Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Negi Etc. on 26 November, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. VIJAY NEGI ETC.
FIR No. 290/97
P.S. : K.M. Pur
U/S 498A/406/506/34 IPC
THE JUDGMENT
1. DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE : 16.09.1997
2. SERIAL NUMBER OF THE CASE : 3/5/03
3. DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : 10.05.1995
4. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Smt.Hema
5. NAME OF THE ACCUSED & ADDRESS :1) Vijay Negi S/o Sh.
Mehtab Singh
2)Mehtab Singh S/o Sh.
Dolat Singh
3)Smt. Sushila W/o Sh.
Mehtab Singh, All R/o A358,
East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi
6. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF :U/S 498A/406/506/34 IPC
7. THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
8. DATE OF RESERVE OF JUDGMENT : 04.10.2012
9. THE FINAL JUDGMENT : Acquittal
10.THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT : 26.11.2012
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur
2
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that all accused persons namely Vijay Negi (husband), Mehtab Singh (father in law) and Smt. Sushila (mother in law) of the complainant Smt. Hema in furtherance of their common intention during the subsistence marriage on 10.5.1995, subjected the complainant to cruelty both physically as well as mentally and committing criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant to be killed. Further accused Sushila Negi being the motherinlaw of the complainant was entrusted with the articles of the complainant as mentioned in Mark A and which were misappropriated by accused Smt. Sushila and converted by her to her own use and she failed to return the same to the complainant despite demand except those which are returned by her on 15.6.1997. The FIR u/s 406/498A/506/34 IPC was registered on the complaint of the complainant against the accused persons and investigation was carried out.
2. Charge sheet under Section 498A/506/406/34 IPC was filed in the court, accused persons were supplied the documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 26.11.1997, charge was framed against all accused persons for offence u/s 498A/506/34 IPC and under Section 406 IPC against accused Sushila Negi only to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 3
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 28.7.2009.
4. PW1 HC Khushi Ram deposed that on 27.03.1997 he was posted as DO at PS K.M. Pur and on that day at about 12.05 AM complainant Hema came at the PS and gave her statement, on the basis of which he recorded the FIR No. 290/97 u/s 498A/406/506 IPC vide Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 Hema Rawat deposed that she was married on 10.05.1995 with accused Vijay Negi (present in the court and correctly identified) as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. At the time of her marriage, she was presented with 6 gold rings, 8 gold bangles, 3 gold chains, one nath (gold), 5 ear rings (pair), one gold set consisting of neckless, ring and pair of ear rings, 15 Kangipuram Sarees, 10 Silk Suits, 1 Steel Almirah by her parents. She was also presented with utensils and other household articles at the time of her marriage by her parents. Her husband was also presented with Rs.45,000/ in cash, one Titan wrist watch, one gold chain, 2 suit lengths, by her parents at the time of her marriage. Rs. 45,000/ was handed over to her husband for the purchase of furniture etc. by her parents. All the articles of Istridhan as mentioned above were entrusted to her mother in law. After few days of her marriage, her mother in law Smt. Sushila Devi, her father in law M.S. Negi and her husband Vijay Negi started harassing and taunting her for more dowry. Her father in law started misbehaving with her St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 4 and when the same was reported to her mother in law by her, her mother in law said to the complainant that complainant has to do as they say, firstly because she has not brought sufficient dowry and secondly she asked for good behavior from them. In between all these tortures and harassment, she was blessed with a son on 23.04.1996. After the birth of her child, this torture became more and more unbearable since the accused persons wanted to give her child to one of her daughter's and both the daughter's have no son and when she questioned their misbehaviour with her husband. Her husband expressed his helplessness and said to her that she has to accept whatever decision is taken by his mother. She further deposed that after every 23 months they used to ask for Rs. 20,00030,000/ to be brought from her parent's home. When she refused to fulfill their demands, they starting torturing her and subjected her to cruelty. Her father in law also started misbehaving with her. She further deposed that on 18.11.1996 her husband, mother in law and father in law started beating her and her whole face turned black & blue, and when she said that she is going to report the matter to the police they locked the door from inside and again started beating her and her mother in law took the lead in doing so and when she told them that she will lodge Police Report, then they forcibly took her child from her and they further threatened her if she tried to lodge a complaint against them, they will kill her child. On that day after some persuasions, she was able to somehow go to out of the house and on the same day she narrated the incident to her parents when she reached at her parents house in the evening. On the St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 5 same day, her parents reached her matrimonial house and they talked with her in laws. All accused persons first of all denied in front of her parents that they had beaten her and later they assured her parents that such things i.e. harassment and beatings will not be repeated in future. The accused persons further asked the parents of the complainant to take her to her parental home for the sake of change and she was sent to her parental home by her in laws and her husband but they kept her child with them. She used to visit her matrimonial home daily also in the morning to feed her child. She was allowed to do so for rd two days but on the 3 day i.e. 21/22.11.1996 they did not open the door and when they opened the door after half an hour they abused her and her father who was with her. They took her child forcibly from her and they turned her and her father from the matrimonial home. It was her mother in law who snatched her child from her. She further deposed that they used to take away all her salary which she used to withdraw from her bank and she was allowed to Rs. 100/ per month for expenses. They also used to check her purse every week and if they saw more than Rs.100/ in her purse they used to take that money from her purse. Her mother in law and father in law used to compel her to do all household jobs till the time she was leave to her office. They also used to give her mental torture. In month of February, 1997 they again beaten her very badly and after sometime when she told them that she will lodge her complaint, they locked her in the house. She further deposed that on 05.04.1997 she was beaten up by all the accused persons and they locked the door from inside and St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 6 both her sisters in law namely Lila and Madhu were indirectly involved in the said torture. She further deposed that on 18.04.1997 she was also beaten up by the all the accused persons due to the reason that they wanted to take her child and also because of the reason that she had told her husband regarding the misbehaviour of her father in law. Somehow, she managed to reach the matrimonial home of her sister in law namely Madhu and narrated the whole incident. On the next day, her sister in law came to her matrimonial home to make her in laws understand not to harass her. On 26.05.1997 she was again beaten up by all the accused persons and somehow she managed to reach her parents house. They were not present at the house at that time and she informed them telephonically and narrated about the beatings given to her by the accused persons. She reached at her parents home at 6.30 pm from her office after having ½ day leave. On the same day her husband and her father in law also came to her parental house to threaten her and her parents, then she lodged her complaint to the PS vide Ex. PW1/A. She had received some of articles vide memo Ex. PW2/A. The child was also handed over to her on 05.06.1997 vide memo Ex. PW1/B.
