Delhi District Court
Fir No.270/03, Ps- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh Etc on 6 September, 2014
FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01
MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR NO. 270/03
PS- Badarpur
STATE
Versus.
BHUPESH
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.
a) Date of offence : 06.05.1999 onwards
b) Date of Institution of case : 06.01.2005
c) Date of judgment : 06.09.2014
d) Offence complained of : 406/498A/506/34 IPC
c) Name of accused, : (1) Sh. Bhupesh Kumar
Yadav
S/o Sh. Raja Ram
Yadav
R/o Village Lala ka
Purva, District Pratap
Garh, U.P
(2) Smt. Shanti
W/o Sh. Raja Ram
Yadav
R/o Village Lala ka
Purva, District Pratap
Garh,U.P
(3) Sh. Raja Ram Yadav
Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 1 of 30
FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc
S/o Sh. Betali Yadav
R/o Village Lala Ka
Purva, District Pratap
Garh,U.P
(4) Sh. Ramesh Yadav
S/o Sh. Raja Ram
Yadav
R/o Village Lala Ka
Purva,
District Pratap
Garh,U.P
(5) Sh. Vrijesh Yadav
S/o Sh. Raja Ram
Yadav
R/o Village Ka Purva,
District Pratap Garh,
U.P.
(6) Smt. Gayatri Devi
W/o Sh. Vrijesh
R/o Village Lala Ka
Purva, District Pratap
Garh, U.P
d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
e) Final Order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 2 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc
Yadav, Raja Ram Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Shanti, Gayatri Devi & Vrijesh have been sent to face trial on the allegations that they had subjected the complainant Resham Kumari to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and also committed criminal breach of trust in respect of said stridhan articles and threatened to kill her and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 498A/406/506/34 IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court by the IO upon which cognizance of the offence was taken by the court and all the accused persons were summoned.
2. Charge for offence punishable u/s 498A/406/506/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 19.09.2007 passed by Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then listed Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 3 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc for Prosecution Evidence.
3. Prosecution examined Seven witnesses. Statements of all the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 CrPC wherein they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused led independent defence evidence and produced one witness in their favour. Final Arguments were heard and matter was reserved for orders.
4. After hearing arguments from both the sides, record has carefully been perused.
The brief deposition of the prosecution case is as follows:
5. Smt. Reshma Devi was examined as PW-1. She deposed that she was married with the Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 4 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc accused Bhupesh Kumar Yadav on 06.05.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs at Village Lala Ka purva, District Pratap Garh, U.P. After marriage, she was taken to her matrimonial house at village Lala Ka Purva on the same day.
6. Without specifying the dowry articles, complainant deposed that the same were given in her marriage by her parents and were entrusted to her father in law, mother in law and her husband. The accused persons started beating her for bringing insufficient dowry articles and increased atrocities upon her. She was not given proper food. On 18.02.2001, she wrote a letter to her mother which is Mark A, about the demand of Rs.25,000/-, one motorcycle, coloured T.V. And jewellery from her by the accused persons. None of her family members responded to her letters. She physically and mentally tortured by her father-in-law, mother, Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 5 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc devar, husband, jeth, jethani. Her father gave Rs. 10,000/- to her in laws and told them not to harass and torture his daughter. On 01.12.2002, the accused persons again demanded dowry from her and again assaulted her. On the same day, all accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil on her and tried to burn her and she was saved due to intervention of neighbours. On 09.12.2002 she got her self medically examined at Pratap Garh Hospital , MLC is Mark C. Accused persons reached outside the hospital and threatened to kill her unless she agrees to compromise. Then, she reached to her Chacha's house at Rampur, Baabli, District Pratap Garh, U.P. Her father brought her back to Delhi. PW-1 filed complaint at Women Cell, Amar Colony, which is Ex.PW-1/A, list of dowry articles is Ex.PW1/B, marriage card is mark D, her statement dated 21.04.2003 at Women Cell is Ex.1/C. While the accused stated that none of the dowry articles Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 6 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc are remained to return and complainant had already taken the same. PW-1 deposed that all her dowry articles are in possession of her husband and her in-laws.
7. HC Sh. Kanwar Pal was examined as PW-2. On 20.05.2003, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Badarpur from 4:00 PM to 12:00 midnight and received rukka from the Reader of SHO. On the basis of the rukka, he registered the FIR of the present case and after the registration of the case, he hander over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Rajneesh for investigation. The copy of the said FIR is Ex. PW-2/A.
