Delhi District Court
S/ vs Tushar Kumar And Others Page No.1 on 1 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 : NEW DELHI
In re :
Session Case No. 12/12
State
versus
(1) Tushar Kumar
Son of Shri Surender Pal
R/o. 40, Gandhi Sadan, Mandir Marg
New Delhi.
(2) Surender Pal
Son of late Sh. Tilak Raj
R/o. 40, Gandhi Sadan, Mandir Marg
New Delhi.
FIR No. 200/2011
Under Sec. 498A/304B/306/34 IPC
Police Station Mandir Marg
Date of institution of the case : 14.02.2012
Date of reserving judgment/order : 24.07.2012
Date of Order/ judgment : 01.08.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The prosecution has presented a charge-sheet against the accused Tushar Kumar and Surender Pal under Sections 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
2. The facts in brief as stated by the prosecution in the charge sheet are that Smt. Nisha wife of accused Tushar committed suicide in the night of 14-15.10.2011 by hanging herself in her matrimonial home ie 40, Gandhi Sadan, Mandir S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.1 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg Marg, New Delhi. The information of the incident was given by her father-in-law, accused Surender to the police on the basis of which DD No. 34A dated 14.10.2011 was registered at Police Station Mandir Marg and investigation was carried out by Assistant Sub Inspector Satya Prakash. The Executive Magistrate Shri M.K. Naunihal was called to the spot and the inquest proceedings were got prepared. The scene of crime was inspected and the chunni used by the deceased for hanging was seized and postmortem was got done. The statement of Smt. Kamlesh Devi and her husband Sh Baldev Kumar were recorded by Executive Magistrate wherein they alleged the dowry harassment of her daughter. On the basis of said complaint, FIR under Section 498AQ/304B IPC was registered. During the course of the investigation, the statements of material witnesses were recorded and on finding sufficient evidence, charge sheet under Section 498A/304B IPC was filed against both the accused persons on 03.01.2012, which was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 02.02.2012.
3. Charges under Section 498A/306/304B read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused persons vide order dated 06.03.2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in support of its case has examined nineteen witnesses in all. PW1 Shrimati Kamlesh Devi, the mother of deceased. PW2 Shri Baldev Kumar, father of deceased. PW3 Ms. Jyoti is sister of deceased and PW4 Ms. Nirmala Devi was the maternal aunt of the deceased who had S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.2 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg got the marriage of the deceased fixed with accused Tushar. They all have deposed about dowry harassment of the deceased which led her to commit suicide.
5. PW5 Dr. Manoj Kumar has proved the postmortem report Ex PW5/A and his opinion in regard to the cause of death is Ex PW5/B.
6. PW6 Assistant Sub Inspector Satya Parkash on receipt of DD No. 34A had proceeded to the scene of the incident along with Constable Kuldeep. The S.D.M was called to the spot. The crime team also arrived at the spot and conducted the enquiries and prepared the crime report. The chunni used by the deceased for hanging was seized vide memo Ex PW6/A and body was sent to Mortuary, Lady Harding Medical College where her postmortem was done.
7. PW7 Head Constable Rajan was the malkhana mohrar with whom the sealed parcel containing viscera of the deceased was deposited by Assistant Sub Inspector Satya Prakash on 15.11.2011. He had proved the relevant entries of Register No. 19 as Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B.
8. PW8 Shri M.K. Naunihal was Executive Magistrate who had deposed that he had recorded the statement of Shrimati Kamlesh which is Ex PW1/A and thereafter he made his endorsement on the said statement as Ex PW8/A and directed for registration of FIR. The chunni was seized by the police in his presence vide memo Ex. PW6/A. He prepared inquest proceedings Ex PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C. He also moved an application for preservation of dead body of the deceased in the mortuary which is Ex. PW8/D. S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.3 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg
9. PW9 Mahesh Kumar was the relative of the deceased and had identified the dead body in the mortuary vide his statement Ex. PW9/A.
10. PW 10 Constable Abhay Singh was the photographer in Mobile Crime Team and had taken the photographs of the scene of incident which are Ex PW10/A1 to A11 and negatives are Ex PW10/B1 to B11.