6. During her cross examination, she stated that her statement was recorded by the IO. The statement was read over to her. As far as she remember, the IO had recorded her statement only once. After 26.05.1997 she had gone to the PS K.M. Pur on two occasion, one for taking the washing machine and secondly for St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 7 taking the child. She stated that she told the police that at the time of marriage, Rs. 45,000/ were given to her husband. The witness was confronted with her statement given to the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it is not so recorded. She stated that she had not told to the police that on 18.11.1996 when the accused persons had beaten her and when she wanted to report the matter to the police all the accused persons had locked her in a room. She voluntarily stated that she had stated the major incident in the statement and each and every details has not been mentioned by her to the police. She has told to the police that accused persons used to keep her entire salary but she has not stated to the police that they used to give Rs.100/ only to her for her expenditure. The witness was confronted with the statement Mark A where it is not so recorded. She admitted that in between the period of solemnization of her marriage in temple with the accused and registration of marriage, she has not told her parents about the marriage. On the day of registration of marriage, she has gone to her husband's house and on the same day she has told to her parents about the marriage by telephone. She admitted that her father in law was doing some job after her retirement. She knows Pradeep Gaur as he was working in the office of her husband. After the registration of the present case, she has never met with her husband in the house of Pradeep Gaur. She admitted that a Kalandra was filed u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. after registration of the present case against accused Vijay Negi and he was acquitted in the same matter. She admitted that her almirah which was recovered from the house of the accused St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 8 and brought in the PS and locked one, and there was no key and police had got keys of alimrah made themselves. She admitted that almirah was opened in her presence in the PS with the help of duplicate key. She denied the suggestion that her parents had gone to the PS and had taken out everything from almirah with duplicate key given to them by the police. She denied the suggestion that she had narrated the above said facts to her husband when she met him in the house of Pradeep Gaur. She voluntarily stated that she never met her husband in the house of Pradeep Gaur. She denied the suggestion that whenever her father visited her matrimonial home he used to quarrel with accused persons and used to threaten the parents of her husband asking them to vacate the accommodation where they were living with accused Vijay Negi. She further denied the suggestion that her parents were desiring that she along with her husband should live separately from his parents and when her husband did not agree for the same then she lodged the present complaint against them in order to pressurize him. She further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely and had lodged a false complaint against the accused persons.
7. PW3 Ct. Umesh Pal deposed that on 27.05.1997 he was posted as Constable at PS K.M. Pur and on that day SI Hari Singh asked him to bring one Vijay Negi and Mehtab Singh from PS Defence Colony to PS K.M. Pur. He brought both the said accused persons to PS K.M. Pur and produced them before SI Hari Singh. Both the accused persons had produced the list of dowry articles of the St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 9 complainant to SI Hari Singh. SI Hari Singh was already in possession of one list of dowry articles of complainant which was submitted to him by the complainant. Both the list were matched. IO has seized certain dowry articles of the complainant in the PS and one gold chain given to the IO by the accused Vijay Negi. The said gold chain was seized in a match box with the seal of HSS vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that one steel almirah was also seized by the IO but the same was locked and he cannot say anything regarding the articles lying in the almirah. The seal after use was handed over to him by the IO.
8. During his cross examination, he stated that he does not remember if the IO had sealed the mouth of the lock of the almirah. His statement was recorded by the IO on 27.05.1997. He denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded by the IO on 27.05.1997, rather it was recorded on 02.06.1997. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in the court.
9. PW4 Smt. Kamla Rawat deposed that her daughter Hema Rawat got married with accused Vijay Negi on 15.05.1995. It was a love marriage and she came to know about the said marriage on 16.05.1995 through the father in law of her daughter who had got the telephone made by her daughter who was in her matrimonial home at that time. After hearing about the said marriage her husband went to the accused persons and he agreed to give a reception for the St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 10 same on 03.06.1995. The father in law Mehtab and mother in law of her daughter namely Sushila told at reception that they already have furniture so they asked for cash and gold for her daughter. On the reception they had given cash of Rs.45,000/ to the father in law and mother in law of her daughter. They had also given the ornaments for her daughter which are mentioned in the list. She does not remember the exact ornaments given to her daughter. The said ornaments were handed over to the parents in law of her daughter. The receipts/bills of such ornaments were also given to them at the time of said reception. So far as she remember they had given 8 gold bangles, four bangles weighing 5 gram each and other four bangles weighing 10 gram each, five pair of ear rings of gold, one gold set weighing 20 gram, five other gold rings, three other gold chains of 10 gram each, one gold nath weighing 5 gram, one gold ring and one gold chain and one titan watch. She further deposed that at the time of naam ceremony of son of her daughter in May, 1996 they had given one gold chain of 10 gram to her daughter for her son, one pair of ear rings of gold for her daughter and clothes for her daughter, her son and other family members. She further deposed that for 23 months of marriage, her daughter was kept well by her in laws but thereafter the accused persons started harassing and torturing her daughter for more dowry. She further deposed that her father in law used to touch her inappropriately. whenever she mentioned about it to her husband ,he stated that he cannot do regarding this and whenever she told this fact to her mother in law she said that she was unnecessarily defaming her father in law.
