Delhi District Court
St. vs . Kailash Sharma & Ors. on 15 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM (MAHILA COURTS) :
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO. 414/04
P.S. CHANDANI CHOWK
U/s. 498A/406 /34 IPC
02401R: 0317362005
ST. VS. KAILASH SHARMA & ORS.
1.DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE : DURING SUBSISTENCE OF MARRIAGE SINCE 02.12.2002
2. NAME OF COMPLAINANT : SMT. KUSUM SHARMA D/o SH. PARAS RAM SHARMA
3. NAME OF ACCUSED PERSONS, THEIR PARENTAGE & ADDRESS : 1. SH. KAILASH SHARMA (SINCE EXPIRED) S/o SH. HAR PRASAD SHARMA
2. SH. HAR PRASAD SHARMA S/o LATE SHANKAR LAL SHARMA
3. SMT. PREMWATI SHARMA (SINCE DISCHARGED) W/o SH.HAR PRASAD SHARMA
4. SH. SURESH SHARMA S/o SH. HAR PRASADSHARMA
5. SH.PAWAN SHARMA (SINCE DISCHARGED) S/o SH. HAR PRASAD SHARMA
6. SMT. REKKHA SHARMA (SINCE DISCHARGED) W/o SH. SURESH SHARMA ALL R/o H. NO. R.C 196, KHORA COLONY,HIMALAYA ENCLAVE, GHAZIABAD, UP
4. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : 498A/406 IPC
5. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS : PLEADED NOT GUILTY FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 2
6. FINAL ORDER : ACQUITTED
7. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 15.09.2014 COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES FOR THE STATE : SH. VINEET DAHIYA FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS : SH. YOGENDER SINGH CHOUDHARY THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The brief facts of the case as have been disclosed in the statement made by the complainant Smt. Kusum Sharma D/o Sh. Parasram Sharma R/o H,No. 4390, Ist floor, Near Meena Art Galary, Nai Sarak, Delhi, wherein it is stated that complainant was married to accused Kailash Sharma on 02.12.2002 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. At the time of marriage, complainant's father had spent Rs. 3,40,000 for gifts given to in laws of the complainant. It is further stated that after marriage, complainant went to her matrimonial house twice at village Jitaka, PS Aurangabad, Distt. Bulandsaher, U.P. and after about one month, her husband Kailash Sharma took her to his house at Khora Colony , Noida, where complainant's brother in laws and Bhabhi, accused Suresh, Pawan and Rekha respectively were also residing with their family. Complainant's father in law accused Har Prasad and mother in law Premwati also used to visit them there frequently .
2. It is further stated that just few days after marriage, accused Kailash, Suresh, Pawan and Rekha started taunting and beating complainant . They also abused her by saying that her father had not given anything in dowry, he was a beggar and did not own anything. Accused Kailash used to beat her regularly under the influence of alcohol. Her husband and other accused had beaten her and demanded a motorcycle from her father. It is further stated that complainant informed her father about their demand then her father borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/ and gave FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 3 it to accused Kailash. during that time, once her brother came to visit at Khora Colony then complainant's husband demanded an album from her brother for marriage photographs, who fulfilled his demand of album. It is further stated that Rs. 45,000/ given by complainant's father was not spent in purchase of motorcycle by accused Har Parasad and Premwati but they spent the money for some other purpose and they again started raising demands of a motorcycle and Rs. 1 Lac in cash and beat her in furtherance of said demand. It is further stated that accused Rekha Sharma used to taunt and trouble her for bringing less dowry and she used to tell her that in case, their demands weer not fulfilled then she shall not be allowed to live peacefully.