11. PW11 Sub Insp. Pankaj Singh was the Incharge of the Crime Team who on receipt of information about the incident in the night of 14-15.10.2011, had proceeded to the scene of the incident and inspected the spot, but no specific clue were found.
12. PW 12 Head Constable Radhey Shyam had recorded DD No. 34A in regard to the receipt of information about the deceased having committed suicide which is Ex. PW6/A.
13. PW 13 Head Constable Devi Chand had recorded FIR Ex PW13/A and had made his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW 13/B.
14. PW 14 Assistant Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh was posted in P.C.R Van and on receipt of information had gone to the scene of crime and have found deceased lying on the bed and was told that she had been brought down from the hanging posture by her husband, Tushar.
15. PW 15 Inspector Vinod Narang was the SHO, Police Station Mandir Marg who had also reached the spot on receipt of information and had called the Executive Magistrate on the spot. On the endorsement made by the Executive Magistrate S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.4 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg on the statement of Shrimati Kamlesh Devi, he made his own endorsement Ex PW15/A and got the case registered which was assigned to Inspector Sanjay Singh for further investigation.
16. PW 16 Constable Shailesh Kumar had deposited the exhibits from malkhana mohrar to FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
17. PW 17 Inspector Sanjay Kumar who was the investigating officer who had completed the investigation. He had arrested the accused Tushar vide memo Ex. PW17/A and conducted his personal search memo vide memo Ex PW17/B. Accused Surender was arrested vide memo Ex PW17/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW17/D. He sought the opinion in respect of the chunni from the Forensic Medicine Department, Lady Harding Medical College vide his application Ex PW17/E. The F.S.L report was obtained by him and same are Ex PW17/F and Ex PW17/G.
18. PW 18 Head Constable Ved Pal had joined investigation with Inspector Sanjay Singh.
19. PW 19 Sub Insp. Mahesh Kumar has proved the scaled site plan which is Ex. PW19/A.
20. Statement of the accused Tushar and Surender were recorded separately under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which they denied that the deceased was ever harassed by them nor any dowry demand was made by them. It was submitted by them that they were implicated falsely in this case.
21. Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State has argued that the consistent testimony of the parents as well as of Smt Nirmala Devi, PW4 who was the mediator in getting S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.5 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg the marriage solemnized between the deceased and the accused Tushar Kumar about the harassment of the deceased on account of dowry proves that deceased was abetted to commit suicide on account of dowry harassment. It is submitted that in view of the evidence on record the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
22. Learned counsel on behalf of both the accused persons has argued that, infact, the deceased was the youngest of the five sisters and the parents of the deceased were not in a position to even bear the expenses of the marriage for which reasons the marriage was performed in a Gurudwara and only 5-10 persons from Delhi had gone for the performance of the marriage. It was argued that PW1 Smt. Kamlesh Kumar, the mother as well as PW2 Baldev Kumar have admitted that there was no dowry given at the time of marriage. When the family of the deceased was not in a position to even give any dowry and the marriage was also performed in the Gurudwara where was the question for the accused persons to have demanded any money subsequently from the parents of the deceased on this account. It was further argued that a sum of Rs.5000/- which accused had admitted having been given to the deceased, has been explained to be on account of "Shagan" for having visited the house of the complainant. It was argued that,infact, the father of the deceased had levelled false allegations of theft against the accused Tushar Kumar, despite which Tushar Kumar had not reacted and had maintained his cordial relationship with the deceased and her family members. It was further argued S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.6 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the parents, sister Jyoti and Smt Nirmala Devi and their evidence does not prove any dowry harassment of the deceased. Infact, the deceased was suffering from the ailment of "fits" and this was concealed from the accused persons at the time of marriage. It is argued that no charges of dowry harassment or abatement to suicide have been proved against the accused persons who are entitled to be acquitted.
23. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record and the evidence adduced on record. My observations are as under:
24. The increasing number of death of woman on account of dowry harassment became a matter of serious concern to the law maker. In order to combat this menace the Legislature amended to manage the Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Evidence Act to add Section 498A,304 B IPC and Section 113 B Indian Evidence Act. It was observed in the case of Promila Patnaik and ors Vs State of Orissa 1992, Cri.L.J. 2385( Ori) that such crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential homes and in secrecy, where independent and direct evidence is not easy to get. That is why the Legislature has to introduce Sections 113A and 113 B of the Evidence Act to strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting a presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are established and the unfortunate event has taken place within seven years of marriage. This period of seven years is considered to be turbulent one after which the legislature assumes that the couple settle down in their life. If a S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.7 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg married woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his family members Section 498A gets attracted. If such cruelty or harassment was inflicted by the husband or his relative for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry immediately preceding the death under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage, such death is deemed to be an offence punished under Section 304B IPC.
25. While the presumption have been introduced by virtue of Section 113A and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to enable to prosecution to establish offences of severe gravity as contemplated under Section 498A,304B IPC, yet at the same time, the basis principle of criminal jurisprudence has to be remembered. The court must strictly be satisfied that no innocent person should be convicted even at the risk of letting of some guilty persons. There is, however, a rider to the doctrine of benefit of doubt which is to be that it a reasonable doubt. Standard adopted must be that of a prudent man and would of course, vary from case to case and circumstance to circumstance.
26. In the case of Gurbachan Singh Vs Satpal Singh and others 1990 SCC (Cri) 151 it was cautioned that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plan that it is better to let hundred guilty people escape than to punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.8 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated. In the light of these principles the case of prosecution needs to be examined
27. The first charge which has been framed against the accused persons is that of under Section 498A IPC.
28. Section 498A IPC provides inter alia that whosoever being the husband or the relative of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty establish punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine. Explanation to the Section 498A IPC defines Cruelty which must be one which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to the life or health or, such harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any property.
29. The facts of the present case are now required to be tested on the touch stone of the ingredients of Section 498A IPC as discussed above to conclude if the charge under Section 498A IPC is established against the accused persons. The accused Tushar was married to deceased Nisha on 14.08.2010 who had committed suicide by hanging herself in the night of 12-13.08.2011 i.e almost after one year. The parents of the deceased on receipt of information had reached Delhi and made a statement to the SDM which is Ex PW1/A wherein , in answer the specific question of the SDM if their daughter was harassed or was beaten by her- in- laws, the specific answer was given by them that after about a month of marriage Rs. 5000/- were demanded by the deceased which were given by S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.9 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg them. Thereafter, it is inserted that demands were being made from time to time and the demand was made even a month prior to the date of incident. Besides this there was nothing stated by the parents in their initial statements made to the SDM.
30. The first material witness examined by the prosecution was PW1 Smt Kamlesh Devi, the mother of the deceased. As already mentioned above, in her initial statement to the SDM, it was simply asserted that a demand of Rs. 5000/- was made initially and thereafter demand of money was made from time to time. In her detailed statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C which was subsequently recorded on 16.10.2011 it was alleged that the dowry demands were being made from time to time and deceased was even being beaten and abused by both of accused i.e Tushar Kumar and his father after getting drunk. It was also alleged that no money for personal expenses were being given to the deceased and when-ever the deceased came to her house, she used to tell her about all the atrocities to which she was subjected by the accused persons and she suspected that she would be killed by them. The testimony of complainant Smt. Kamlesh Devi is, therefore, most material to be considered in the light of previous statement made under Section 161 CrPC. She had deposed in her testimony that after about one month of marriage, deceased had called her telephonically and told that her husband Tushar Kumar and her father in law have demanded Rs. 5000/- and thereafter, she and accused Tushar Kumar, her husband came to her house and she gave Rs. 5000/- to her. In her statement under Section S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.10 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg 161 CrPC, it was stated by her that a sum of Rs.5000/- had infact being sent by her to the deceased. More over in her first examination she had stated that she had given Rs.5000/- was given by her to her daughter, though she explained that accused Tushar was also present along with her. A suggestion was also given to her that the said sum of Rs. 5000/- was purely given as a " Shagan" because they had come to the house of the complainant.