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 11 Her father in law would demand cash from her to be brought from her parents saying that her daughter should not tell to her husband or mother in law regarding this demand. Whenever, mother in law of her daughter raised the demand of cash from her daughter she asked her not to tell her husband or father in law regarding this demand and similarly when her husband demanded cash from her he asked her not to tell his parents. She further deposed that prior to the marriage of her daughter she was working in some travel agency after marriage her daughter was made to quit her hob on the asking of accused persons. However, after 23 months of marriage the accused persons insisted the complainant to look for a job and ultimately in November, 1995 she got a job in some company and at that time she was pregnant. She further deposed that despite the pregnancy her daughter was not allowed to have food by the accused persons. Her daughter used to tell her on telephone from her office that the accused persons did not allow to have food for so many days. During the pregnancy whenever her daughter went for medical check up her husband never accompanied her. Either her father in law or mother in law used to go with her for medical check up. She further deposed that her daughter used to come to them for a short while only for the purpose when there was a demand from the accused persons to bring the cash from them. She used to ask them to arrange for the money on telephone and she would come and take the money from them and left the place. She is not able to give exact date, month when they had given the cash due to lapse of time but they had definitely given cash St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 12 to her sometimes Rs. 5000/, sometimes Rs.2000/ and like this in the year 1995 to 1997. She further deposed that after a short while she received telephonic call from her daughter who said that her in laws had beaten up her and asked them to reach at her matrimonial home. Immediately she along with her husband rushed to the matrimonial home of her daughter. They saw that her daughter's face had turned black & blue. It was swollen and blood was coming from forehead and injury mark was on her forehead. Her Kurta which she was wearing had torn of. At that time, all accused persons were present in the house. They all said to her that her daughter has beaten her up herself. When she asked her daughter she told her that when she was feeding her baby her father in law pulled her from the bed with her Kurta and her Kurta had been torn and thereafter her husband had taken her son from her. She further deposed that the mother in law of her daughter took hold of her daughter and father in law started beating her. The reason for giving such beatings was that she was trying to feed her baby. At the time when her daughter was giving beatings by the accused persons they used to lock the premises from inside and raised the volume of T.V./Radio so that none in the neighborhood could not hear the noise. She further deposed that they told the accused persons that their daughter could not beat herself and beatings were given by the accused persons. She said that they will go to the PS and made a complaint against them, then there will be problem for them. On this, the father in law of her daughter said that accused persons had given beatings and she was their daughter in law and whatever St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 13 they can be do. Thereafter, all accused persons apologized for this behavour. She further deposed that thereafter they brought their daughter with them and leaving the son of her daughter there. They had told the accused persons that her daughter will come to feed the baby. On the next day after this, her daughter along with her husband went to feed the baby. The accused persons opened the door of the house after a long time and with the full planning they were holding dandas in their hand and started beating her husband and her daughter. The accused persons said to her husband that there was no need to come in their house. Her husband and her daughter immediately came back to their house rescuing themselves. She further deposed that her daughter stayed in her matrimonial home till May, 1997. They did not visit her but she used to telephone them from her office narrating the incident happening in her matrimonial home. On 26.05.1997 her daughter was locked in her house and all the accused persons poured Kerosene oil on her after beating her. She could rescued herself from them and managed to reach their house in Sarojini Nagar. In the evening around 6.00 pm accused Vijay Negi had telephoned their residence. She had attended the telephone. He told her that Hema had been missing since morning. She asked him what was their son. He said that as usual there were beatings in the house given to her and she left the house and went somewhere. That time her daughter was not in the house. She was there in her office as it was her afternoon shift and duty hours from 2.00 pm to 9.00 pm. Her daughter came back to the house after 6.30 pm after taking half day leave. After 8.00 pm or St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 14 8.30 pm she along with her daughter went to her matrimonial home. (on 26.11.1997 her daughter had come to their house leaving her son in her matrimonial home or her son was not given to her). The accused persons were ready to give them beatings. However, she and her daughter managed to escape themselves from there. She narrated the entire incident to her husband. Just a short while after reaching their house, the accused Vijay Negi along with 34 other boys came to their house and started threatening them. At that time her husband was not at house. Thereafter, the complainant along with her father had gone to PS K.M. Pur and lodged the report against the accused persons. She further deposed that when her daughter left her matrimonial home she had not brought anything except one hand bag.
10.During her cross examination, she stated that police had recorded her statement in her house two days after filing of the complaint by her daughter and on that date list of dowry articles was handed over to the police. She further stated that in November, 1996 her daughter was beaten up by accused persons, however, she does not know the specific reason for giving beatings on that particular day. She voluntarily stated that but in general her daughter was being beaten up by the accused persons for demand of dowry and other articles, but they did not get her daughter medically examined because when they told the accused persons that they are going to PS for lodging complaint, the accused persons started apologizing before them and matter was sought out. She had got her St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 15 daughter medically examined from some private doctor of her area whose name she does not remember now. She did not submit any medical document to the police regarding this. Her husband did not get him medically examined after receiving the injuries on his person on 21.11.1996. She does not remember the exact dates when the demand for cash was made by mother in law, father in law and husband of her daughter but the father in law used to demand a cash of Rs. 5000/ or Rs.10,000/ upto Rs.35,000/ on the pretext that his daughter is to construct a house or she has to buy a car etc. The elder daughter of father in law of her daughter named Leela was to construct or repair her house and his younger daughter namely Madhu has to buy a car. She used to give the demanded cash by the accused persons from time to time but she does not remember the exact dates for the same. They had not prepared any list of dowry articles at the time of marriage. From their side, there was no photographer on the day of marriage of her daughter hence, she does not have any photograph of marriage. She did not make efforts to procure the duplicate of the jewellery receipts from the concerned jewellers. The washing machine receipt has been handed over to the accused persons along with washing machine. They had gone to the shopkeeper to procure the duplicate receipt of washing machine but he refused to give the same as he has been threatened by the accused persons. She further stated that she does not remember the date regarding the incident of the beatings given to her daughter when she was feeding her baby. She does not remember whether she had stated before the police regarding the fact that St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 16 father in law of her daughter used to have the opportunity to touch her and whenever she mentioned about it to her husband he stated that he cannot do regarding this and whenever she told this fact to her mother in law she said the complainant that she was unnecessarily defaming her father in law. She stated that she had stated to the police that father in law of her daughter used to demand cash from her daughter. She voluntarily stated that she does not remember whether she told to the police that father in law of her daughter used to demand cash from her daughter to be brought from them and saying that she should not tell the same to her husband and mother in law that he is demanding the same. She does not remember whether she had stated to the police in her statement that whenever mother in law of her daughter raised demands of cash from her daughter she asked her not to tell it to her husband and father in law. She does not remember whether she had stated to the police in her statement that whenever husband of her daughter raised demands of cash from her daughter he asked her not to tell the same to his parents. She does not remember whether she had stated to the police in her statement that her daughter was forced to leave the job by her mother in law, father in law and husband. She does not remember whether she asked to the police that later on they insisted her to join the same. She does not remember whether she had stated to the police that accused persons insisted her for a job and she should ask her parents to arrange the job. She does not remember due to lapse of time. She does not remember whether she had mentioned to the police the fact St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 17 as narrated from Portion A to mark A1 in her examination in chief recorded on 09.08.2001. She also does not remember whether she had stated to the police as narrated in Portion B to B1. She does not remember whether police read over the statement to her or whether she was asked to put the signature on her statement. She does not remember whether she has stated to police that accused persons said to her husband that there was no need to come to their house her husband and her daughter immediately came back to their house rescuing themselves. Her daughter and her husband had received minor injuries. She does not remember whether she had mentioned the portion E to D to the police. She has stated to police the facts containing from portion G to G1 in her examination in chief. She was confronted with statement Ex. PW4/DA wherein it was not so recorded. She does not know about section 107/151 Cr.P.C. but she has made some complaint in PS Sarojini Nagar. She has made complaint against Vijay Negi in the office of ACP Vasant Vihar. She does not know whether Vijay Negi had been acquitted in that case or not. She does not remember how many time she went to house of accused persons for reconciliation. She further stated that she has not taken her daughter to any treatment on 26.5.1997. She stated that they had not handed over any clothes of their daughter on which accused persons had poured kerosene oil. She admitted that her daughter met Vijay Negi at the house of Pradeep Gaur on their insistence. She denied the suggestion that her daughter was not subjected to any physical harassment by the accused persons or that accused persons were St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 18 wrongly implicated in this case. She denied the suggestion that she wanted her daughter and her husband stay in separate house. She denied the suggestion that when accused Vijay refused to stay separately from his parents, she has wrongly filed this case. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to implicate the accused persons.