3. It is further stated that once accused Kailash asked her to bring a glass of water, she brought the same but accused threw the glass of water on the pretext that some worm was lying therein and he beat her with stick and also abused her and her family members. It is further stated that once all the family members were sitting at roof at Khora Colony then accused Suresh Sharma directed her to close the door of kitchen, while she was coming from the terrace then he threw one burning cylinder upon her but somehow she managed to save herself. Accused Suresh Sharma used to abuse and beat her on the pretext that she did not wash clothes of his children. It is further stated that accused Har Prased also used to trouble her by demanding glass of water in every five minutes for himself and other family members. In case, it got late being busy doing other household works then he used to abuse and beat her. Her brother in law also used to abuse and beat her by leg and fist blows . Accused Kailash, Har Prasad and Suresh used to threaten to finish her family members. It is further stated that once accused Kailash told her " Tu kon chij hai, maine apni sagi behan ko maar kar haridwar ganga me baha diya, mai badmash hu, gunda hu, tujhe or tere vansh ko mita dunga" he also told that a theft was got committed by him at the house of his uncle Sh. Ram Prasad. It FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 4 is further stated that accused Kailash Sharma was having an illicit relationship with the sister of his Bhabhi and accused used to threaten that he would get married with her and more dowry would be demanded, whenever she objected to the same, accused Kailash Sharma used to beat her. It is further stated that in May 2004, accused Kailash Sharma sent the complainant to Village Jataka to live there and brought sister of her Bhabhi to Khoda Colony in her absence and informed the complainant that he would perform marriage with her.
4. It is further stated that complainant stayed in Jataka Village till 19.08.2004. During her stay, one day while she was suffering from headache and requested for medicine from accused Premwati but she refused to give and stated by giving fist blows "du tuje goli".She also used to taunt and abuse the complainant. It is further stated their demand of motorcycle and Rs. One Lac was being raised time and again. It is further stated that on 19.08.2004, accused Kailash, Suresh, Premwati beat and forced her to leave the matrimonial house by stating " Rupey or motorcycle lekar aa warna talaq". Thereafter, complainant somehow managed to reach her parental house in Delhi and since then she was forced to reside at parental house. It is further stated that on 13.08.2004 at about 18 to 20 people including accused persons reached at her parental house and demanded a motorcycle and one lac rupees and threatened to divorce the complainant and to finish her family and clan. It is further stated that on 23.09.2004, accused Pawan and one of his relatives namely Sh. Maghanand also reached at parental home and repeated their demands of Rs. One Lac and Motorcycle . They threatened to kidnap her younger sisters, who were residing alongwith her mother in the village.
5. It is further stated that when she went to parental house, she was not keeping well. But despite her illness, accused persons did not get her medically treated or give medicine. It is further stated that on 25.09.2004 at about 7.45 a.m. accused Kailash, Har Prasad and other relatives namely Maghanand, Dinesh , Hari Chand FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 5 and Babloo reached at her parental house in Delhi and quarreled with them and again raised the demand of Rs. One Lac and one motorcycle and told that in case, their demands were not met then complainant shall be divorced. They also threatened to finish their clan if matter was reported to police. It is further stated that all Istridhan articles, jewellery and clothes were lying in the custody of accused persons, which they did not return. Finding no other alternative, complainant got a complaint lodged with police then her complaint was forward to CAW Cell, where counselling was done but when matter could not be sorted out then a case U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
6. Subsequent to registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court against the accused persons. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned by Ld. Predecessor to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by them. They were supplied with copy of charge sheet in compliance of provision given under section 208 Cr.PC. Arguments on the point of charge heard and vide order dated 05.10.2010 charge u/s 498A/34 IPC was framed against accused Kailash Sharma, Har Prasad Sharma and Suresh Sharma under section 498A/34 IPC and charge under section 406 IPC was framed against accused Kailash Sharma to which they individually pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Premwati, Pawan Sharma and Rekha Sharma were discharged vide order dated 05.10.2010. During the course of trial, accused Kailash Sharma unfortunately expired, on receiving his death verification report, proceedings against him were abated.
7. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution produced following twelve witnesses :
(i) Complainant Smt. Kusum Sharma appeared as PW1 and proved seizure memo of two photographs Ex PW1/A, photographs Mark A (colly), marriage card FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 6 Ex PW1/B, list of dowry articles Ex PW1/C (colly), complaint Ex PW1/D, seizure memo of receipt of jewellery Ex, PW1/E , receipt Ex. PW1/F, seizure memo of Istridhan Ex. PW1/GJ,
(ii) HC Karam Singh, appeared as PW2,
(iii) HC Shamsher Singh appeared as PW 3,
(iv) W/Const. Neelam Sharma appeared as PW4 and proved personal search memo of accused Rekha Sharma vide Ex. PW4/A,
(v) Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, appeared as PW5,
(vi) SI Vinesh Thapa appeared as PW 6, and proved arrest memo Ex. PW6/AD, personal search memo Ex. PW6/EG,Ex. PW6/C and seizure memo of Istridhan articles Ex. PW1/G,
(vii) HC Ashwini Kumar appeared as PW7 and proved copy of FIR Ex. PW7/A and endorsement of rukka Ex. PW7/B,
(viii)Sh. Jagan Lal Sharma appeared as PW8,
(ix) Sh. Fateh Singh appeared as PW9
(x) Sh. Sushil Kumar appeared as PW10,
(xi) Sh. Rajender Kumar Pandit appeared as PW11,
(xii) SI Amar Singh appeared as PW12 and proved arrest memo Ex. PW12/AB
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 CrPC. The statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein entire incriminating circumstances appearing on record were put to them, to which they denied as false and incorrect and claimed to have been falsely implicated but did not prefer to lead evidence in their defence, and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. During the course of final arguments, following arguments were made on behalf of accused persons:
(i) Admittedly, complainant and accused Kailash Sharma were residing FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 7 separately at Khoda Colony , Noida from accused Har Prasad .
(ii) Allegations against accused persons are vague and general in nature. No specific role of accused persons has been mentioned,
(iii) No MLC with regard to allegations of beating have been placed and proved on record,
(iv) Despite allegations of repeated harassment , no complaint to police had been filed by the complainant,
(v) Source of dowry articles allegedly given at the time of marriage, has not been verified,
(vi) Complaint Ex PW1/D was prepared and lodged at the instance of an advocate,
(vii) Allegations are mainly against husband of complainant, who has unfortunately expired,
10. The arguments of the prosecution are given below:
(i) The guilt of accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt,(10.2) PW1/Complainant has specifically deposed about demands of dowry articles and detailed the incidents of harassment and cruelty in furtherance of dowry demand,
(ii) During cross examination, it has come on record that accused Har Prasad used to visit Khoda Colony, Noida and raise demands and subjected the complainant to harassment and beatings,
(iii) Beatings given to complainant were simple and regular beatings and no MLC was required to be prepared,
(iv) No question or suggestion was put to PW1 regarding lodging of complaint by the complainant at the instance of an advocate,
11. The court has heard the submissions of both the sides and also gone through entire record including testimonies of witnesses. The court shall deal with charge framed under section 498A/34 IPC only as charge under section 406 IPC has not been framed against present accused persons but was framed against accused FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 8 Kailash Sharma only, who has unfortunately expired. Before appreciating evidence on record, let us first discuss the relevant legal provision given U/s 498 A IPC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment to husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution must prove that :
(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment,
(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relatives of the husband,
(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to derive her (a) to commit suicide or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life,limb or health,whether mental or physical or
(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or(2) on account of failure by such woman or any person or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand
12. In the light of aforesaid legal provision, the court would now appreciate the evidence brought on record to ascertain if alleged acts of accused persons amount to cruelty in terms of provision given U/s 498 A IPC. Under section 498A IPC, demand is a precondition to attract the provision of explanation(b) of section 498A IPC. Admittedly, the complainant has built her case on explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. In the judgment of Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Vs State of Maharashtra,1990 Cri.L.J. Page 47(Bombay) and Rajnimal & Ors. Vs State by DSP,CB CID,1993 Cr.L.J page 3019 , the court observed that cruelty by itself without demand would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under explanation (b) of section 498A IPC. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is a demand of dowry and the cruelty is a consequence of that demand. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of HP Vs Nikku Ram & Ors. (1995)6 SCC 219 while interpreting the provisions of section 498A IPC observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under section 498A explanation(b) must have the nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of section 498A. The precondition for attracting the provision of this section is the demand and if the demand is missing and the FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 9 cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation(b). It may be cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121. The Apex court observed that cruelty under section 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.
