D Sharma, Deputy commissioner of Police, Communication consigned the file on 15.10.2001, copy of the report is Ex.DW1/C.
(ii) HC Arun Kumar was examined as DW2. DW2 has submitted that he has not brought the complaint dated 24.02.2001 filed by SI Rajender Singh against Insp. Mehar Singh as the same was destroyed in accordance with law vide order no. 24224-78/HAR/Vig. Dated 28.07.2011, copy of the same is Ex.DW2/A.
(iii)Sh. Rajesh Kumar has been examined as DW3. DW3 has brought the summoned file decided on 23.03.2007 passed by Sh. Satnam Singh, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi in suit no.
23/2004 titled as Mehar Singh Vs Rajender Singh, which is exhibited as Ex.DW3/A. Copy of decree dated 23.03.2004 as Ex.DW3/B. FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 7/31
(iv) Sh. Manoj Singh was examined as DW4. DW4 has brough the summoned case filed of FIR bearing no. 793/09 which is exhibited as Ex.DW4/A.
(v) Sh. Ramesh Chand was examined as DW5. DW5 in his examination in chief submitted that accused Rajesh and Krishna are his neighbours. DW5 submitted that being the neighbour, he never saw accused persons fighting with complainant Geeta on any account during her stay at matrimonial home for about one year.
(vi)Sh. Madan Singh, Record clerk was examined as DW6. DW6 has brought the summoned record of FIR No. 86/02 which is Ex.DW6/A. DW6 has also proved the ordersheet dated 30.04.2014 as Ex.DW6/B.
5. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. During the course of arguments, the below mentioned arguments were preferred by Ld. APP alongwith Ld. Counsel for the complainant :-
(i) that accused has harassed and tortured the complainant and various complaints in that regard has already been filed on record.
(ii) That because of the accused, father of the complainant has applied for loan though the same was denied by the FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 8/31 department and document in that regard has already been filed on record.
(iii)That cruelty has been inflicted upon the complainant in the hospital premises by the accused/husband and same has been witnessed by PW6 Sh. Dhanpat Singh.
7. The below mentioned arguments were made on behalf of the accused:-
(i) that complainant has never been examined before the court and therefore, the authenticity of her complaint has not been established as per provisions of law.
(ii) That complaint Ex.DW2/F has not been signed by the complainant.
(iii) That neither any document nor any receipt in respect of the purchase of articles has been filed by the prosecution.
(iv)That no document to prove the income of father of the complainant at the time of her marriage was filed on record.
(v) That different submissions have been put forward by the witnesses regarding preparation of list of articles and their purchase.
(vi)That no medical legal case had even been made regarding with respect to the alleged beatings given by the accused persons to the complainant on various occasions.
(vii)That it is the complainant who has invited the fights as she did not want to live with the accused in his village but she FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 9/31 wanted to live in Delhi. Present fact has been found mentioned in testimony of prosecution itself i.e PW6 Sh. Dhanpat Singh.
(viii)That there is material improvements in the testimonies of all witnesses of the prosecution therefore, their testimonies are liable to be discarded.
8. Before appreciating the evidence on record, let us discuss the relevant legal provisions given u/s 498A/406 IPC. Section 498-A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that:
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii)such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, weather mental or physical or
(iv)such harassment was (1) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or (2) on account of failure by such woman or any person or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 10/31 Section 406 IPC prescribed punishment for criminal breach of trust.