11. PW5 Chitra Singh Rawat deposed that Hema is his daughter who got married with accused Vijay Negi on 10.5.1995. It was a love marriage and same was performed in the court. He came to know about the marriage on 16.5.1995. He had given consent to the said marriage and he gave reception on 3.6.1995. In the reception he had given jewellary articles to her daughter, utensils, cash of Rs. 45000/ for purchasing furniture items Fridge and TV, clothes for inlaws family members of his daughter. The said dowry articles were handed over to the parents of Vijay Negi by him. He had handed over the receipts/bill of the dowry articles to the accused persons on the day of reception alongwith the said articles. For about 2 months of reception of hr daughter, the behaviour of accused persons was well with his daughter. After about 2 months, motherin law and fatherinlaw started harassing her. She was not given food properly. She was beaten up by them. When his daughter complained to her husband, he used to say that he was helpless. The parents in law of his daughter used to taunt her for demand of dowry. They used to demand cash from her to be brought from her parents. They used to take her entire salary as his daughter St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 19 was working. They used to say his daughter that she had to live in her matrimonial home as they desire as per their wishes. The accused persons forced his daughter to leave her job after her marriage and in the month of May, she had resigned from her job. In the month of August, 1995 the accused persons wanted his daughter to do the job as they wanted money and they asked to bring cash from them also. He further deposed that thereafter he got his daughter a job and her entire salary used to be taken up by the accused persons from her. His daughter was given Rs. 100/ pr month for buying vegetables while coming back from the office. The father in law of his daughter used to telephone at their residence very often saying that his daughter was quarreling with them or she was ill or he asked them to visit their house. Many times it happened that when they visited their house on receiving telephonic calls, he used to insult them why they had come there. As it was personal matter of his family, he would sort out the same. He further deposed that after 7/8 months, once Vijay had telephoned their residence, his wife attended the telephone and Vijay asked her to visit the house as his daughter was ill. When they reached there behaviour of accused Vijay towards them were arrogant and they did not find their daughter ill. In November, 1996 accused Vijay again telephoned them and his wife had picked up receiver Vijay told her that their daughter was killing/hitting herself. He alongwith his wife immediately rushed to her matrimonial home. They saw that his daughter was bleeding so much from her head/forehead region. She had received injuries on their region and her St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 20 shirt, which she was wearing, was torn of from the sides. All the accused persons were present in the house. He asked them what had happened. All accused persons told him that his daughter had herself received these injuries. He did not believe them and told them one himself cannot inflict such injuries. Thereafter all accused persons had admitted that they had beaten up his daughter. They had apologized their behavior and asked him to forget it. Thereafter accused persons asked them to take his daughter to their house but the accused persons refused to send 7/8 months old son of his daughter with them. The parents in law of her daughter said that they would be handing over son of his daughter to their daughter Leela. The above said incident occurred on 21.11.1996 again said in the year 1997 not in 1996. again said this incident had taken lace on 21.11.1996. He further stated that the accused started torturing his daughter. She used to do entire house hold work. She was not allowed to feed her son. She was beaten up by accused persons. She was not allowed to telephone them. During this period between November 1996 and May 1997 once his daughter could manage to telephone them. He had attended her call. She told him that once she was preparing chapatti hr father in law came to kitchen picked hot tawa and kept the same on her hand. That time her husband was also standing there. During this period his daughter visited them twice or thrice but she was either accompanied by her father in law or by her husband. She never visited alone. She stayed their place for 20 to 30 minutes and all time she had come up with the demand of cash of Rs. 5000/, 10,000/ or Rs. 2000/ as St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 21 the same was demanded by the accused persons. His wife had given Rs. 35000/ cash to his daughter during the period between November 1996 to May 1997. During this period accused also demanded one washing machine and one steel almirah. They had also met their demands after purchasing washing machine in the name of Vijay and almirah in the name of their daughter and receipts/bills of the same were also given to accused. He further deposed that on 26.5.1997 his daughter was beaten up mercilessly by all three accused persons. His daughter telephoned him in his office from the market and told him regarding the beatings. It was around 11 or 11.30 AM that time he immediately went to his house, meanwhile his daughter had also reached there. She was in such a bad condition that she had got certain blues and marks of slap on her face. He told his daughter to stay in the house as he had to leave for the office. Her daughter told him that it was important for her to attend the office and that time her duty hours were from 2.00 to 9.00 pm. He dropped his daughter on the way of Moti Bagh bus stand from where she used to pick up office bus. He further deposed that when his wife returned home from her office around 6.00 pm she received telephonic call from accused Vijay at 6.15 pm who informed his wife that Hema was missing since morning. In the meantime, his daughter also reached their house from her office after taking half day leave and within 1015 minutes he also reached his residence. They discussed the matter. His wife said that his daughter had not fed his son since morning so she wanted to take her to her matrimonial house. The house of the accused at 1 km. distance from St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 22 their house. His wife along with his daughter took an auto for the house of the accused persons and they both came within 15 minutes. He had asked them what had happened. They told him that all three accused persons were present in the house. They opened the door after about five minutes and threatened them that they should leave immediately otherwise they would kill them. They were abused by them. During this period accused Vijay along with his 1520 bad elements passed through their house and were taking round again and again using abusive language. They were so fed up that they took a decision to report the matter to the police. He along with his wife and daughter went to PS K.M. Pur. It was 11.55 pm that time suddenly electricity went off. When light came their complaint was written in the PS and this way the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 27.05.1997. The accused persons were called in the PS but they did not hand over the son of his daughter to her. After 34 days with the intervention of police child was handed over to her in the PS. Since 26.05.1997 his daughter Hema has been living with them. When his daughter visited them on 26.05.1997 she had not come with any of her dowry articles and her entire dowry articles were in her matrimonial house that time. His daughter has been returned only few of her dowry articles in the PS.