13. Let us now appreciate evidence available on record in the light of aforesaid legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
The examination in chief of PW1/Smt. Kusum with regard to present accused persons is reproduced and appreciated as below: (13.1) she has deposed that accused persons used to taunt that "tere baap ne hamein kuch nahi diya, motorcycle lekar aao" and also used to beat her and demanded motorcycle. They also used to say that "tera baap bhikhari aur kangla hain". It be observed that mere taunting does not amount to cruelty in terms of section 498A IPC. It also be observed that allegations levelled by the complainant are general in nature without any specific details. During cross examination she has admitted that she did not make any complaint to police against beatings given by accused Suresh Sharma, (13.2) She has further deposed that she came to her parental house and told about everything to her father and her father took a loan of Rs. 45,000/ and gave her which she handed over to accused Kailash Sharma on 18.2.2003 when he came to her parental house in the presence of her father and brother. It be observed that allegation is against complainant's husband, who has unfortunately expired and no evidence has been collected with regard to source of loan amount. It also observed that during cross examination, she has deposed that she cannot tell from whom her father had borrowed Rs. 45,000/ She has stated that her father was working at a Saree Shop at Chandani Chowk. She can not tell how many bigah FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 10 agricultural land her father was having. She has also stated that she did not know about the salary of her father at the time of marriage. During cross examination she has denied not giving amount of Rs. 45,000/ to her husband and that her family had no capacity to give dowry articles as claimed by her, (13.3) She has further deposed that Rs. 45,000/ was used by her father in law Har Prasad for some other purpose and did not buy motorcycle and again started raising demand of motorcycle and Rs. One Lac and also beat her in furtherance of said demand. It be observed that allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. No evidence has come on record to prove that the said amount was handed over to accused persons and not utilized for purchase of motorcycle, (13.4) She has further deposed that one day her husband along with other family members including accused Suresh Sharma, were sitting on the roof of house. Accused Suresh Sharma asked her to close the door of kitchen. Suddenly, while she was going downstairs, accused Suresh Sharma threw the lantern but she somehow managed to save herself. She has further deposed that accused Suresh Sharma also used to beat her on the pretext that complainant did not wash clothes of his children. It be observed that allegations are not supported by corroborative evidence. It also be observed that despite allegation of having been attacked with lantern, she did not file any complaint against accused with police. No explanation has come from the complainant as to why matter was not reported to police. During cross examination, she has admitted that she did not make any complaint to the police when she was beaten by accused, (13.5) she has further deposed that accused Harprasad used to trouble her by saying "har Paanch minute me ghar ke logo ko paani pila" and if she could not give water timely being busy in other household work then accused used to beat her . It be observed that allegation is not supported by corroborative evidence, (13.6) She has further deposed that on 19.08.2004 accused Kailash Sharma, FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 11 Suresh Sharma and Premwati had beaten and forced her to leave matrimonial house by raising demand of motorcycle and Rs. 1 lac or else threatened to divorce her. It be observed that allegation is general in nature without specific detail and not supported by corroborative evidence, (13.7) She has further deposed that on 13.08.2004, around 18 to 20 persons including accused persons reached her village Ladela in a TATA 407, demanded one Lac rupees and motorcycle or else threatened to divorce. It be observed that this allegation is general in nature without any specific detail and also not supported by corroborative evidence. She has further deposed that on 25.09.2014 her husband, accused Har Prasad, relatives Maghanand, Dinesh, Hari Chand and Babloo came at parental house in Delhi in a TATa 407 and again demanded motorcycle and Rs. one lac or else threatened to divorce her. They also misbehaved with her father and threatened to kill if matter was reported to police. It be observed that allegations are again general in nature and not supported by corroborative evidence, (13.8) During cross examination, she has deposed that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at any point of time and that she was not subjected to cruelty during her stay at matrimonial house. She has also denied that she filed a false case against accused persons to extort money from them by implicating them in false case.