8. SI Fathe Singh Meena was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 30.01.2003 he was posted at CAW Cell Amar Colony, South District Amar Colony, PS Lajpat Nagar and received Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 7 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc the present complaint. After receiving the complaint, he sent a request letter to the complainant as well as the alleged person to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Bhupesh attended the CAW Cell PS Lajpat Nagar once. Thereafter, the accused never appeared before the cell. Then on 19.05.2003 SI Fathe Singh Meena sent the complaint alongwith his inquiry proceedings at PS Badarpur for registration of FIR. The inquiry report is Ex. PW3/A.
9. SI Rajnish was examined as PW-4.
On 20.05.2003, he was posted at PS Badar as SI and received a complaint alongwith the direction for registration of FIR and registered the FIR. On 23.07.2005 Raja Ram Yadav was arrested vide memo Ex-PW-4/A. On 03.09.2003, accused Bhupesh Yadav was formally arrested vide memo Ex-PW-4/C. Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 8 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc
10. Smt. Maya Devi was examined as PW-5. On 06.05.1999, she married her daughter Resham Devi with Sh. Bhupesh Yadav as per Hindu rites and customs. On 07.05.1999, her daughter went to her matrimonial house. After a week, her daughter came back from her house. Then, she told them that her in laws were not happy insufficient dowry. Then, she returned back at her matrimonial house in the month of March. Resham sent a letter wherein she mentioned that her father in law, her mother in law, her sister in law and her husband used to torture her and gave her beatings for demand of Rs. 25,000/-, colour T.V and a vehicle. Then her husband went to the matrimonial house of the daughter and gave Rs.10,000/- to the husband of her daughter. On 01.12.2002, they received a telephone from uncle of her daughter that her daughter was given beatings at her matrimonial house. Then, her husband went to the matrimonial Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 9 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc house of her and brought her back at her house. Then a complaint was filed at the Women Cell.
11. Dr. C. P. Verma consultant, T. B was examined as PW-6. He deposed that on 09.12.2002, he was posted on emergency duty as medical Officer, Distt. Hospital Pratapgarh. On 09.12.2002, he examined Ms. Resham Kumari aged about 22 years D/o Sh. Parmeshwar Yadav. The patient was found having simple contusion injury on her body. The medical report was written by the doctor in his own handwriting. The attested photocopy of medical report is Ex- PW-6/A . This document was objected to by Ld. Defence counsel as it was not original record. The objection is disallowed as the photocopy of said medical report was already on record as mark C, copy of which was duly supplied to the accused. Even if the attested copy is excluded from consideration, the Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 10 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc witness has proved the photocopy of the document himself by deposing in the court.
12. Sh. Parmeshwar Yadav was examined as PW-7 and deposed that on 06.05.1999, he got his daughter married with Bhupesh Kumar Yadav as per Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage of his daughter, he gifted wrist watch, a golden chain, ring, furniture, double bed, utensils, etc. After sometime of marriage, her daughter came to his house and told him that her in laws were not happy with her because of insufficient dowry. She also told him that she was not given proper food and care in her matrimonial house and was mentally harassed by her in laws by saying that they have brought a daughter of beggar. His daughter sent him a letter from her matrimonial house stating that her in laws were demanding motorcycle, cash of Rs. 25,000/-, colour T. V and some gold ornaments. Said letters Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 11 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc are already marked A & B. His daughter informed him that his son in law Bhupesh Kumar Yadav, Brijesh, Raja Ram, Gayatri Devi, Ramesh have made the demand. After sometime, he received information on phone from his younger brother that her daughter had come back at her native place from her matrimonial house. He also came to know that his daughter was given beatings in her matrimonial house and she was medically examined at the Government Hospital. He deposed that besides other articles, buffaloes and cows were also gifted in the marriage of his daughter. The brief deposition of the defence witness is as follows:
13. Sh. Mohd. Nasir was examined as DW-1. He deposed that he brought a miscellaneous application register "Shikayati Prathana Patra Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 12 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc Register" i.e the complaint Miscellaneous register wherein entries have been made of various complaints received in the office of Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh. In this register at page no.106, there is an entry no.1501 dated 13.12.2002 qua an application/complaint given by Smt. Resham, D/o Sh.Parmeshwar Prasad Yadav, R/o Shukulpur, Rampur, Babli qua which the report after inquiry was received on 11.02.2003. the copy of which portion/page of register has been retained on record as Ex-DW1/A(OSR) bearing the entry at point X. The document Ex-PW1/G as part of the record has been shown to the witness and he has acknowledged the stamp on that document pertaining to his own office.
14. Section 498A IPC is reproduced here for ready reference:
Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 13 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc "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 term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: 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 life, limb or health [whether mental or 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."
15. A bare perusal of section 498 A IPC shows that, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated U/s. 498 A are of much higher and sterner degree than the Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 14 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage. In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by section 498 A IPC , the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful' that is intentional. So to invoke provisions of section 498 A IPC, the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much graver nature than that causing grave injury or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic, persistent and willful acts perpetrated Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 15 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc with a view to make the life of the woman so burdensome or in-supportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life.