For offence under this section the prosecution must prove:
(i) that the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it,
(ii) that he (a) misappropriated it or (b) converted it to his own use or (c) used it or (d) disposed of it
9. In the light of aforesaid legal provisions, let us now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain whether alleged acts of accused amount to cruelty in terms of provision given u/s 498A IPC and whether he is guilty of criminal breach of trust u/s 406 IPC. Under section 498-A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation (b) of section 498-A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra, 1990 Cri.L.J Page 47 (Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP, CB CID, 1993 Cr.L.J page 3019, the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilty under explanation (b) of section 498-A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498-A IPC observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under section 498-A explanation (b) must have the nexus with the FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 11/31 demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498-A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme court in the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed the cruelty under section 498-A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
10. It is pertinent to observe that complainant of the present case unfortunately expired before recording her testimony. The object of examination-in-chief is to elicit the truth, to prove the facts which bear upon the issue in favour of the party calling the witness. After the party calling a witness has finished the examination-in-chief, the opposite party has a right to cross examine the witness. If a witness after being examining in chief does not appear to subject him to cross examination his evidence becomes valueless and cannot be looked into. In the present case, the examination in chief of complainant could not be recorded. The complaint which is the basis of registration of present FIR and subsequent proceedings against the accused has not been proved as per the relevant provisions. The complainant in FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 12/31 her entire complaint has not narrated a single specific incident except dated 22.04.2000. The complainant has levelled very vague and general allegations against the accused, which are not supported by any cogent and corroborative evidence. The complainant has not even mentioned specific role of accused persons except few incidents, which are also not substantiated for want of corroborative evidence.
11. Let us now discuss the testimonies of different witnesses in detail. The testimony of PW-2/Sunhera Singh, father of the complainant, is reproduced and appreciated as below:-
PW-2 in his examination in chief deposed that marriage of his daughter with Rajesh Kumar was solemnized on 30.04.1998 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. PW2 further deposed that he had given in the marriage furniture comprising of sofa set, double bed, Almirah, electric items like fridge, T.V etc. PW2 further deposed that jewelery comprising of gold and silver worth Rs.80,000/- was also given in marriage. PW2 had relied upon list of dowry articles Ex.PW2/A bearing signatures of his daughter Geeta at point A. After the marriage, his daughter went to her matrimonial house at Sonipat, Haryana. PW2 further deposed that after passing of two to three months accused persons started harassing her daughter and raised demands of dowry. All accused persons started demanding scooter and cash for opening of the FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 13/31 shop. It is further deposed that his daughter started complaining about the behaviour of the accused persons. Accused persons made demands sometime on telephone and also when PW2 used to visit the house of his daughter alongwith his wife. PW2 further deposed that mother-in-law of his daughter used to provoke her son to beat the complainant on petty matters.
It is further deposed by PW2 that his daughter delivered a male child on 24.01.1999 at Village Bayian Pur, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana. Choochak was sent by him through his son Bhupinder comprising of cloths of all the family members of accused husband. All the accused persons threw these articles by saying that nothing had been given by the family of the complainant. It is also deposed that they all again repeated their demands for scooter and cash for opening the chemist shop. Accused persons thereafter, enlarged further harassment and torture to his daughter. PW2 further deposed that on 13.09.1999 accused Rajesh left his daughter in three wearing cloths alongwith child in his house at Sonipat. PW2 also deposed that his daughter had informed him that all her jewelery articles were taken by her in-laws.
PW2 also deposed that as accused Rajesh used to demand an amount in cash for opening of chemist shop. Therefore, he had applied for the grant of permission to further loan to his son-in-law in the bank but the same was declined. PW2 also relied upon carbon copy of the application as Mark A. The FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 14/31 letter from State Bank of Patiala regarding rejection of loan application is Ex.PW2/B. Copy of the same was delivered by him to the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. Due to his reason, accused Rajesh and his parents got furious and started harassing his daughter to their maximum. PW2 also deposed that at the time of leaving his daughter at his house in Sonipat, accused Rajesh told him that she would be taken back only when his demands were satisfied. PW2 further deposed that his daughter got a interview call for the post of pharmacist and he went to her matrimonial house in order to collect her original academic certificates. There, he was beaten and maltreated by Rajesh and his parents. After getting the job as pharmacist in G.B Pant hospital, his daughter started residing with her grandfather at Sagarpur, Delhi and thereafter at Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. On 17.04.2000, Mehar Singh came to the hospital and threatened to kill his daughter. That incident was narrated to him by his daughter.