14. It is worthwhile to mention that while appreciating the evidence in such type of cases involving matrimonial disputes, the court has to be on its guard and not to be swayed by the general and bald nature of allegations which are bound to emanate from the mouth of family members of a woman after the relations between two sides have gone to the extreme opposite end. It is for this reason a strict analysis of allegations levelled by the family members of the complainant shall be done. Clearly , the accused persons have faced trial for penal provisions FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 12 and the consequence of which are very grave in nature so a strict interpretation needs to be taken of the various allegations levelled by the complainant and her relatives.
15. The examination in chief of PW5/Sh. Rakesh Kumar, brother of complainant with regard to present accused persons is also reproduced and appreciated as below: (15.1) He has deposed that accused persons used to harass, torture and beat her for demand of dowry and motorcycle and when she refused to fulfill their demands, she was given beatings by the accused persons. It be observed that allegations are general in nature without any specific details such as date, time and place of such harassment or beatings and no specific role of accused has also been mentioned. During cross examination, he has deposed that he could not say as to how much money was spent in the marriage and he did not know about the salary of his father, (15.2) He has further deposed that on 10.2.2003, his sister came to parental house and narrated all the incidents to them. His father took a loan of Rs. 45,000/ from his friend and gave the same to his sister. Thereafter, on 18.2.2003 accused Kailash Sharma came to take his sister back then his sister gave Rs. 45,000/ in cash to accused in his presence. It be observed that allegations are against accused Kailash Sharma, who has unfortunately expired. It also be observed that the fact that money was borrowed from father's friend is not mentioned in his statement given to police. It be also noticeable that the statement of father of complainant and said friend is not on record to corroborate this fact. During cross examination, he has admitted that he did not know the name of his father's friend from whom loan was taken and in his presence, his father's friend was interrogated by police with regard to loan. He has denied that his father was not having financial capacity to pay Rs 45,000/ , FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 13 (15.3) He has further deposed that in the month of March 2003, he went to matrimonial house of his sister to inquire about her wellbeing. when he did not find motorcycle for which amount was given, he inquired about the same then complainant informed that motorcycle was not purchased and money was spent for their personal use. It be observed that the court has already observed above that this allegation is not supported by corroborative evidence. He has further deposed that in the month of May 2003, the accused persons again started harassing his sister on account of less dowry and raised a new demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and motorcycle. It be observed that allegations are general in nature and are not accompanied by any specific details.
(15.4) He has further deposed that his sister used to tell them all events over telephone and in turn they used to console her by saying that things will improve with the passage of time. It be observed that this fact is not mentioned in the statement of complainant and no evidence has been collected by police during investigation with regard to this fact, (15.5) He has further deposed that in the month of May 2004, accused Kailash Sharma sent complainant to village Jitaka, where she was beaten and thrown out of the house on 19.8.2004 in furtherance of demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and motorcycle by the accused Kailash Sharma , Suresh Sharma and Prewati. It be observed that allegations are against husband, who has expired and mother in law, who has been discharged. The allegation against accused Suresh Sharma is general in nature without specific detail, (15.6) He has further deposed that on 31.8.2004, 18/20 persons reached at his native place and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/ and motorcycle or else threatened to divorce the complainant. Thereafter, on 25.9.2004 accused Kailash , Harprashad, Dinesh, Babloo , Hri Chand and Mahanand visited their house at Delhi, reiterated their demand and threatened his father with dire consequences and also gave FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 14 beatings. It be observed that in previous allegation names of accused persons are not mentioned and subsequent allegation is general in nature without specific detail. It be further observed that matter was not reported to police despite serious allegations. No explanation has been furnished for not reporting the matter to police. During cross examination, he has admitted that no complaint was made against accused persons with regard to above mentioned incident or in connection to dowry demand, (15.7) During cross examination, he has deposed that when he visited matrimonial house of complainant at Khora Colony , accused Har Prasad was not found residing there with the complainant and other family members. He has further deposed that complainant was never beaten in his presence and he had never taken the complainant to any doctor for treatment o receiving beating by the complainant in the hands of accused persons. He has denied that her sister was never illtreated by the accused persons and they have been implicated in a false case by them for extorting money, (15.8) PW12/SI Amar Singh, IO, during cross examination has deposed that he did not make any enquiry from the neighbours either at Jitaka Villege or Khoda Colony with regard to allegations levelled by the complainant. He has admitted that complainant never produced any medical document with respect to beatings given by the accused,
