Delhi District Court
State vs . Rattan Mittal on 19 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Rattan Mittal
FIR No.469/94
P.S. : Sarojini Nagar
U/S 406/498A IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 06.10.1997
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 666/2
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 30.09.1992 (date of
marriage)
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :Mrs. Alka Mittal
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS :1. Rattan Mittal
s/o Sh. Jai Parkash
R/o Mukherjee Building
Parao, near Hotel
Saurabh, Civil Lines,
Haldwani, Nainital
2. Sunil Mittal s/o Sh.
Jai Parkash, R/o C30,
HMT Township, Rani
Bagh, Nainital .
St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 2
3. Lata Mittal w/o Sunil Mittal, R/o C30, HMT Township, Rani Bagh, Nainital (accused no. 2 and 3 already discharged vide order dated 03.09.2003)
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 406/498A IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 16.01.2012
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquitted.
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 19.03.2012.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that accused persons during the subsistence of marriage subjected the complainant with cruelty. Further the accused persons were entrusted with the dowry articles as mentioned in the list Mark A and accused persons converted the same to their own use and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said entrusted property. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant against the accused persons and investigation was carried out.
St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 3
2. Charge sheet under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was filed in the court, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 03.09.2003 accused Sunil Mittal and Lata Mittal were discharged and charge for offence under Section 406/498A IPC was directed to be framed on accused Rattan Mittal. Vide order dated 03.09.2003 charge was framed against the accused Rattan Mittal for offence u/s 406/498A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 30.09.2009.
4. PW1Sh. Inderpal deposed that the complainant Alka Mittal is daughter of his friend Sh. K.B. Bansal. She got married with the accused Ratan Mittal in Sarojini Nagar. He had attended the marriage. Whatever the articles he remembered given in the marriage of Alka by her parents are one gold nath, pair of ear rings, 2/3 gold chains, gold bracelets, silver pajeb. He remember only these articles as jewellery articles and many other jewellery articles were also given which he has forgotten. Apart from this certain other household St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 4 articles were also given. His friend Mr. Bansal had told him that in lieu of heavy furniture articles such as fridge, TV, bed, washing machine, dressing table etc. cash of Rs. 65,000/ was given by Mr. Bansal to the accused. He came to know that Alka Mittal was not happy in her in laws family. She was being beaten up there. He does not the reason for beatings given to her. Once he had also observed when she came to parental house that she was quite weak and looking thin. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he is a retired public servant from Income Tax Department. His friend was working in CBI Office (RAW). He has no idea about the income of Mr. Bansal. He had himself seen the above said jewellery articles at the time of marriage which was being given in the marriage of Alka Mittal as the same had been worn by the complainant Alka Mittal at the time of marriage. The marriage was solemnized in the year September 1990. In the jewellery articles/cash he had not contributed anything. He voluntarily added that he had given some gift worth Rs. 500/, Rs. 1000/. The gift included cash and one saree and Rs. 500/. When he had observed the complainant as weak and thin, it was after one and half years of marriage but he does not remember the date and month and the year exactly. He was never involved in removing the tensions between the complainant and her husband. He never made efforts to know in detail regarding the dispute between the complainant and her St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 5 husband.
