Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay. on 20 May, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNAL I GUPTA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: MAHILA COURT: DELHI
FIR No. 247/04
PS Sultan Puri.
State Vs. Sanjay.
JUDGEMENT :
1. Sl. No. of the Case : 53/2/09.
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 07.03.2004.
3. Name & Add. Of the Complainant : Mrs. Neetu
D/o Sh. Raj Kumar
W/o Sh. Sanjay
R/o. H. No. 324, Gali No. 6,
Rattan Vihar, Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
4. Name & Add. Of the Accused : Sanjay
S/o Sh. Shri Lal
R/o H. No. 324, Gali No. 6,
Rattan Vihar, Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : U/s 498-A/406 IPC.
6. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
7. Final Order : Acquitted.
8. Date of Order : 20.05.2010.
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION
1. The facts of the present case have been disclosed in the complaint of the complainant Smt. Neetu D/o Sh. Raj Kumar that she got married with accused Sanjay on 21.04.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Three female children were born out of the said 2 wedlock. After her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on pretext of bringing insufficient dowry by the accused and his family members. At the time of birth of her elder daughter, accused Sanjay demanded Rs. 5000/- from her and she arranged the money from her parents. Thereafter, he raised demand regularly. Even she lived with her parents for six months. Thereafter, accused settle the matter and bring her back to her matrimonial home but again started beating her. After the birth of second daughter, accused started harassing her and even not provided medicines for her children. Due to his misbehaviour, complainant left the matrimonial house and started living with her parents. Even her third daughter has born in her parental home. On the occasion of marriage of sister in law, he took her back. Thereafter, he demanded Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant. The parents of complainant somehow managed the said amount but accused again started harassing her. Thereafter, she approached to the police and made a complaint that accused dishonestly misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant for his own use and also that during this above mentioned period the accused being the husband of the complainant, subjected her to cruelty with a view to coercing her to 3 meet his unlawful demands for dowry and thereby committed offence punishable U/s 498A/ 406 IPC.
2. On her complaint, FIR U/s 498-A/406 IPC was registered against the accused, investigation was carried out and challan was prepared and presented in the court after completion of the investigation. Subsequent to the filing of the challan, cognizance was taken and accused was summoned.
3. Thereafter, on appearance of the accused, the case was taken up for framing of Charge/Notice. Thereafter, Charge U/s 498- A/406 IPC was framed against the accused on 20.05.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was thereafter listed for PE.
4. To prove the offence against the accused persons, prosecution has examined PW-1 Smt. Neetu, the complainant has deposed that she got married with accused on 21.04.1999 and is blessed with three daughters. One day a quarrel had taken place between her and 4 accused and she had gone to her parental home. The talks between her and accused could not resume. Therefore, she lodged a complaint. She further deposed that she is qualified up to Vth class and can only sign and write in Hindi. She admitted that Ex. PW1/A bears her signature but cannot tell the contents of the same as it was not read over to her before obtaining her signature. Ld. APP cross examined her as she was resiling from her earlier statement made to the police. During her cross examination, she denied that accused had demanded money from her parents after her marriage. She further denied that accused and his family members had demanded dowry items and when her parents failed to fulfill their demands, accused and his family members had mentally and physically tortured her. She denied that after the birth of second children, she was turned out of her matrimonial home after giving beatings. She stated that she cannot recollect whether she had stated to the police that accused had demanded Rs. 15,000/- or had not taken care of her youngest daughter due to which she suffered polio. She admitted that police arrested the accused vide Arrest Memo Ex. PW1/B. She further admitted that presently she is residing with her husband ie., accused. She denied all the suggestions put to her. 5
5. Since the prime witness ie., complainant turned hostile and there is no other public witness cited by the prosecution, it was observed by the court that further continuing with the trial and recording of evidence would be an exercise in futility and hence PE was closed and the S/A was dispensed with vide order dt. 20.05.2010.
6. Arguments heard on behalf of accused as well as Ld. APP.
Perused the material available on record. The story of prosecution is based upon the statement of complainant that the accused had harassed her on pretext of demand of dowry and misappropriated the istridhan articles for his own use. Thus, it can be said that the edifice of the case of the prosecution is the statement of complainant. However, during the examination, complainant has completely turned hostile. She has entirely disowned the version of prosecution. Complainant has stated that accused had never harassed her on pretext of demand of dowry. Other witnesses are formal in nature who can only depose about mode and manner of the investigation of the present case, no purpose would be served by examining these witnesses. Since nothing can be brought out against the accused in the prosecution story which connect him with the crime, there is no option 6 but to acquit the accused of the offence he has been charged with.
7. In these facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused had harassed the complainant on pretext of dowry or misappropriated her istridhan. Thus, offences u/s. 498- A/406 IPC stand unproved. Accordingly, the accused Sanjay stands acquitted for the charge U/s 498-A/406 IPC. Bail Bond stands canceled. Surety stands discharged. Security, if any, deposited, be released. Endorsement if any be canceled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Today on 20.05.2010.
(SHUNALI GUPTA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
7FIR No. 247/04
PS Sultan Puri.
At 4.00 PM.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused present along with counsel .
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in the court today, the accused stands acquitted for the charges U/s 498-A/406 IPC. Bail Bond stands canceled. Surety stands discharged. Security if any, be returned. Endorsement if any made be canceled. File be consigned to record room.
(SHUNALI GUPTA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.