12. During his cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by the police official in PS K.M. pur on 25/26/27.05.1997. His statement was recorded in the morning of 27.05.1997. He voluntarily stated that his statement was recorded St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 23 by the police in his house. He did not read the statement recorded by the police nor they read over the same to him. He had mentioned in his statement to the police officials that accused persons used to take entire salary of his daughter. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He does not remember whether he mentioned in his statement before the police that accused persons pressurized his daughter to resign from her job. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He does not remember whether he had stated to the police that whether in the month of August, 1995 the accused persons wanted her to do job as they wanted money and asked her to bring cash from them. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He stated that he had mentioned in his statement to the police that after her daughter got the job in August, 1995 the accused persons used to take entire salary from her and she was given Rs. 100/ per month for buying vegetables while coming from the office. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had mentioned in his statement to the police that father in law of his daughter used to call at their residence and used to inform them that his daughter was quarreling with him or was ill or used to ask them to take her back to their house and whenever they visited their house the accused persons insulted them. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He does not remember whether he had mentioned to the police that after 78 months of marriage, the accused Vijay had telephoned at their St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 24 residence which was attended by his wife and the accused Vijay asked his wife to visit their house as his daughter was ill. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He does not remember in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that when they reached the house of the accused persons behaviour of accused Vijay was arrogant and they found that their daughter as not ill and they came back. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had mentioned in his statement that in November, 1996 accused Vijay called at their residence which was attended by his wife and the accused Vijay told his wife that his daughter was killing/hitting herself. He along with his wife immediately rushed to her matrimonial home and saw that his daughter was bleeding so much from her head and forehead badly. She had received injuries and her shirt was torn. The witness was confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is recorded that on 21.11.1996 his daughter was given beatings and accused persons misbehaved with her. He had mentioned in his statement that all accused persons apologized and admitted that they had beaten his daughter. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had mentioned in his statement that accused persons asked them to take back his daughter to their home but the accused persons refused to send the son of his daughter with her. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had mentioned to the police in his statement that the parents in law of his daughter said that they would be handing over the son of his daughter to their daughter Leela. The St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 25 witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. Portion A to A & B to B of Ex. PW5/DA was put to the said witness to which he stated that he mentioned this in his statement to the police. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He does not remember whether he mentioned in his statement to the police that when once his daughter was preparing Chapaties her father in law came to the kitchen picked hot Tawa and kept the same on her hand. He had mentioned in his statement to the police that his daughter was always sent with demand of money but he did not mention the amount everytime that was asked. He had mentioned in his statement that he had given Rs. 35,000/ to the accused persons. He does not remember when his daughter informed about ill treatment. He had handed over all receipts of articles to the in laws of his daughter at the time of marriage. He does not remember the date when the quarrel took place over the issue of giving away the child of his sister to her sister in law. He stated that he had not given any money to the accused persons but his wife had given money to his daughter. He does not remember the date on which his wife had given the money or that how many times his wife had given the money to the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused persons never intended to give away the child to sister in law & no dispute or quarrel ever took place over this issue. He admitted that the child of his daughter was the only child in the family of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the matrimonial house of his daughter during pregnancy. He stated that St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 26 he did not take his daughter for medical aid when she was bleeding in November, 1996. He admitted that accused Vijay Negi and his father are earning hand. He does not know the made of payment of salary of his daughter. He stated that when the police officials took in possession of the articles from the house of the accused persons he was present in the police station. when the police officials took in possession of the articles from the house of the accused persons no one from his house was accompanying to the police officials. The almirah which was taken into possession by the police officials, was locked and key of the same was with the accused persons he was present in the police station. The police officials prepared the duplicate key of almirah in his presence and he gave Rs. 50/ to key maker. He denied the suggestion that they have got duplicate key of the almirah made in conveyance with police officials. He denied the suggestion that after getting duplicate key they got the articles from the almirah and taken them at home in conveyance with the police officials. He stated that he went to PS straightway on 26.05.1997. Nobody in the PS suggested him to make a complaint in CAW Cell. His daughter had not given any written complaint in the PS. He does not remember the date when his daughter came to his house for demand of money. He had stated to the police in his statement that his wife had given Rs.35,000/ cash to his daughter during period between November, 1996 to May, 1997. The said witness was confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had stated to the police that accused persons had also demanded one washing machine and one steel St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 27 almirah. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had also stated to the police that washing machine was purchased in the name of Vijay Negi and almirah in the name of his daughter. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He had stated to the police that on 26.05.1997 he went to the house of the accused persons. In fact, he did not go to the house of the accused persons his wife and his daughter had gone there. He had stated to the police that accused Vijay Negi was threatening them. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. His daughter did not inform him about any meeting of her with accused Vijay Negi prior to registration of FIR of this case. On his complaint proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused Vijay Negi but he does not know about the outcome. He does not remember the date of month November, 1996 when accused Vijay Negi informed him that his daughter was killing herself. He had not stated the above incident to the police. He does not remember that he had stated to the police that the accused persons had admitted that they had beaten his daughter. The witness was also confronted with Ex. PW5/A where it is not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that no harassment or beatings ever took place with his daughter at her matrimonial house. He denied the suggestion that sister in law of his daughter had their own son while his daughter was staying in her matrimonial home. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 28
13.PW6 Sh. Sohan Singh Rawat deposed that the complainant Hema is his cousin (daughter of his maternal uncle) who was married to accused Vijay Singh Negi in the year 1995. At the time of marriage she was given lot of dowry articles. He had seen her gold chain, gold ring and gold Karas which were prepared before the marriage in the house of his Mamaji. Some of the articles were shown to him before the marriage. He further deposed that after one year of the marriage of his cousin sister he came to know that the problems in marriage of his cousin sister from her maternal aunt. He came to know that her in laws were harassing his cousin Smt. Hema. He also came to know from his Mamaji, and maternal aunt that the in laws of Hema were demanding money. After about two years of the marriage, his maternal uncle once gave Rs.35,000/ which was withdrawn from the bank to the father in law of complainant Smt. Hema in his presence.