On 22.04.2000, accused Rajesh alongwith three other boys went to the G.B Pant hospital at the counter where his daughter was discharging her duties. Rajesh violently rushed to his daughter, caught hold of her hair and started pushing her towards a car standing outside, intending to abduct her. PW2 also deposed that his brother in law Dhanpat Singh who had gone there to meet his daughter, alongwith other staff members intervened and caused Rajesh to stop his violent act. His daughter FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 15/31 gave a complaint in writing at PS I.P Estate on 23.04.2000. Copy of the same is Ex.PW2/D. His daughter had filed another complaint to the police on 12.07.2000 which is Ex.PW2/E as no action was taken by the police on complaint dated 23.04.2000. On the basis of later complaint, matter was referred to the CAW Cell, Rajender Nagar where number of hearings had taken place but nothing had been done by the police officials. In the CAW Cell, Rajender Nagar, accused Mehar Singh, Rajesh and 3-4 other persons gave him beatings and threatened him. PW2 reported the matter to the police, copy of the DD dated 11.09.2000 is Mark A. On 23.11.2000, his daughter went to the DCP, Central and lodged complaint against her husband and in-laws, which is Ex.PW2/F. On 04.01.2001, his daughter again reported the matter against her in-laws with respect to demand of dowry, copy of DD is Mark A. PW2 also deposed that his daughter also gave the complaint on 16.04.2002, 20.06.2002 and finally on 12.12.2002 and ended her life. PW2 also deposed that on 14.03.2001, during the hearing of bail matters in Patiala house Courts, accused persons were got provoked and gave her beatings. Accused persons also caught her throat with the intention to kill her and a separate case is also pending against them. The marriage card of his daughter is Ex.PW2/G. PW2 further deposed that stridhan i.e. jewelery and other articles are still in possession of the accused persons.
PW2 during the course of his cross examination FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 16/31 admitted that the withdrawal form dated 11.09.1996 which is Ex.PW2/D1 has his signatures on the back side, though, he denied knowing accused Mehar Singh, prior, to the marriage of his daughter with accused Rajesh. PW2 has accepted the suggestion put to him by counsel for the accused that he was the only earning member of his family at the time of marriage of his daughter Geeta. PW2 has submitted that he had not obtained the bills of the purchase of stridhan articles. PW2 has during the course of his cross examination admitted that in his statement recorded before the police he had not stated that he had given furniture comprising of Sofa set, double bed, Almirah etc, electronic items like T.V, fridge and jewelery items comprising of gold and silver worth Rs.80,000/-.
PW2 was also unable to divulge the names of the shop or other places from where he had purchased the stridhan articles and gifts. PW2 further did not remember whether he had obtained the bills of the jewelery items which were given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. PW2 has further submitted that the complaint Ex.PW3/A was written and signed by his daughter in his presence. PW2 has also submitted that Geeta had lived in her matrimonial house from 30.04.1998 till 13.09.1999 and during the said period no complaint was lodged either by him or by his daughter against the accused persons neither any medical examination was got conducted. PW2 has also submitted that he had not got conducted his medical examination after he had been FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 17/31 beaten by accused persons. PW2 has further admitted during the course of his cross examination that in his statement before the Sessions Court he has stated that no list of dowry articles was either prepared or handed over to the accused persons in the marriage and that he had known the accused persons prior to the marriage.
12. Testimony of PW-3/Smt. Kamlesh, mother of the complainant is reporduced and appreciated as below:-
PW3 deposed during the course of her examination in chief that her daughter Geeta was harassed by her husband, mother in law and father in law for bringing less dowry. The accused persons used to demand scooter and cash of Rs.1 lac for opening of chemist shop from her. PW3 came to know about these abovesaid demands and torture when she visited the matrimonial house of her daughter. On 24.01.1999, when her daughter gave birth to male child, PW3 sent jewelery article, clothes and food items to matrimonial house of the complainant but accused persons had thrown all the articles and started demanding scooter and cash of Rs.1 lac.