31. PW2 Baldev Kumar father of the deceased has also deposed that after about 20 days of the marriage, the accused persons started making demand for money and that after about 20 days, accused Tushar and deceased came to their house and Rs.5000/- were given to them. The testimony of PW1 Smt Kamlesh Devi and PW2 Baldev Kumar if read together would clearly show that the sum of Rs.5000/- which the accused Tushar has admitted to have been given by the complainant to the deceased was in the nature of "Shagan" rather than pursuant to the demand allegedly made by the accused persons.
31. PW3 Smt Jyoti, elder sister of the deceased had also deposed that no demand for dowry was made at the time of the marriage. She had, however, deposed that after about one month of the marriage deceased was pressurised by the accused persons to bring Rs. 5000/- which were given by her father. She had also deposed that Nisha was being harassed. She was not being permit to watch television, sleep on the bed on the pretext that she had not brought these items from her father and was made to sleep on a board in one room. It is S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.11 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg further deposed by her that when Nisha had confronted the accused persons as to why she was being harassed for dowry, when they themselves not made any demand for dowry, she was told by the accused that her father turned out to be a complete " kangla" and they were not aware that anything would be given in the dowry by her father. She had explained that accused Tushar never let her alone and would always bring her even to their house and all these facts were told to her by deceased whenever Tushar went out for some time.
32. PW4 Ms. Nirmala Devi the maternal aunt of the deceased, had got the marriage solemnized between the deceased and the accused Tushar. She has corroborated that no dowry demand was made till the marriage was performed. But she had also deposed that Nisha had came to her house 2-3 times and had told her that the accused Surender would consume alcohol and when deceased told accused Tushar to bring ration and other household articles, accused persons used to abuse her. After about 2-4 months of the marriage, the accused started complaining that nothing was given in dowry and fights use to take place on this account. It is also deposed by her that she had tried to counsel the accused Tushar, despite which their attitude did not change.
34. This is significant in the light of testimony of PW1 Smt. Kamlesh Devi who had deposed that the accused Tushar along with his daughter used to come to her house after every month or a half and she used to pay them Rs.1000-2000/- as were available with her, since the accused persons used to make demand of money. Similarly, PW2 Baldev Kumar has S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.12 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg deposed that deceased and Tushar used to come to their house and take Rs.500-1000/- every time. The testimony of these two witnesses clearly shows that every time the deceased along with her husband/accused visited the house of the complainant. The said amount of Rs. 1000/- would not have been towards any dowry demand but merely in the nature of "shagan" being given to the deceased on account of her visits to the parental house. It is difficult to accept that dowry demand would be made for the sum of Rs.500-1000/- from time to time. It could be said that said token money were given from time to time to the visiting daughter by the parents and could not be held to be on account of dowry demand.
35. The question which thus, arises is whether giving of token money to the daughter on her every visit can be termed as dowry demand. The term dowry has been defined in Sec. 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
36. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law( Shariat) applies".
37. The facts of the present case, when examined in S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.13 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg the light of the definition of the dowry would show that the sums of Rs. 500-1000/- which even the accused Tushar has admitted were given to them and his wife, by the parents of the deceased when they visited their house can by no stretch of interpretion be termed as dowry to demand. It had no concern with the ceremony of marriage.
38. It was observed in the case of Satbir Singh Vs State of Punjab 2001 AIR (SC) 2828 that there are three occasions relating to the dowry. One is before the marriage; second is at the time of marriage and at any time after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be as unending period. But the crucial words are in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security of any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other occasion for payments of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". The giving of small amounts on the occasion of visits of the accused Tushar and his wife cannot be, therefore, termed as dowry demands.
39. It is also significant to refer to the incident as deposed by PW1 Smt. Kamlesh Devi wherein she had deposed that after the festival of Rakhi about one and half a month before she died, the deceased along with accused Tushar had come to her house and had stated that they wanted to set up S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.14 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg their own independent house and also asked for a spare gas stove which she had gave them. In addition, she also give Rs. 2000/- for the purchase of a gas cylinder. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Appasaheb and anothers Vs State of Maharashtra 2007(1) JCC 147 where it was held as under:
"A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood".
40. The Apex Court in Hazari Lal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2007(3) JCC 1988 had observed that strong material is required to see as to how the deceased was being harassed or subjected to cruelty. There is a vast different between " could have been", "must have been" and has been". In the absence of any material, the case falls in first category. In such a case, conviction is not permissible.