5. PW2 complainant Alka Mittal deposed that she got married with accused Rattan Mittal on 30.09.1992. Regarding the solemnization of marriage the family of the accused had communicated to us that they wanted that the marriage should take place in Lucknow and they were also prepared for the same but at the last moment they changed their mind and asked them to have all the marriage ceremonies performed in Delhi. Then they made arrangement in Barat Ghar at Sarojini Nagar where finally the marriage was solemnized. She correctly identified the accused Rattan Mittal in the court. She further deposed that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given about Rs. 75,000/ cash in installments for purchase of furniture and electronic items. She was being given clothes, jewellery etc. at the time of her marriage as dowry. Her in laws has also gifted her some jewellery items and clothes at the time of marriage. She joined her matrimonial home after marriage. Within twothree days of her marriage, her mother in law, sister in law and accused Ratan Mittal started taunting her that marriage has not been performed as per their expectation and that they had not received sufficient cash which they were expecting. After fourfive days she had come to her parental home for studies. And thereafter she had rejoined her matrimonial St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 6 home in January 1993 at Nainital. However, in between at she visited her matrimonial home at Nainital on festivals. Her sister in law Lata Mittal, her husband Sunil Mittal and her mother in law used to stay int hat house situated at Nainital. Again her sister in law, brother in law, mother in law and husband started harassing and maltreating her mentally as well as physically. Though she used to work whole day, but even for the petty mistakes, her sister in law used to complain to her husband who in turn used to beat her. This was a daily affair. After twothree months she had shifted to Kathgodam along with accused Ratan Mittal and mother in law. Even while staying at Kathgodam she was made to go to her sister in law place and do the entire work of her house as well as of her house in Kathgodam. The accused husband used to torture her and make demand of money from her. Whatever money her parents used to give her from time to time was being taken away by the accused. Her parents used to give money to her as they knew that accused was not giving any money to her. As a matter of fact her parents knew that the accused is only drawing Rs. 4000/ as salary which is not sufficient to run the family. She further deposed that at the time of the marriage the accused and his parents had told to her parents that accused is earning Rs. 4000/ per month but later on it had come to her knowledge that he was only drawing Rs. 2500/ per month from his factory. As he was unable to fulfill even his St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 7 petty day to day needs, he used to demand money from her and whatever her father used to give her, the accused used to take from her. Even the accused wanted that her father should pay the installment of DDA land which as per the accused he was purchasing. There were 6 installments of different amount and out of them two installments approximately Rs. 18,000/ and Rs. 17,000/ respectively were paid by her father. The accused also wanted that the third installment amounting of Rs. 16,000/ should also be paid by her father. She can produce the receipts of both the installments given by her father to State Bank of India. She can also produce the original handwriting of the accused for preparing the bank draft of Rs. 17,552/ by her father in favour of Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority. She can also produce the copy of draft got prepared by her father of the same amount. She further deposed that she was treated like a maid in the house as she was not able to fulfill the demands of her husband and her in laws despite the residing in the rented accommodation at Kathgodam, Distt. Nainital. She was asked to visit her jethani Ms. Lata Mittal and jeth Sh. Sunil Mittal who were also residing at Rani Bagh, Distt. Nainital. She was kept like a prisoner in the house of her jethani and jeth. Her husband used to leave her there early in the morning where she was compelled to do all the household work and if she refused to go there her husband used to quarrel with her. Her jethani St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 8 used to say that she had not brought the dowry as per their expectations. Her husband & his brother and his parents had taken cash at the time of the marriage in lieu of the furniture and other household appliances but after the marriage neither they purchased the household appliances nor the furniture. On the contrary they used to blame her for not bringing these furniture and other appliances. Her mother in law, her husband and her jethani used to say that her parents could have given articles in place of the cash. She further deposed that when she was tortured much she had written letters to her parents on 14.03.1993. The photocopy of which is already on record. Thereafter she had brought the original one and photocopy was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. She had also brought original letter written by her father addressed to her father in law and mother in law dated 04.10.1992. The photocopy of same was exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. She had also written letter to her jeth Sh. D.K. Mittal on 01.09.1993, photocopy of same is Mark A and bears her signatures at point B. The letter dated 03.09.1993 addressed to her another jeth Sh. P.C. Mittal is Mark B bears her signatures at point A. She has not brought the originals of two letters as they are not with her as they may be in the possession of her both the jeth whose name she had mentioned earlier. She deposed that her husband had brought her to Delhi on 04.10.1993 by saying that he was transfered to Delhi for two months. He