14.During his cross examination, she stated the police officials never come to him to record his statement. The complainant was married on 03.06.1995 and reception was given on the same day. In their community marriage and reception are one at the same thing. He stated that he attended the marriage of complainant and it was not solemnized in Mandir in his presence. His maternal uncle told him that complainant married to accused Vijay in temple. Seizure memo was prepared at the spot. Father in law of complainant was given Rs. 35,000/ in the year 1997 but he does not remember the date. He does not remember the day when the money was given. The time was about after 6.00 St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 29 pm. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely and no money was given to the accused persons in his presence.
15.PW7 in his examination in chief deposed that on 150697 in his presence one almirah was opened containing the dowry articles and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that on 050697 in his presence a child Mannu Mrigank was handed over to his mother Hema from Sushila Devi and the seizure memo in this effect Ex. PW1/B bears my signature at point 'X'. He further deposed that the other persons also signed in my presence alongwith police. He further deposed that the identity of the articles are not disputed by the defence as already Exhibit.
16.In his crossexamination, he deposed that the almirah was not in sealed condition when it was opened. He further deposed that when he reached at the PS the almirah was already opened. He further deposed that when he reached at PS the complainant Hema and her mother and police personnel were present there. He agree with the suggestion that Ex.PW2/A does not bear his signature. He further deposed that he knows the accused Vijay Negi as he is his colleague. He further deposed that the marriage of accused performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, Anarkali, Mandir Marg and dowry articles were exchanged at that time. He further deposed that the reception took place at Community Centre, Kidwai Nagar at the house of the accused which was organized and managed the St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 30 accused persons. He further deposed that no gift or dowry articles were exchanged from the parent side of the complainant. He further deposed that complainant and accused visited at my residence for 2/3 times. He further deposed that the complainant did not make any complaint about harassment when she visited his house. He further deposed that after registration of the case the complainant Hema visited my house for about 3 or 4 days were she informed him that there was no any dispute between her and the accused persons and the case has been got registered by her father. He further deposed that she further told that there was no any such dispute.
17. PW8 in his examination in chief deposed that on 010697, the accused Vijay Negi was arrested in the present case and he signed his personal search memo Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that the accused on 050697 in his presence Sushila Devi mother of accused had handed over a child Manu Mirgenka to her mother Hema. He further deposed that he signed the handing over memo Ex.PW1/B and other persons signed the memo. He further deposed that accused Vijay Negi is his friend.
18.PW9 in his examination in chief he deposed that on 270597 he was posted at PSK.M. Pur. He further deposed that he received the case file from DO on the directions of the SHO. He further deposed that he conducted investigation and recorded the statement of Hema u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and on 280597 the file was St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 31 transferred from me and he handed over the file to MHCM.
19.In his crossexamination, he deposed that he does not know at whose direction the case FIR was registered. He further deposed that the case file was handed over to him on 12.30 am on 271297. He further deposed that he does ot know if the SHO had given any directions to him for conciliation. He further deposed that he has not conducted any conciliation due to shortage of time. He further deposed that the case file was handed over to MHCM at about 10.00 am in the morning. He denied the suggestion that this case was registered on the influence of higher police officials. He further deposed that he does not know for the same reason the complainant was not sent to CAW cell.
20. PW10 in his examination in chief deposed that on 28051997 he was posted at K.M. Pur when the case was marked to him for investigation. He further deposed that during the investigation he contacted the complainant and th recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 29 May, 1997 he took into possession documentary proof of marriage i.e. wedding card. He further th deposed that on 29 May, 1997 he took into possession documentary proof of marriage i.e. wedding card, photographs of marriage and list of dowry articles. He further deposed that same was taken into possession vide Ex. PW5/B, the marriage photographs is Ex. P1 and marriage card is Ex. P2, list of dowry article is Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that after few days on 010697 he St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 32 had gone to the house of Vijay Negei at about 10.00 am and took the house search with regard to the search of dowry articles and articles were taken into possession vide Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that on the same day the accused had produced some more articles which were taken into possession vide Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that the door of the Almirah was locked. He further deposed that on 150697 both the parties were called in PS and in their presence the lock of the Almirah was opened and inventories were prepared Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that on 010697 accused Vijay Negi and Mehtab Negi were arrested and PSM were conducted vide Ex.PW8/A and Ex. PW10/B and accused persons were released on anticipatory bail. He further deposed that child was handed over to the complainant vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that after completing the investigation he prepared the challan and filed the same in the court.
21.In his crossexamination, he deposed that on 280597 he was marked the investigation of this case in the evening probably 6/6.30 pm. So far as he recall prior to him the investigation was marked to SI, Parveen Kumar. He further deposed that this case was registered directly on the statement of the complainant. He further deposed that no efforts with regard to the sending of case to CAW cell was made. He further deposed that the list of dowry articles Ex. PW5/A was given to him by the the complainant side. He further deposed that he does not remember as to whether Ex. PW5/A bears the signature of St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 33 complainant or not. He denied the suggestion that the list was given to him by the complainant. He further deposed that he went to the house of the accused on 290597 and the dowry articles of complainant was seized. He agree with the suggestion that key of the almirah was not in possession of either accused persons nor the complainant. He further deposed that the key of the almirah was given by the accused to him after they were released on bail and almirah was opened on 150497. He further deposed that he did not prepare any memo regarding handing over of the key of almirah by accused to him. He denied the suggestion that the key of almirah was prepared by him and same was opened in the absence of the accused persons. He further deposed that he did not record the statement of any of the neighbours whom he had asked, he did not give any notice to them on their refusal. He denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the case properly or that all the documents were prepared in PS or that he was deposing falsely.
22.PW11 in his examination in chief deposed that on 010697 was posted in PS K.M. Pur as constable. He further deposed that on that day alongwith SI, Hari Singh went to the house of accused Vijay Negi, A355, East Kidwai Nagar. He further deposed that there IO arrested Vijay Negi and Mehtab Negi vide personal search memo Ex. PW8/A and of Mehtab Negi is Ex. PW11/A signed by him. He further deposed that Vijay Negi produced the list of dowry articles before the IO. He further deposed that thereafter we came to the PS alongwith St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 34 Vijay Negi and Mehtab. He further deposed that in the PS we waited for complainant Hema but she did not came in the PS. He further deposed that Dowry articles were kept in the PS by the IO. He further deposed that personal search of accused Vijay Negi conducted but nothing was found. He further deposed that in the personal search of Mehtab Negi IO found Rs. 1000/, DL and a purse. He further deposed that thereafter he took the Vijay Negi and Mehtab Negi to PSDefence Colony and they were put behinds the bars.