It is also deposed that accused Rajesh and his family members had also misbehaved with her son while throwing away the articles which he had brought. PW3 further deposed that on
13.09.1999 accused Rajesh left her daughter at her house at Sonipat in three wearing clothes. PW3 further deposed that when FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 18/31 her husband went to matrimonial house of her daughter for collecting her original documents, accused persons misbehaved and abused him.
PW3 further deposed that on 22.04.2000, accused Rajesh alongwith three other persons went to G.B Pant hospital and asked her daughter to come out. When she told them that she could come out only after seeing patients, they started beating and abusing her. Accused Rajesh started harassing and threatening her daughter at various places so that she could not attend her job. Thereafter, her daughter lodged the complaint before CAW Cell which is Ex.PW3/A dated 11.09.2000.
PW3 during the course of her cross examination submitted that the list of the articles Ex.PW2/A was not prepared in her presence. PW3 also submitted that her husband had prepared the list of articles at the time of marriage of her daughter. PW3 has also expressed her inability to produce the list of articles which he had purchased at the time of Chhochak neither she was able to recollect from where those articles were purchased. PW3 has submitted that the complaint Ex.PW3/A was not written in her presence. PW3 in her cross examination also submitted that neither she nor her daughter had lodged any complaint against the accused persons during her stay at her matrimonial house. PW3 has also submitted that her daughter had asked her husband to live in Delhi as she was working in Delhi while her husband was unemployed.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 19/31
13. The testimony of PW-5/Bhupender Singh, brother of the complainant is reproduced and appreciated as below:-
PW5 Bhupender Singh deposed that in the marriage of her sister Geeta, his father had given all the household articles, gold jewelery, furniture and gifts etc. as per his capacity. After marriage her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started torturing her physically as well as mentally. They started demanding scooter and money for opening of chemist shop. PW5 further deposed that her father instead of giving cash to Rajesh tried his level best for arranging loan. Unfortunately, same could not be sanctioned. PW5 further deposed that when the loan was not sanctioned, complainant was manhandled on several occasions by the accused persons.
PW5 also deposed that on 24.01.1999 when his sister gave birth to the child, he went to the matrimonial house of his sister for Choochak ceremony. Gold items, clothes and other gifts were given to the relatives of accused Rajesh. PW5 also deposed that father-in-law of his sister taunted him by saying that "Chithde lekar aya hai". PW5 further deposed that all accused persons threw the gift items by saying that they were not as per their standards. PW5 further deposed that when he came back to his house, his sister telephonically informed him that accused persons had physically tortured her.