St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 9 started to quarrel with her on one issue or the other. When her husband received the information about her pregnancy he started quarreling with her and finally on 15.11.1993 her husband had beaten her so mercilessly that her father had to call to her sister in law who was also residing in Delhi. She reached at her parental house where she was residing with her husband. She quarreled with her and went away after taking her brother with her. Afterward they did not bother her and in the month of March 1994 when her husband came to know that she had got the job at NGO namely Jigyasa, her husband started to harass her even on the roads in Delhi. Thereafter she made the complaint at Women Cell, because she wanted to avoid all these harassment and torture by her husband and his family members and for getting her dowry articles back. Her complaint is Ex. PW1/C which bears her signature at point A. The list of her dowry articles consisting of seven pages is Ex. PW1/D (collectively). It is in her handwriting. Her dowry articles were detained by her husband Ratan Mittal, her sister in law and his family members. She had demanded her dowry articles from accused Ratan Mittal but did not bother about the same and said that the dowry articles belongs to the husband side. None of her dowry articles recovered from the possession of her husband and in laws and is still in the possession of her husband and other in laws. Her application for reopening the case are Ex. PW1/E and F. St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 10 The photographs of her marriage are P1 and P2. After filing of the complaint at the women cell and the matter was got stopped for compromise her husband Ratan Mittal had come to her house quarreled with her and thereafter made a complaint at Police Station Vinay Nagar that he was beaten by her and her parents. Thereafter, finding no option she got case reopened and her application in this regard is already exhibited. In her cross examination, she deposed that as 14 years had passed, she does not remember whether she had stated in her complaint that her parents had given about Rs. 75,000/ cash in installments for purchase of furniture and electronics items at the time of her marriage. Thereafter witness was confronted with the complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/E and PW1/F where it is not so recorded. She does not remember whether she had stated in her application that within twothree days of her marriage, her mother in law, sister in law and accused Rattan Mittal that marriage have not been performed as per their expectations and they had not received proper cash which they were expecting. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She had written in her complaint that though she used to work whole day, but even for the petty mistakes her sister in law used to complain her husband who in turn used to beat her. This was a daily affair. Thereafter St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 11 witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She had written in her complaint that the accused husband used to torture her and make demand of money from her. It is not so written in the same manner, however, it was written in Ex. PW1/C on page no. 4 that "jab unki wah unki bhai bhabhi ki paise ke bhook badi in complaint Ex. PW1/F "mujhe rupaye paise ko leker, ladai jhagda shuru kar diya". She does not remember whether she had written in her complaint that as he was unable to fulfill even his petty need he used to demand money from her. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She does not remember whether she had written in her complaint that even the accused wanted that her father would pay the installment of DDA land. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She does not remember whether she had stated in her complaint that she was also harassed and tortured by husband and jethani. Her jethani used to say that the she had not brought the dowry as per their expectations. Her husband and his brother and his parents had taken cash at the time of the marriage in lieu of the furniture and other household appliances but after the marriage neither they purchased the household appliances nor the furniture. On the contrary they used to blame St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 12 her for not bringing these furniture and other appliances. Her mother in law, her husband and her jethani used to say that her parents even can give articles inspite of cash. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She does not remember whether she had written in her complaint that when he was tortured much she had written letters to her parents on 14.03.1993. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She had not written about the letter dated 04.10.1992 in her complaints. She had not mentioned about the same because she had no intention to fight more. She had written in her original complaint Ex. PW1/C that when her husband received the information about her pregnancy he started to quarreling with her and finally on 15.11.1993 her husband had beaten her so mercilessly that he father had to call to her sister in law. Wherein it is recorded in complaint Ex. PW1/C in the manner that "04.10.1993 se November 1993 tak jab tak who yahan rahe, roj kisi na kisi baat ko lekar mujhse jgadne ka bahana dhudnte rahe aur phir jaise hi yeh pata chala ki main pregnant hoon, jhagda aur bhi bad gaya, papa ne samjhane ke liye unke Delhi wali bahen aur bahnoi ko bulaya." She had stated in her complaint that her sister in law quarrelled with her and went away after taking her brother with her. Thereafter witness was confronted St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 13 with complaint Ex. PW1/C, where it is recorded in the manner "par samjhane ki bajaye who log ulta mujh par iljam laga kar mujhe mere mata pita ke pass chhod kar, Rattan Mittal ko apne saath le gayi". She might have written in her complaint that in the month of March 1994, when her husband came to know that she had go the job at NGO namely Jigyasa, her husband started to harass her even on the roads in Delhi and thereafter she made the complaint at Women Cell. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C and Ex.PW1/E where it was not so recorded. She does not remember whether she had written in her complaint that she had demanded her dowry articles from accused Rattan Mittal but did not bother about the same and said that the dowry articles belongs to the husband side. Thereafter witness was confronted with complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F, where it was not so recorded. She had not mentioned in complaint Ex. PW1/E that her main complaint was closed for compromise but she had mentioned in her another complaint Ex. PW1/F. She had written in her letter Mark A & B regarding the harassment, torture, cruelty inflicted by her husband and other in law on her as started by her in her examination in chief. Thereafter witness was confronted with letter Mark A and B, where it was not so recorded. The said confrontation was objected by Ld. APP. She had filed a divorce case against her husband on the ground of harassment St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 14 and cruelty. The allegations of cruelty were almost same in that petition and that divorce petition was dismissed. She admitted as correct that the divorce petition was dismissed on merits. Copy of judgment is Ex. PW2/DA. She admitted as correct that marriage was performed through a matrimonial add in a magazine Samaj Jyoti given by the accused. She does not remember whether her father had got an item published in the said magazine regarding her marriage with Ratan Mittal and that in that item it was mentioned hat the marriage was performed with Arya Samaj rites and the same was every simple marriage performed during day time without pomp and show including Ghori & Band Baja. She admitted as correct that the publication is Mark DA. She denied the suggestion that nothing was given by her parents in her marriage to the accused and his family members. She denied the suggestion that she was treated with all love and affection by her husband and her in laws or that she was never harassed or treated with cruelty by anyone of them. She denied the suggestion that no demand of money or any other thing/article was ever made by her husband and in laws from her. She stated that except her husband none of her in law had ever written letter to her when she was away from her matrimonial home and was residing with her parents. Even she had not written any letter to her husband or her in laws. She again said that after the dispute she had written letter to her jeth. She does not St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 15 remember whether she had ever received letter Mark DB. She denied the suggestion that these letters bear date and time of receiving in her handwriting encircled at Mark A. She admitted as correct that the letters Mark DC. She voluntarily added that these letters were written by her during the period when she used to visit to her parental house. She denied the suggestion that her husband had taken separate house at Kathgodam because she wanted it so. She denied the suggestion that her husband had got himself transferred to Delhi because she wanted it as she was feeling lonely in that separate house and she used to fell that her career in life was not going to advance in that remote area. She denied the suggestion that the money for the installments of land paid by her father was given by the accused Rattan Mittal. She denied the suggestion that she was unwell and had medical problems like headache, shin problem and used to take her to doctor. She admitted as correct that pregnancy test was got done. She denied the suggestion that she did not want to deliver the child so she got abortion done. She denied the suggestion that she wanted her husband to stay as ghar jamai. She voluntarily added that it that were so she would not have got married but kept a dog as a pet. She denied the suggestion that she has lodged a false case to put pressure on accused so that he lives with her on her terms or that she is deposing falsely.
St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 16
6. PW3 Kamlesh Bansal deposed that her sister Alka was got married with the accused Rattan Mittal on 30.09.1992 in Delhi and after marriage her sister was taken to her matrimonial house at Rani Bagh, Nainital. Thereafter dispute had taken place between his sister and the accused Rattan Mittal. Her sister fell ill and they brought their sister back to their house at Delhi. She was having problems from her in laws side. She had told to her mother. Thereafter the accused Rattan Mittal was transfered to Delhi. They made efforts for reconciliation but no compromise could be taken place. His sister used to tell to her parents. He started to reside separately in 1998. He does not want to depose anything. He does not remember whether police had recorded his statement or not. Thereafter, Ld. APP crossexamined the said witness after taking leave of the court. In his crossexamination, he deposed that police had recorded his statement. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is read over to him and he stated that his statement is correctly recorded. The statement is Ex. PW3/A. He admitted as correct that the cash, jewellery and other articles were given in the marriage of his sister Alka. He further admitted as correct that she was harassed and tortured by the accused Rattan Mittal on the pretext of dowry. He further admitted as correct that her dowry articles have been misappropriated by the accused. He admitted as correct that his sister made a complaint at women Cell, Nanakpura in respect St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 17 of physical and mental torture given to her. He admitted as correct that she had written letters to them. The dowry articles of her sister are also not returned to her.