23.In his crossexamination, he deposed that we reached the house of the accused at about 10.11 am. He further deposed that IO did not prepare any memo of the dowry list which was presented by the accused Vijay Negi to IO in his presence. He further deposed that no other articles were seized by the IO in my presence. He agree with the suggestion that Jama Talashi memo of Mehtab Singh does not bear his signature. He further deposed that IO had also enquired from one public person Gajender who was also present in the house of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he has not accompanied the IO to the house of accused.
24.The statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They expressed desire to lead evidence in their defence.
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 35
25.DW1 in his examination in chief deposed that his marriage was solemnized on 100595 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg and registered on 160595 from Civil Court, Tis Hazari. He further deposed that his parents gave reception on 030695 on his residence. He further deposed that everything was going well till his child was born on 230496, till then his wife was not in contact with his laws and only his mother in law used to contact his wife through telephone. He further deposed that after the birth of his son, his in laws started visiting his house. He further deposed that on 060796 his wife suddenly argued with his mother about the petty things like washing clothes of his child and feeding him. He further deposed that his son was born with severe breathing problem and doctor advised that child needs constant care at least for three years. He further deposed that as his wife was doing shift job so his mother used to take care of his son. One his wife abused his mother and asked her to leave the house and after that she used to abuse his mother whenever she got any chance. His father in law used to abuse him in his office and office of his father in law is same office and he always asked him that he should live with her daughter separately.
He further deposed that on 18.11.1996 his wife again argued with him and his mother regarding not taking proper care of her son as she wants his mother to work like an Aaya for her son. He further stated that he and his wife got married in Arya Smaj Mandir against the wishes of the parents of his wife. No Istridhan St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 36 articles or other articles were given in the marriage by her parents.
26. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he married to complainant Hema with intention to obtain dowry and fulfill his sexual desire only. He denied the suggestion that he has not returned material dowry and Istridhan articles including jewellery etc. He denied the suggestion that his wife never indulged in any abuses or hot word exchange with him or his parents as alleged by him in the court. He admitted that he had returned the Istridhan articles to his wife. He denied the suggestion that he and his parents subjected to complainant/wife to cruelty for dowry. Complainant resided with him and his family for two years and she has left matrimonial house on her own. He denied the suggestion that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. Complainant is still working in MNC in Gurgaon and she had shift job.. He denied the suggestion that he and his parents used to compel the complainant to do all the household work when she was about to go for her duties and when she showed her inability, she was beaten, tortured and abused. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
27. The Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused persons has vehemently argued that in view of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW2, 4 & 5, the entire prosecution case St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 37 falls to the ground. The PW2, PW4 & PW5 have made material improvements in their testimonies and their testimonies are also not found corroborated with evidence of other public witnesses examined by the prosecution. So, the Ld. counsel for accused persons has urged for the acquittal of all the accused persons.
28. I have bestowed my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and also perused the record meticulously.
Brief reasons for the decision of the present case
29.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. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 38
30. The testimony of PW2 (complainant), PW4 (mother of the complainant) & PW5 (father of the complainant) are found contradictory and inconsistent on material aspects. The contradictions and deviance in the testimony of the said material witnesses put question mark on the entire case of the prosecution. The complainant (PW2) in her testimony stated that on 18.11.1996 she was beaten black & blue by all the accused persons. On the same day, she managed to reach her parents house in the evening and narrated the incident to her parents. On the other hand, PW4 (mother of the complainant) for the same incident deposed that on 18.11.1996 she received a telephone call from her daughter that her in laws had beaten her, and asked her & her husband to reach her matrimonial house. She & her husband after reaching the matrimonial house found their daughter's face was blue and swollen and blood was coming from injuries sustained by her on her forehead. Her kurta which she was wearing was also torn off. PW5 (father of the complainant) also stated in his evidence that he & his wife reached the matrimonial house after receiving telephonic call. But he stated that the call was made by the husband of the complainant and not by his daughter to their house. Thus, there is an inconsistency between the testimony of the complainant and her parents that how and in what circumstances the complainant disclosed the incident of 18.11.1996 to her parents. Moreover, the complainant in her testimony nowhere stated that her Kurta was torn off in the incident dated 18.11.1996 but her parents stated so. Apart from that the St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 39 testimony of the parents of the complainant also reflects that she received an injury on her forehead but no MLC or any other medical document has been placed on record by the prosecution. Further, PW2 (complainant) in her evidence stated that after the incident dated 18.11.1996 she was sent to her parents home by her in laws and her husband but they kept her child with them. However, PW4 (mother of the complainant) stated in her evidence that she & her husband brought the complainant back to their house leaving her child and told the accused persons that their daughter will come to feed her baby. Thus, the deposition of complainant shows that the in laws kept the baby with them but her mother admitted that they themselves left the baby with the accused persons.
31. The complainant has also stated about the incident dated 26.05.1997 where she has again pleaded that she was beaten by all the accused persons and further stated that on that day somehow she managed to reach her parental house. When she reached her parents house, her parents were not at home and she informed her father telephonically about the beatings given by the accused persons. Thereafter, she attended her office for half day and came back to her house at 6.30 pm. With regard to the same incident, the father of the complainant (PW5) stated that after receiving call from his daughter on 26.05.1997 he came back to his house and saw that his daughter was badly bruised and she has certain blue& black marks on her face. Then, he left for his office and his daughter also told to him that she has important work at office and St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 40 he dropped her at Moti Bagh, Bus Stand for picking up a bus for office. The inconsistencies are also writ large even with regard to the incident dated 26.05.1997. The complainant never stated that after receiving her phone call, his father came back to the house and then dropped her at bus stand for going back to the office. Apart from that the complainant has also not explained that how she managed to reach her parents house after such an assault. The very deposition of complainant & her father makes the entire incident dated 26.05.1997 doubtful as no woman who is so badly beaten up would go to her office on the same day nor any parent would allow their daughter in such a condition to go back to her office. Moreover, even father of the complainant took no off from his office despite coming to know such an incident where his daughter was badly beaten up. This is totally improbable and unnatural. It is also noteworthy that the mother of the complainant (PW4) in her deposition also stated that on 26.05.1997 all accused persons even poured kerosene on her daughter after locking her up in a room but no such statement has been made by the complainant (PW2) & her father (PW5) in their testimonies.
32.It is also the case of the prosecution that complainant was harassed as the accused persons wanted to give her son to their daughter. However, as noted above, the complainant and her mother were not consistent regarding the circumstances in which the son of the complainant was left in the matrimonial house on 18.11.1996. The mother of the complainant (PW4) even in her evidence St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 41 stated that she is not sure whether on 26.11.1997 her daughter herself left her son in the matrimonial house or her son was not given to her. The evidence of the complainant and her mother, thus brought on record nowhere establishes that the accused persons forcibly kept the son of the parties with them in order to deprive the complainant from feeding her baby.