PW5 further deposed that on 13.09.1999 Rajesh came to his house at Sonipat with his sister and baby, left them there FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 20/31 and then went away. PW5 also submitted that on several occasions he tried his level best to settle the matter but in-laws of complainant did not respond positively. PW5 further deposed that his sister got job at G.B Pant hospital. Accused Rajesh alongwith three persons after five to six days of her appointment reached at G.B Pant hospital and told his sister to come outside. His sister requested them to wait for some time but they instead of waiting, entered the room and caught his sister from hair and pulled her out in order to take her away in a car standing outside. PW5 further deposed that at that time his Mama reached there and protected complainant from the clutches of accused and three other persons. The complaint qua the abovesaid incident was lodged but even after filing the complaint accused Rajesh did not change his attitude and continued misbehaving with his sister at public places i.e bus stand etc. PW5 during his cross examination submitted that at the time of marriage of his sister Geeta, all the brothers and sisters were studying. PW5 had also submitted that he had visited matrimonial house of his sister twice when she told him that she was beaten by her in-laws by bringing insufficient dowry but they did not made any complaint to the police or any other authority. PW5 has also submitted that articles for giving in dowry were purchased with the money of his father. PW5 has submitted that he had not filed any complaint qua the demands made by accused Rajesh, directly from him.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 21/31
14. The testimony of PW-6/Dhanpat Singh, maternal uncle of the complainant is reproduced and appreciated as below:-
PW6 in his examination in chief deposed that he is maternal uncle of complainant Geeta. PW6 further submitted that his sister i.e. mother of the complainant spent according to their status in the marriage of complainant Geeta. After few days of the marriage, father in law and husband of complainant insisted Geeta to bring scooter and started beating her. PW6 also submitted that the said incident was explained to him by his sister. PW6 further submitted that all accused persons also demanded money from complainant Geeta for opening of chemist shop but when the demand was not fulfilled, they started beating her mercilessly. PW6 further deposed that when Bhupender went to house of Geeta for giving Chhochhak, he was behaved badly by the family of accused Rajesh. PW6 also deposed that father of complainant Geeta was also misbehaved when he went for collecting documents of Geeta. On 22.04.2000 PW6 went to G.B Pant hospital to see Geeta and there he was that Rajesh was holding her by hair and was beating her. PW6 further deposed that then with the help of other people he tried to rescue Geeta.
During the course of his cross examination, PW6 showed his unawareness with respect to the list of articles, prepared at the time of marriage of complainant Geeta. PW6 has specifically submitted that in his presence no demand of dowry FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 22/31 was ever raised by the accused persons. PW6 has also admitted during his cross examination that on 22.04.2000 nobody could enter into the hospital either for getting treatment or meeting staff without obtaining pass from the counter of said hospital. PW6 was also not able to divulge the names of staff persons with whom he saved Geeta on 22.04.2000. PW6 has also submitted that Geeta had not received any injury on 22.04.2000 therefore, no medical examination got conducted. PW6 has admitted that Geeta wanted to reside with accused/husband at Delhi and refused to live in her matrimonial house.
15. The testimony of PW-7/Sumer Chand Dhania is reproduced and appreciated as below:-
PW7 in his examination in chief deposed that he had attended the marriage ceremony of Geeta with Rajesh. Parents of Geeta spent according to their status in her marriage. After some days of the marriage of Geeta, it was heard by him that her in-laws started demanding scooter and money for opening of chemist shop due to their demands they also started treating her badly. PW7 further deposed that father of Geeta tried to procure the loan for opening of the chemist shop but the same was rejected by the bank. PW7 also deposed that he tried to settle the matter by calling them in the marriage ceremony of his daughter but no amicable solution could be found.
PW7 during the course of his cross examination FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 23/31 admitted that he is the friend of Geeta's father. It is also submitted by PW7 that no list of strihan articles was prepared in his presence. PW7 during the course of his cross examination has also admitted that after the solemnization of marriage, he had never visited the matrimonial house of Geeta. It is also admitted by PW7 that in his presence, no incident of beating or demand of dowry took place.
16. The testimony of PW-10/RAjinder Singh, Fufaji of the complainant is reproduced and appreciated as below:-
PW10 in his examination in chief deposed that on 30.04.1998 marriage of Geeta was solemnized with Rajesh as per the customs. Lots of articles were given in the marriage by the father of complainant. After few days of marriage, PW10 came to know from the father of complainant that accused Rajesh and his father started demanding scooter from the complainant. They also demanded the money for opening of the chemist shop for accused Rajesh. They all started harassing and pressurizing Geeta for fulfilling their demands. Under pressure, father of the complainant applied for the loan for chemist shop but the same was rejected and therefore, their demands could be fulfilled. It is further deposed by PW6 that due to that accused Rajesh alongwith his father and mother started more harassments to complainant Geeta which eventually made her life difficult at her matrimonial home.