41. In the present case also there is no cogent evidence which has been brought forth by the prosecution witnesses from which it can be established that the deceased was being harassed by accused Tushar or by her father-in-law accused Surender on account of dowry,infact, there is not an iota of evidence which has come against accused Surender. As against accused Tushar the evidence of having been given token money which cannot be termed as dowry demands. The prosecution has not been able to show that there was any harassment of the deceased on account of dowry demands.
S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.15FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg
42. The second limb of Section 498A IPC provides for subjecting a woman to said cruelty as would drive her to commit suicide or cause bodily or mental injury to herself . As already discussed above not a single incident has been deposed by the prosecution witnesses from where it could be inferred that she was being subjected to any kind of cruelty provided under Section 498A IPC. The prosecution is, therefore, not been able to establish their case under Section 498A IPC against both the accused persons.
43. The ingredients for bringing home the offence under Section 304B IPC have been explained in the case of Vinita and another Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2012(1) JCC 340 Delhi as under:
(1) that the death of the woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which is not normal;
(2) Such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage (3) That the victim was subjected to her cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband;
(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and (5) Such cruelty should be made soon before her marriage
44. In the present case the death has occurred on account of suicide committed by the deceased by hanging herself. Whether suicide would be covered under Section 304B IPC, was answered in the case of Smt. Shanti Vs State of Haryana 1991(1) SCC 371 and in case of Kans Raj Vs S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.16 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg State of Punjab and others, 2000(5) SCC 207 wherein the Supreme Court had held that suicide is one of the modes falling within the ambit of Section 304B IPC. The present case though being of suicide can still be covered under Section 304B IPC provided said suicide is shown to be linked to cruelty or harassment on account of dowry demand.
45. Section 113 B Indian Evidence Act provides for a presumption to be drawn against the accused in regard to dowry death provided the prosecution establishes that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment. However, circumstances in which the Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked were laid down by the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chattisgarh 2001(9) SCC 618 wherein it was noted that the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to " all the other circumstances of the case" which ambit need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one.
46. The question which thus arise is whether the harassment or cruelty in relation to dowry has been established. As already discussed above in detail, there is no evidence from where dowry harassment could be inferred. The question which still confronts a legal mind is the reason why S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.17 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg the suicide may have been committed by a young girl almost within one year of marriage. Some assistance can be drawn from the testimony of PW4 Ms. Nirmala Devi who had deposed that accused Tushar was working at the time of marriage but thereafter he left his job and naturally the fights started in the family. Accused Tushar also stated consuming liquor. The co accused Surender also used to drink alcohol. Nisha used to tell Tushar to bring the ration and other household articles on which the accused persons used to abuse her. This testimony reflect that the dispute between the parties was on account of non employment of accused Tushar and had nothing to do with dowry demands. It was observed by the Bombay High Court in Datta Mahadev Wadile Vs State of Maharashtra 1993 II DMC 96 "that mere a cruelty would not be sufficient to level a charge of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The degree of the conduct of the husband must be such that it would reasonably be expected of a wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health.
47. There being no evidence of harassment or cruelty on account of dowry, no offence under Section 304B IPC is made out against the accused persons.
48. Section 306 IPC deals with abetement to suicide. While for the offence under Section 304B IPC it has to be shown that harassment or cruelty was soon before the occurrence of death, but in Section 306 IPC there is no such limitation of time and all that has to be established is that the conduct of the accused was such as would abet or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. As already discussed above, S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.18 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg there is no evidence in regard to the conduct of the accused persons which could be termed as abetment or instigation for the deceased to have hanged herself. From the testimony of PW4 Smt. Nirmala Devi it seems that because of non employment of the accused Tushar, the deceased may have been become disgrunted and unhappy and may have committed suicide. But, it is all in the domain of conjectures and there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard. The offence under Section 306 IPC is also not established.
49. The prosecution is, therefore, not been able to establish the case against both the accused persons for the charges framed against them. Therefore, both the accused are acquitted.
50. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 01.08.2012 ( Neena Bansal Krishna ) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi S/vs Tushar Kumar and others Page No.19 FIR No. 200/2011 PS Mandir Marg