7. PW4 Sh. Naresh Pathak deposed that he is working with Ansal Housing and Construction Limited. Sh. K.V. Bansal, who was the father of complainant was residing adjoining to his house. Marriage of daughter of Sh. K.V. Bansal was fixed with Mr. Rattan in the year 1992. Being the neighbor they participated in the engagement and marriage functions. As Mr. K.V. Bansal was not having any telephone connection, he used to come to his house very often to use their telephone. They met Mr. Rattan Mittal at that point of time the boy was very good. They got married and then the daughter of Mr. Bansal along with her husband had gone to Nainital where Mr. Rattan Mittal was working. Mr. Rattan Mittal and his wife used to call Mr. Bansal on his telephone and other members of the family. On day in the year 1994 only the brother of the complainant went to Nainital to bring back the sister. Mr. Bansal told him that this daughter was facing problem may be home sick. So far as he recalled after she never went back to Nainital. One day Mr. Bansal told him that there is some problem between the boy and girl. After few days accused Rattan Mittal came to the house of Mr. Bansal and the complainant St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 18 did not went along with her husband. Either on the same evening or on the next evening Mr. Rattan was came to his house and was crying and told him that he was misbehaved in the house and after that he never met Rattan Mittal. After few days Mr. Bansal retired and left the government accommodation and after that what had happened he does not know. Thereafter Ld. APP crossexamined the witness after taking leave of the court. In his crossexamination by Ld. APP he deposed that he is a post graduate. He is residing at said address since 1989. He never heard the conversion between Mr. Bansal and the persons with whom he was talking on telephone. When police came to the house of Mr. Bansal he was called there and police enquired from from him regarding the matter. He does not remember as to whether police recorded his statement. He admitted as correct that the boys side has given one chain, one ring and one sari to the girl. He also admitted as correct that Alka got married to Rattan on 30.09.2002 as per Hindu Rites and customs and he attended the marriage being the neighbor. He does not remember the details whether Mr. Bansal had given 2530 sarees, household articles and gold ornaments to Alka. He doe snot remember as to whether Mr. K.V. Bansal gave Rs. 65000/ to Rattan Mittal in lieu of TV, VCR, Fridge, Almirah, Furniture etc. After the marriage she had gone to Nainital along with her husband. Initially complainant was St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 19 very happy but when her brother went there and bring her back then he found her very upset. He cannot say whether accused persons used to harass Alka. After that his relations with Mr. Bansal got strained and he does not know what has happened thereafter. The statement Mark A from portion X to X had been read over to him and he denied having made to the police. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to save accused or that he has been won over by the accused. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as his relations got strained with Mr. Bansal. In his crossexamination conducted by Ld. defence counsel he deposed that he does not know whether all the gold articles and other costly items have been brought by the complainant when she accompanied her brother from Nainital.
8. The statement of accused person was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the allegations leveled against him and stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that neither he nor his any family members harassed the complainant or treated her with cruelty. He also deposed that no stridhan was ever entrusted by the complainant or her relatives to him or his family members. The accused has examined himself as defence witness in his defence.