16. The complainant, in her complaint to CAW Cell, has alleged that the accused persons taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry and further abused her verbally. She is stated to have written letter dated 18.02.2001 to her mother informing her about the demand of one motorcycle, Rs.25,000/-, jewelery and color T.V. She deposed that in pursuance of this letter, her father had come to her matrimonial house and had given Rs.10,000/- to the in-laws in presence of other persons. The complainant has nowhere disclosed the names of any such person in whose presence this money was allegedly paid. Her mother/ PW-5 has contradicted the complainant by deposing that the complainant Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 16 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc did not address any letter to her and that all the letters were addressed to the father of the complainant.
Letters allegedly written by the complainant to her parents in respect of the alleged dowry demand:
17. As far as letters written by the complainant are concerned. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PW5/mother and PW1/complainant wife. PW1 deposed that she wrote the letter to her mother while PW5 says the letters were never addressed to her. Further, it has come on record that the complainant used to keep in touch with her parents telephonically, in these circumstances her specially writing a letter to the parents seems a little improbable. The letters themselves have not been duly proved to have been Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 17 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc dispatched at the date and time alleged. Neither the relevant records were summoned from the Postal department not the envelop in which the same were allegedly dispatched and bears the Stamp and date etc, was filed on record. Even the original letters themselves were never brought on record. In these circumstance, much weightage cannot be given to these alleged letters.
Alleged Incident of 01.12.2002:
18. The complainant had deposed about the incident of 01.12.2002 wherein she has alleged that her in-laws poured kerosene on her and tried to burn her alive. She further deposed she suffered injuries on her body and her clothes also got torned and she was rescued by the neighbours who counseled her in-laws against doing so. Interestingly, she did not report about this incident to Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 18 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc anyone and continued to live with her in-laws. She has deposed that her uncle resides near her matrimonial home and she could have easily gone to her Chacha's house or could have reported the incident to him telephonically also. She neither informed the Chacha who resides at Rampur itself nor did she inform her parents either telephonically or through letter. She also did not make any complaint to any Authority against the alleged act of her in-laws at the time of the incident. She did not get her medical examination done till 09.12.2002. The deposition is that the complainant herself went for her medical checkup. This shows that the complainant was not kept in custody or otherwise restrained from going anywhere. No explanation has been offered by her for delay in getting the medical examination and no complaint was made against the alleged act to any authority. Furthermore, accused Vrijesh, who is stated to be one of the Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 19 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc accused in the above mentioned incident, is proved to be at his official place of posting at Bhatinda, Punjab from 26.11.2002 to 23.12.2002 which is patently clear from perusal of Ex.PW-1/B that is the certificate of the employer of Vrijesh Yadav. There is unexplained delay in getting the medical examination after the alleged incident of 01.12.2002, the MLC does not show any injury which might have been caused by pouring of kerosene and attempt of burning. No person/ neighbour who is alleged to have saved the complainant on that day has been named or examined, no complaint was made to any authority by the complainant at the time of the alleged incident nor is there any explanation on record to prove that she could not have made the complaint. The absence of any such complaint raises serious doubts on the veracity of this witness especially when she met her Chacha and Father, none of them Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 20 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc deposed about having made any complaint before any local authority in respect of the incident of 01.12.2002.
19. During her cross examination, the complainant had admitted that she remained at her in-laws place for three days after her marriage (date of marriage 06.05.1999) and thereafter went to her parental House and remained there for approximately 10 months. Her Gauna was performed in March 2000 and thereafter she lived at her matrimonial house for only 15 days and came back to her parental home in village Shukulpur, Bawli and remained there for another month. She again visited her parents home at village Shukulpur after 5-6 months and remained there for one year and her father in law came to take her back.
20. These periods of stay of the complainant Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 21 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc at her parental place are admitted and no specific reason has been assigned for the prolonged stay. It is not the evidence that the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial house due to alleged cruelty by the accused persons nor was it on account of non-fulfillment of any alleged demand. The stay was apparently voluntary on the part of the complainant.
On the Investigation:
21. The case was investigated by SI Fateh Singh Meena. Interestingly, the SI has admitted that he never visited the parental house of the complainant or her matrimonial home at Pratapgarh for any inquiry. He admitted that all the inquiry reports were prepared by him in his office. He did not record statement of any witness other than the complainant nor did her sent any notice to any Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 22 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc person asking them to join investigation. Even the permission for registration of FIR granted by the DCP was only in respect of accused Bhupesh and the same does not relate to other accused person. No allegation of the complainant was verified by the IO. No independent inquiries were made in this case.