PW10 alongwith father of the complainant visited matrimonial FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 24/31 house of Geeta and there they tried to talk with accused Rajesh as well as his family members but accused persons were not ready to understand and stick to their demands. Accused persons manhandled the father of the complainant when he went to collect the certificates of complainant Geeta. Accused persons were also not happy with the chhochhak given to them and demanded more articles.
It is further deposed by PW10 that on 22.04.2000 accused Rajesh alonwgith his friends went to G.B Pant hospital, there accused called Geeta outside from the counter. When she refused, accused entered inside the counter and dragged her outside by holding her from hair. In the meantime, Dhanpat Singh, maternal uncle of the complainant went to meet the complainant and when he saw the incident, he alongwith staff members rescued her. Even during the process of councelling, accused persons did not change their attitude and misbehaved with PW10 as well as other relatives and used abusive words against them.
PW10 expressed his unawareness when confronted with the list of articles Ex.PW2/A that whether that is the same list which was prepared at the time of solemnization of marriage. PW10 has also admitted the suggestion put to him by counsel for the accused that whenever he visited the matrimonial house of complainant, no incident of dowry demand was raised by the accused persons in his presence. PW10 has also submitted during the course of his cross examination that Geeta was employed in FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 25/31 Delhi, therefore, she wanted to live with accused Rajesh in Delhi.
17. The testimony of PW-11/Smt. Shilawati is reproduced and appreciated as below:-
PW11 Smt. Shilawati in her examination in chief submitted that she is working in G.B Pant hospital since 1997. She knew complainant Geeta as she was working in pharmacy department. PW11 further deposed that no incident occurred in her presence with Geeta, however, she came to know that husband of Geeta came to the hospital and a quarrel took place between Geeta and her husband. PW11 also deposed that she was never told anything by Geeta regarding that incident. In fact she came to know the same from other people.
Ld. Public Prosecutor for the state thereafter, cross examined PW11 on the ground that she was resiling from her statement given to the police. During her cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, PW11 specifically denied the suggestion put to her by Ld. Public Prosecutor that the concerned incident occurred in her presence. PW11 submitted that she was on leave on that day when the alleged incident occurred, she came to know the same thereafter. PW11 also submitted that she had not given any statement to the police in which she had mentioned that the incident occurred in her presence. During her cross examination by counsel for accused, PW11 submitted that she cannot identify accused Rajesh as she had never seen him.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 26/31
18. Now dealing with testimonies of material prosecution witnesses in respect to the allegations of complainant. In this regard, the court is of the view that while appreciating the evidence in cases involving matrimonial disputes, the court has to be on its guard and not to be swayed by the general and bald nature of allegations which are bound to emanate from the mouth of family members of the woman after the relations between two sides have gone to the extreme opposite end. It is for this reason a strict analysis of allegations levelled by the family members of the complainant should be done.
No doubt, there are improvements and inconsistencies in the statements given by the witnesses before the police and their depositions in the court. Ld. Counsel for the accused has specifically pointed out the same and confronted the witnesses on that aspect in their respective cross examinations. These improvements have never been explained either by the witnesses themselves or by the Ld. APP for the state. It is not comprehensible that how these important facts have left to be told when they were fresh in memory of the concerned witnesses.
There are other facts which are neither understandable nor explained by the prosecution like PW-2 has submitted that he was beaten by the accused persons at least on two occasion but he has failed to file on record any medical evidence in that regard. Later on, he himself admitted that he never got himself medically examined after such alleged beatings.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 27/31 Though it has been alleged that the complainant Geeta was beaten mercilessly and was treated harshly on various occasions but no complaint except the present complaint was ever lodged by the complainant herself or by any other family member. Neither any medical document was either prepared or put on record qua these alleged beatings. It is not comprehensible that how a person who has been allegedly beaten harshly and mercilessly on various occasions but was neither medically examined nor any complaint was lodged in that regard?