33.I have also found contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding the harassment of complainant for dowry by the accused persons. The complainant in her evidence has stated that after every 23 months the accused persons used to ask her to bring Rs. 20,00030,000/ from her parents. On her refusal, she was physically assaulted by the accused persons and her father in law also used to misbehave with her. She also stated that all her salary was taken away by the accused persons and she was given only Rs. 100/ per month for her expenses. The complainant in her testimony nowhere stated that her parents ever fulfilled illegal demands of the accused persons and gave any money to the accused persons. But the mother of the complainant (PW4) in her evidence stated that she & her husband had definitely given cash to complainant. Sometimes Rs.5000/, sometimes Rs. 10,000/ and like in between the year 1995 to 1997. The father of the complainant (PW5) also stated that his wife had given Rs.35,000/ cash to her daughter in between the period November, 1996 to May, 1997. But he also added that the accused persons also demanded one washing machine and one St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 42 steel almirah during this period. He met their demand and gave one washing machine in name of accused Vijay and one almirah in the name of his daughter. It is important to note that the mother of the complainant never stated about any demand of washing machine or almirah being made by the accused persons and the fulfillment of those demand by her husband. The father of the complainant also clearly stated in his evidence that Rs. 35,000/ was given to his daughter by his wife but PW6, the cousin of the complainant in direct contradiction to the evidence of father of the complainant stated that the father of the complainant gave Rs.35,000/ after withdrawing from the bank to the father in law of the complainant in his presence. Thus, he first contradicted the parents of the complainant that Rs.35,000/ was given to the complainant and stated that it was given not to the complainant but to the father in law. Secondly, he stated that the father of the complainant gave the said money. On the other hand, the father of the complainant stated that his wife had given the money and not him. The mother of the complainant also stated in her evidence that after the marriage, her daughter was forced to give up her job and later she was harassed for taking up a job whereas no such evidence was given by the PW2 in her statement. Similarly, PW5 in his evidence also stated that one day his daughter was preparing food, her father in law came to kitchen and kept the hot Tava on her hand but no such evidence was given by the complainant.
34.Further, the complainant in her testimony stated that her parents gave Rs.
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 43 45,000/ to her husband at the time of marriage. On the other hand, the parents of the complainant stated that cash of Rs.45,000/ was given to the mother in law of the complainant. There is also improvement in the testimony of the mother of the complainant regarding the articles given at the time of birth of son of the complainant. The mother of the complainant stated in her evidence that on the name ceremony of son of her daughter in May, 1996 she and her husband had given one gold chain of 10 gram for her son, one pair of gold ear rings to her daughter and clothes for their daughter's son and clothes for other family members. However, neither the complainant nor her father stated in their evidence that anything was given to the complainant or her family members after the birth of son of her daughter.
35. Moreover, the allegations of the complainant and her parents against the accused persons are general, vague and bold in nature. They had not given any specific date, time, year & occasion of harassment of the complainant by the accused persons. 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. The defence also succeeded to prove during the cross examination of the complainant & her parents that they made drastic improvements in their evidence and the said St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 44 witnesses failed to give any explanation for the omissions made by them in their statements made during investigation and the improved version in the court.
36.The evidence on record also reflects that complainant married the accused/husband without disclosing the marriage to her parents. In fact, she informed abut her marriage to her parents after she joined her matrimonial house. The PW7, an independent witness stated in his evidence during cross examination that after registration of the case, the complainant Hema visited her house for about 34 days and informed him that she has no dispute with the accused persons and the case has been got registered by her father. The testimony of PW7 also falsify the entire case of the prosecution that the accused persons harassed the complainant for dowry demands and gives credence to the defence of the accused that fissures started in the relationship of complainant and the accused persons after the parents of his wife started their interference.
37. In view of the contradictions,inconsistencies and improvements made by the complainant & her parents, their testimonies do not inspire confidence and are not above suspicion. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for offence u/s 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt the guilt of accused under explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498A IPC. Accordingly all the accused St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 45 are acquitted under Section 498A IPC.
38.Only the accused Sushila Negi, mother in law of the complainant is facing trial for offence u/s 406 IPC.
39.Coming to Section 406 IPC, Section 406 IPC deals with criminal breach of 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".
40.Therefore, before a property could be misappropriated, the same is necessary to have been entrusted first to the accused. In Jaswant Lal Vs. State AIR 1968 SC 700, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that entrustment is an essential ingredient of an offence u/s 406 IPC. In Reshan Lal Vs. State AIR 1983 SC St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 46 631, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proof of entrustment is an essential ingredient of the offence. Similarly, in Ram Narayan Vs. CBI 2003 (3) SCC 641, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that no constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be an entrustment. As such, entrustment is one of the essential ingredients for the offence u/s 406 IPC.
41. The complainant in her evidence stated that all her articles of Istridhan were entrusted to her mother in law. However, parents of the complainant have stated that the same were given to the parents in law. From this piece of evidence, even the entrustment of the dowry and Istridhan articles to the accused Sushila Negi is doubtful.
42.In judgment of Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others, 138 (2007), DLT 152, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed he increasing trend of making exaggerated claims by the complainant and his family regarding Istridhan given to the complainant. To curb the same, it laid down the mandate for preparation of list of dowry articles at the time of marriage duly signed from bride side as well as from groom side, in terms of provision of 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that the complainant and her family members, are bound to disclose the source of such expenditure on marriage. In the instant case, no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage signed by both sides. The mother of the complainant admitted in her cross examination that no list of St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur 47 dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage. The complainant's mother stated in her cross examination that on the day of marriage of her daughter, no photographer was called from their side. Therefore, they do not have any photograph of marriage. Moreover, they also do not have the receipts of jewellery articles as it was given to the parents of the complainant. The explanation given by the mother of the complainant for not producing either the photographs of reception or receipts of stridhan articles and jewellery is not convincing and appears to be a cover up. In the absence of photograph or receipt/bill the exchange/possession of stridhan and jewellery articles is not proved.
43.In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons u/s 406 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore all accused persons are also acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC.
44.I order accordingly.
Announced in the open court (PRIYA MAHENDRA)
th
on this day of 26 November 2012 Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court South Delhi,
Saket Court Complex, New Delhi
St. Vs. Vijay Negi etc. FIR no. 290/97, P.S. K.M. Pur