St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 20
9. DW1 Rattan Mittal deposed that he was married to complainant Ms. Alka Mittal D/o Sh. K.B. Bansal on 30992, at Baratghar of Sarojini Nagar in day time without any dowry and in a simple manner. News regarding the same was got published by the father of the complainant in the Magazine SAMAJ JYOTI , same is Ex. Dw1/A. Thereafter, they stayed at matrimonial home at Lucknow and on 4101992, the brother of Alka came and took her to Delhi as she was to appear in B.Lib examination. Thereafter, he brought her back to Nainital on 24101992 on the occasion of Deepawali. Thereafter, on 281092 her brother again took her back to Delhi on the occasion of Bhaiya Dooj and she remained in Delhi for her studies. She remained in Delhi till 151292 as her examination were postponed due to demolition of Babri Masjid on 61292. Thereafter he took her back to Nainital on 161292 and th she remained there till 301292. Thereafter, on 2425 January he came to Delhi on 2611993 along with 20000/ which he had brought from Lucknow to be paid to the father of complainant in front of her for depositing in GDA for a plot. Photocopy of pass book showing withdrawal of Rs.20000/ is mark D2. On 3011993 all the jeweleries article of Alka were got deposited by Alka in her locker in Syndicate Bank , R.K. Puram. The said locker was always operated by Alka only and keys of the same were also with her. Photocopy of Letter issued by Bank is mark D1. Thereafter on 31193 he brought Alka St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 21 back to Nainital and they started living separately on rented house at Kathgodam, Nainital and started living happily. The father, mother and brother of Alka used to visit them at kathgodam. On 16893 when the father of Alka visited them, he made issue of some trivial matter and took Alka along with her to Delhi in his absence and without his knowledge. Thereafter, on 12993 he along with his mother went to Delhi and brought Alka back to kathgodam during their visit to Delhi Alka had apologized for accompanying her father to Delhi without informing him. While going to Delhi with her father Alka had taken 2 briefcases and 23 bags full of articles and belongings but while coming to Kathgodam she brought only one small briefcase. But they did not care as he was going to be transferred to Delhi. After the orders of his transfer to Delhi, on 2101993 the brother of Alka came to kathgodam to help them to shift to Delhi. Thereafter, he stayed at Delhi in the house of parents of Alka up to 151193. In the meanwhile on 11193 he took her for pregnancy test and on 31193 he got the report of pregnancy which was positive and informed the parents of Alka and her but they were not happy as they did not want the child to be born, so the mother of Alka suggested for abortion on which there was tension in the house so he called his sister from Shalimar Bagh on 151193 to make Alka understand and not to go for abortion but she was adamant and did not listen him and his sister.
St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 22 Thereafter, he went to the house of his sister at Shalimar Bagh. Thereafter, he tried to meet and make his wife understand on various occasions but all in vain, on the contrary she on the advise of her father got a complaint against him and his family members lodged at CAW Cell, Nanak Pura. Till Alka remained with him either at Nainital or Delhi she always remained happy and there was never any issue of fight between them. All the articles belonging to her always remained with her. Photographs showing the happy state of Alka are mark D3 (4 in number collectively). He always took proper care for her and always provided medical treatment to her as and when needed. None of articles belonging to Alka were ever handed over to him or his family members, either by Alka or her family members. She was never treated badly for demand of any dowry by him or his family members. The cause of difference between him and Alka was her father. He had also filed petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against Alka and Alka had filed divorce case against him which were decided together. Copy of the judgment is exhibited as Ex.PW2/DA. He loves his wife and still wants to live with her. In his crossexamination by Ld. APP he deposed that he was Assistant Engineer in HMT, Watch Factory, Rani Bagh, District Nainital when his marriage was solemnized with his wife. Their marriage was arrange marriage by their parents, on 30992. After about one year they got separated from St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 23 each other at that time he was residing in his in laws house and he was thrown out from said house. There is no issue out of their wedlock. There was differences between him and his wife and members of his in laws house on the issue of termination of pregnancy of my his wife. He opposed the termination of pregnancy and his wife wanted to terminate the same as she did not want child at that time. He did not have any house in Delhi at that time. His in laws wanted him to either live with them or live nearby on rented house. He has a doubt that pregnancy of his wife was got terminated by her but he does not have any documentary proof of the same. His wife conceived incidentally but they did not plan for the same. He wanted that his wife did not terminate the pregnancy. He wanted child to be born and his wife wanted to terminate the pregnancy. But there was no pressure from his side. But he can not say whether she felt any pressure or not as he was making her understand not to terminate the pregnancy. He received some gifts from his in laws at the time of marriage and his wife also got stridhan in marriage from her parents at the time of marriage. He denied the suggestion that he has misused the said Stridhan and other articles of his wife which were given at the time of marriage to him and his wife. He denied the suggestion that he subjected his wife to harassment and cruelty as she was not ready to give birth to child. The locker in the Bank was in joint name and he and his wife St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 24 were both authorized to operate the same which was issued against her bank account number. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to prevent himself from prosecution. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
10. Before proceeding further, it shall be useful to refer to section 498A IPC. Section 498A IPC reads as under:
"498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to like, limb or health (whether mental of physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 25 Section 498A IPC was enacted by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 1983 with effect from 25.12.1983. The word "cruelty" has been explained in Section 498A; so also harassment. "Cruelty" under the Explanation deals with two types of circumstances. Clause (a) refers to wilful conduct leading to suicide or grave injury or danger to life, limb or health which can be either mental or physical of the woman. Clause (b) relates to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable or is on account of failure to meet such demand."