19. Also, it is not unsafe here to say that almost all the material witnesses are close relatives of the complainant or her father. Witnesses PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW10 have never claimed in their entire testimony that either they have witnessed the alleged incidents of cruelty or any demand was made by the accused persons in their presence. Nowhere, it has been stated by PW5 that he had witnessed any alleged incident of manhandling or even for that matter taunting. At the most he had said in his examination in chief that either the same fact had been told to him by the other family members or intimated on telephone by the complainant herself. Though, first time during the course of his cross examination he has submitted that the demand of cash for opening of shop and also scooter was made directly from him by accused Rajesh on more than one occasion. But he was unable to recall the date or time of making any such demand.
FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 28/31 PW6 has himself submitted that he had heard from others the alleged incidents of cruelty meted out to the complainant. PW-6 has never claimed that he had witnessed the incident dated 22.04.2000 in G.B Pant hospital. Even otherwise also, PW6 has himself submitted that nobody could enter the premise of G.B Pant hospital without pass on 22.04.2000 but at the same time also told that he was not having any pass. This further created the doubt of his presence at premises on the alleged date. The other witness i.e. PW11 of the abovesaid incident has already submitted that she had never witnessed any such incident. No other public witness with respect to that incident was ever examined by the prosecution though the alleged place of incident was a hospital and many persons might would have been present at the time of incident. PW7 has also admitted in his cross examination that in his presence no demand of dowry was ever raised by the accused persons. PW10 also came to know the alleged incidents of demands from the father of complainant, he has himself also not witnessed any such incident. PW 10 has admitted in his cross examination that demand of dowry was never raised by the accused persons in his presence.
20. Thus, taking into consideration all the well discussed testimonies it can be safely said that prosecution has failed to show any approximity or chain of events to establish the fact that all the accused systematically committed cruelty against the FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 29/31 complainant to bring home the evidence u/s 498A IPC against the accused. The word cruelty u/s 498A IPC means the harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or also on account of failure by her to meet such demand. The allegations that the accused persons had beaten the complainant as such does not fall under the cruelty as defined u/s 498A IPC. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond pales of reasonable doubts and there should not be any iota of doubts in favour of the accused persons. In these circumstances, as the prime witness of the prosecution, the complainant having expired and want of corroborative evidence, the prosecution has not been able to prove the commission of offence u/s 498A IPC by the accused persons.
On the basis of above discussion and testimony of witnesses, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused persons. Thus, both the accused persons viz. Rajesh Kumar and Krishna Devi are acquitted for the offence u/s 498A IPC.
21. With respect to the allegations u/s 406 IPC charge was framed against all the accused persons. PW2 during his evidence has submitted that he had purchased the stridhan articles from various shops though he was not able to obtain the bills regarding the same. No receipt of purchase of any jewellery items or any other dowry article has been put on record by the complainant. It is FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 30/31 an admitted fact that PW-2 is the only earning member of the family at the time of marriage of the complainant. Prosecution has also failed to put on record any document to establish/prove the actual income of father of the complainant or any other relevant piece of evidence which would divulge the status of parties at the time of giving of alleged dowry. Prosecution has also failed to place on record any proof of handing over the jewelery articles which were allegedly given to the complainant at the time of her marriage to accused persons. In absence of any cogent evidence regarding the entrustment and consequent misappropriation, accused Rajesh Kumar and Krishna Devi are acquitted for the offence u/s 406 IPC.
Previous bail bond of accused persons are further extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today on this 17th day of March, 2015.
(MANU VEDWAN) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Central-01, Delhi FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 31/31 FIR No. 479/00 PS I.P Estate State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
17.03.2015
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Father of the complainant.
Both accused in person.
Vide separate judgment of even date accused Rajesh Kumar and Krishna Devi are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Previous bail bond of accused persons are further extended for a period of six months as per Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
(MANU VEDWAN) Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Central-01, Delhi FIR No. 479/00 State Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 32/31