16. Now dealing with arguments made during final arguments by the parties.
accused persons and findings of the court are as below: Arguments of
(a) Complainant and accused Kailash Sharma were residing separately at Khoda Colony , Noida from accused Har Prasad . It has come on record that accused Har Prasad was residing at Villege Jitaka and visited Khoda Colony only occasionally,
(b) Allegations against accused persons are vague and general in nature. No specific role of accused persons has been mentioned. As discussed above, the FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 15 court is in agreement with this argument of defence side,
(c) No MLC with regard to allegations of beating have been placed and proved on record. It is on record that no MLC was ever prepared with regard to beatings given to complainant,
(d) Despite allegations of repeated harassment , no complaint to police had been filed by the complainant. As discussed above, the court is in agreement with this argument of defence side,
(e) Source of dowry articles allegedly given at the time of marriage, has not been verified. As discussed above, the court is in agreement with this argument of defence side, (f ) Complaint Ex PW1/D was prepared and lodged at the instance of an advocate. It has come on record that complaint Ex PW1/D was typed on computer in the presence of advocate of complainant,
(g) Allegations are mainly against husband of complainant, who has unfortunately expired. The court is in full agreement with this particular argument of defence side, The arguments of the prosecution and findings of the court are given below:
(i) The guilt of accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has been unable to prove its case against accused persons,
(ii) PW1/Complainant has specifically deposed about demands of dowry articles and detailed the incidents of harassment and cruelty in furtherance of dowry demand. The allegations are general in nature without specific deatil and therefore, cast serious doubt over truthfulness of complainant's story,
(iii) During cross examination, it has come on record that accused Har Prasad used to visit Khoda Colony, Noida and raised demands and subjected the complainant to harassment and beatings. The allegations are not supported by FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 16 corroborative evidence,
(iv) Beatings given to complainant were simple and regular beatings and no MLC was required to be prepared. In this regard, the court feels that for simple but regular beatings, MLC is required to be prepared in the wake of persistent alleged harassment and cruelty,
(v) No question or suggestion was put to PW1 regarding lodging of complaint by the complainant at the instance of an advocate. Though no question was put or suggestion was given to witness during cross examination but but bare perusal of complaint Ex PW1/D disclose that it was not written by the complainant in her own handwriting and words, •
17. In view of aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion that no material evidence has been produced in order to secure conviction. Accused persons, accordingly, deserve acquittal and are acquitted from the charge framed under section 498A/34 IPC .
18. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15.09.2014 (MONA TARDI KERKETTA) MM02 , MAHILA COURTS TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 17 FIR No. 414/04 P.S. Chandani Chowk U/SEC. 498A/406/34 IPC ST. VS. Kailash Sharma & Ors.
15.09.2014
Present : Ld. Sub. APP for the State.
Accused Kailash Sharma has expired
Accused Premwati, Pawan Sharma and Rekha Sharma have been discharged Other accused on bail with Ld. counsel Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, accused persons are acquitted from the charges framed u/s 498A/34 IPC.
Previous bail bonds are cancelled, sureties are discharged. Documents if any, be returned against receiving and endorsement if any be cancelled.
Fresh bail bonds in compliance of provision given under section 437A CrPC filed, attested and accepted. Bail bonds furnished shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 15.09.2014 FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA 18 FIR NO. 414/04 PS CHANDNI CHOWK STATE VS. KAILASH SHARMA