11.Before adverting to the testimony of complainant, I shall deal with the evidence of other public witnesses examined by the prosecution. The PW1( friend of father of complainant) only gave direct evidence in respect of jewellery given by parents of the complainant to the complainant at the time of marriage of complainant. The rest of his evidence is not admissible being hearsay evidence.
The PW3, the brother of the complainant has also not fully supported the case of prosecution and he only deposed in his examination in chief that his sister was having problems from her in laws side and she used to tell her problems to their parents. In the crossexamination of PW3 by Ld. APP, he only made general and vague allegations that the complainant was harassed and tortured by the accused Rattan Mittal in relation to demand for dowry. He St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 26 did not say that he either witnessed the harassment of his sister by accused himself or his sister told him directly about the harassment and torture suffered by her. Therefore his testimony is also hearsay evidence which is inadmissible.
Another independent prosecution witness PW4 has also not supported the prosecution and disowned in his evidence the statement made by him to the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In his evidence PW4 also stated that Mr. Bansal, father of the complainant, only told him that his daughter was facing problems in her matrimonial house and she may be home sick. In his evidence, he has not made any allegations that the accused harassed or tortured the complainant because of her inability to bring more dowry. In fact he has stated in his evidence that one day, the accused came to his house and wept in front of him and told him that the complainant and her family has misbehaved with him in the house of complainant where he was staying for few days. The testimony of this witness in no way prove that the accused committed an offence under explanation (a) or (b) of section 498A IPC.
12.The other witness examined by the prosecution is the complainant. Now it has to be seen that whether on the basis of evidence of complainant the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 27 accused/husband Rattan Mittal subjected the complainant to such harassment which can fall within the mischief of explanation (a) and (b) of section 498A IPC.
13.On going through the evidence of the complainant, it is revealed that complainant has made substantial improvement in her evidence in the court. In fact the omissions made by the complainant in her complaint Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F are glaring. In fact most allegations made by the complainant in her evidence in the court are significantly missing in her various complaints, including the detailed complaint Ex. PW1/C made by her, and the said omissions were duly brought out during the crossexamination of the complainant by the accused persons. There have been catena of cases where improved testimonies has been looked into with skepticism and suspicion. In State of Haryana Vs. Jai Parkash, Supreme Court of India AIR SC 3569, it was held that there was so many improvements in the testimony of the witnesses from the stage to stage that it was difficult to place reliance on their testimonies and the accused were acquitted. In Banwari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Cri.L.J. 3856, the accused were acquitted because the prosecution witnesses have made contradictions and improvements in their testimonies and only on the basis of statement of these St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 28 witnesses the accused persons could not be convicted and sentenced. The improvements made by the complainant has eroded her credibility and it does not inspire confidence.