22. PW-4 SI Rajneesh has corroborated PW-3 on the aspect that the permission to register case was only in respect of accused Bhupesh and not against other accused persons. He further corroborated SI Fateh Singh by admitting that the statement of witnesses were not recorded. They neither went to the Pratapgarh for purpose of investigation nor did they called any accused person for joining investigation. No notice was served upon the accused persons, no effort was made to recover the dowry articles. Only the statement of Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 23 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc complainant was recorded by him. None of the alleged incident narrated by the complainant was verified by the Investigating Officer. To summarize, if would be suffice to say that no investigation was carried out in the present case at all and the case was prepared without verifying the allegations made by the complainant.
23. PW-5 Maya Devi, mother of the complainant has no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case. She deposed that the complainant used to talk with her over the telephone however, at another stage she denied having spoken to complainant on telephone. She deposed that complainant never wrote any letter to her and contradicted the complainant on this aspect. She was not present at the time when her husband allegedly gave Rs.10,000/- to Bhupesh. She did not remember whether her husband went back to the Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 24 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc house of the accused to bring back the complainant. She denied having received the phone call on 01.12.2002 from the uncle of the daughter informing about alleged beatings at the matrimonial house.
24. The father of the complainant Sh.
Parmeshwar Yadav was examined as PW-7. He also does not have any personal knowledge about acts of cruelty. Most his information is based upon what was told to him by the complainant. He deposed that he gave several items in the marriage of his daughter. He also gave buffalo and cows in the marriage which he had not stated in his statement to the police. He was serving as a Govt. Employee at a time of marriage at a salary of Rs. 6,000 - Rs.7,000/- per month but did not obtain any permission from his department while gifting the articles of Rs.1 lac to Rs.1.5 lac in value nor did he disclosed this in his Income Tax Return. He Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 25 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc deposed that he had arrange Rs.10,000/- from neighbors but did not name any person from whom the money was borrowed. He did not even specify the date of borrowing the money and the date of its return. He deposed that he received a call from his younger brother and went to his native village and got his daughter examined at District Hospital, Pratapgarh. Whereas the complainant deposed that she got herself examined at the hospital on 09.12.2002. PW-1 has deposed that she was discharged from the hospital on the same day and the accused met with her outside the hospital and forced her to sign a compromise deed. From her deposition it appears that her father did not accompany her to the hospital for checkup. This is further reinforced by the deposition of the PW-1 who stated that did not inform her uncle or father about the incident prior to 09.12.2002.
Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 26 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc
25. The complainant has not specified the names of the person who allegedly saved her life on 01.12.2002. she got herself medically examined after eight days. The reason for delay in getting the medical examination has not been explained. The complainant did not make any complaint about the alleged incident of 01.12.2002 before any authority.
26. The accused persons had been exonerated by the District Magistrate, Pratap Garh after a detailed inquiry. The complainant has denied making any complaint before any forum at Pratap Garh and the counsel for the complainant had argued that the complaint in question might have been forged.
27. The said complaint which was made at Pratapgarh sought to implicate the accused persons in a similar case. It is highly unlikely that a Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 27 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc reasonable man would forge a self-implicating complaint against himself and his entire family and request the authorities to take action. This argument of the Ld. Counsel of Complainant is unbelievable on the face of it and cannot be appreciated
28. Prosecution has failed to show any proximity or chain of events to establish the fact that accused persons systematically committed cruelty against the complainant to bring home the offence punishable u/s 498A/506/34 IPC. On the basis of documents on record and the contradictions as pointed out earlier, benefit of doubt goes in favour of all the accused persons.
29. Now coming to allegations in respect of offence u/s 406 IPC, there are no allegations of entrustment of dowry against to any of the accused person. Even when the complainant deposed in the Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 28 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc court, she did not alleged regarding the entrustment. As such, there is no evidence of entrustment of the streedhan to any accused. There is no evidence of any demand of return of streedhan from them by the complainant. There is no evidence of refusal to return the streedhan articles are their misappropriation or conversion by accused persons.
In these circumstances, the offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against any of the accused.
30. On the basis of the above discussion and the evidence, put forth by the prosecution, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s. 498A/506/34 IPC as well as for offence under S.406/34 IPC. All the accused persons namely, Bhupesh, Vrijesh, Shanti, Raja Ram, Gayatri and Ramesh are acquitted of offences under S.498A / 406 /506/ 34 IPC. Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 29 of 30 FIR No.270/03, PS- Badarpur State vs Bhupesh etc
31. Bail Bond and surety bond of the accused persons are further extended for six months as per S.437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Shivani Chauhan) court on 06.09.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate Manila Court,SED/Saket New Delhi/ 06.09.2014 Pronounced in open court on 06.09.2014 Page no 30 of 30