14.As regards explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC, it is alleged by the complainant that she used to work whole day but on petty mistakes of complainant her husband who in turn used to beat her and it was daily affair. All these allegations are argued to have been covered under explanation (a) of 498A IPC. However, the said allegations appears more general then specific and it would be highly unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of unsubstantiated piece of evidence. Apart from that in the present case the whole evidence as adduced by PWs does not point towards any such incident which could be categorized under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC.
15. As regards explanation (b) of section 498A IPC, in her evidence the complainant has stated that accused along with her other relatives within two days of her marriage, taunted her for not bringing cash that they were expecting. Her husband used to torture and make demand for money from her. Her jethani also used to say that she has not brought the dowry as per their expectations. She also stated that her husband and his brother and his St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 29 parents also blamed her for not bringing furniture and other appliances despite taking cash in lieu of furniture and other household appliances. She has also relied on letter written by her to her parents on 14.03.1993 Ex. PW1/A and letter written by her father to her father in law and mother in law in order to substantiate that she was harassed by the accused for not bringing sufficient dowry. In her entire evidence, the complainant has nowhere stated as to in which manner she has been treated with cruelty by her husband and his other family members. The complainant has also not quoted any specific incident of her harassment in relation to demand of dowry. It is settled law that allegations of cruelty should not be vague and general in nature nor should they be wanting in details and substance. In the case of cruelty specific acts of cruelty and the occasions when, and the place where such acts were committed have to be pleaded and vague allegations of cruelty are not sufficient to convict the accused. Even the contents of letters on record placed by the prosecution also does not manifest that the complainant was harassed by the accused persons for bringing insufficient dowry or for not bringing more dowry. Thus, the prosecution has also failed to prove the essential ingredients of explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Therefore, accused Rattan Mittal is acquitted for offence u/s 498A IPC.
16.Coming to Section 406 IPC,Section 406 IPC deals with criminal breach of St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 30 trust. Section 406 IPC reads as under: "whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both"
Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust. The relevant portion of the definition reads as under: "405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescriting the mode in which such trust is to be charged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or will fully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
17.As regards section 406 IPC, it be observed that in order to establish the commission of offence u/s 406 IPC the necessary ingredient of section 405 IPC are to be proved. Hence, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the entrustment having been made in favour of accused, their dominion/control over the articles entrusted and subsequent misappropriation. The misappropriation tantamount to conversion of articles by the accused to their own use and consumption.
18. Only PW2, the complainant, deposed in the court regarding misappropriation St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 31 of her stridhan by accused. The complainant has stated in her evidence that her dowry articles were retained by her husband Rattan Mittal, her sister in law and his family members. She has demanded back her dowry articles from accused Rattan Mittal but he did not bother about the same and said that dowry articles belongs to the husband side. None of her dowry articles were recovered from the possession of her husband and in laws, and are still in the possession of her husband and other in laws. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. specifically stated that no stridhan was ever entrusted by the complainant to his relatives or to him. On the appreciation of evidence, it has not been stated in evidence of complainant as to what articles of dowry were entrusted and to whom. The evidence is also bereft of other necessary details regarding the dates as to when the dowry articles were entrusted, what were the articles, what was their description, how many articles no such details have been mentioned in the evidence of complainant. Only vague and general allegations have been made that the dowry articles were detained by accused, her jethani and other family members. There is no mention in the evidence as to what were the exact description of the dowry articles which were allegedly handed over. There is also no mention as to the date on which the said dowry articles were demanded back and refused to be returned. Only the general allegation is St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar 32 made that the dowry articles are still in the possession of the accused and other in laws.
19. The prosecution has not produced any photograph or receipt/bill to prove the exchange/possession of stridhan and jewellery articles. Even no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage. There is mandate of provision of 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in view of judgment of Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others, 138 (2007), DLT 152 for preparation of list of dowry articles at the time of marriage duly signed from bride side as well as from groom side. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 406 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused Rattan Mittal is also acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC. Bail bonds & Surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this th day of 19 March 2012 (PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi St. Vs. Rattan Mittal and ors. FIR no. 469/94, P.S. Sarojini Nagar