Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

There was peace and harmony for a period of one month. But thereafter again, the accused persons started torturing, beating and maltreating her and did not allow to meet her child. Her son was always in custody of her grand mother i.e. Geeta Rani @ Usha St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Narang. The complainant was also not allowed to telephone to her parents' house. On 26.02.2008 at about 08:00­09:00 AM, she has gone at first floor to take her son from her mother­in­law, as her son used to stay with her grandmother. Her Saans accused Usha Narang told her that how she dared to take the child (Meri Saans Ne Kaha Bachcha Le Jaane Ki Teri Himmat Kaise Hui). Thereafter, Usha Narang made take complaint to her son Alok Narang who started beating her (complainant Richa Narang). Thereafter both accused Alok Narang and Usha Narang also beating to the complainant. PW­2 Richa Narang raised alarm and after hearing the alarm, the accused Madan Lal reached on first floor and he also joined in the beating along with the other two accused persons. The accused Madan Lal Narang told them to kill her (complainant Richa Narang). Thereafter, all the three accused persons throw her at ground floor/road from the first floor. She received the injuries and lost her consciousness. She regained her consciousness in Flex Hospital, where her ankle of the right foot was operated. She also sustained injuries on the back and now she is using a belt due to the injuries caused by the accused persons. She stated in her deposition in court that " Meri Saas Mujhe Pasand Nahi Karti Thi, Wo Apne Ladke Ki Doosri Shadi Karna Chahti Thi Aur Isiliye Wo Mujhse Chhutkara Chahte the Aur Inhe Dahej Bhi Chahiye Tha Aur Isi Karan Inhone Mujhe Pareshan Kiya". Her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded in the hospital on 31.12.2008 which bears her signature at point A. The photocopy of the complaint St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC dt. 22.04.2008 is Ex.PW2/B which bears her signature at point A. Five photographs of the marriage was collectively Ex.PW2/C1 to C5 and the marriage card is Ex.PW2/C6. It is further stated that the accused persons did not return her complete dowry articles which were given to them at the time of marriage, her jewelery, fridge, washing machine and other articles are lying with the accused persons. Some jewelery was returned to her before the court. The list of articles is Ex.PW2/D. PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh received the DD No.24B vide Ex.PW1/A on 31.12.2008 regarding beating of a lady which was endorsed by him. He along with Ct. Devender reached at Flex Hospital where he recorded the statement Ex.PW2/A of Richa Narang and made endorsement vide Ex.PW10/A, prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Devender to get register the FIR vide Ex.PW10/B. On 04.01.2009, the brother of Richa Narang produced the photographs of marriage and marriage card and the same were seized vide Ex.PW9/C. On 31.12.2008, Gurcharang Singh brother of Richa Narang handed over the medical documents to ASI Rajender Singh and same are seized vide memo Ex.PW9/B. The medical record of Tagore Hospital is Ex.PW9/A. During the investigation, PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh also prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW10/D and also got recovered the articles vide Ex.PW2/DC. The list of balance articles as provided by the complainant is Ex.PW2/D. The accused persons were arrested by PW­10 ASI Rajender Singh vide memo St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B and their personal search memo are Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D. The arrest memo of Geeta Narang is Ex.10/C. After completion of the investigation, the case file was sent to the court for judicial verdict.

12. The FIR was registered under section 498A/323/34 IPC on 31.12.2008. The nature of injuries on the spinal cord was opined as grievous and asper the chargesheet, section 323 was converted into 325 IPC. On 02.01.2009, two defence witnesses who were the eye witness of the incident as they have seen the complainant falling on the ground floor. The DW­1 Mohd. Akram was living opposite the house of the accused persons and firstly reached at the spot. DW­3 Mohd. Shaeed is a carpenter who was doing the work of repair at the time of incident when the complainant fallen from the stairs. The presence of both these defence witnesses i.e. DW­1 Mohd. Akram and DW­3 Mohd. Shaheed at the spot has not been denied nor any suggestions made to these witnesses in the cross examination by APP to refute their presence. Rather the DW­1 and DW­3 in cross examination by Ld. APP for state denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused persons to save the accused persons from legal punishment. The DW­3 Mohd. Shaheed stated that there was three storey house where he was working as a carpenter and there was white colour whitewash. He used to sit in the R­Block, Raghubir St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC Nagar in search of carpender work. He had worked at the house of Alok Narang for three days. It was his second day of work at the house of Alok Narang. He did not lift the injured at the time of putting her in the car. He never worked at the house of Alok Narang prior to 26.12.2008. The upstairs are just at the entrance of the house. He was working near the stairs. It is denied that on 26.12.2008 he did not work as a carpenter or that due to this reason he is unable to tell the house number, location of the house, number of car etc. The public witnesses was admittedly gathered on 26.12.2008 at the time the injured fallen and immediately removed to the Tagore Hospital. The PW­10 ASI Rajinder Singh also informed through DD No.24B dt. 31.12.2008. There was no corroboration to the sole testimony of the victim/complainant. Even though, the eye witnesses who could have been corroborated her, were not cited as witness nor they were interrogated during the course of investigation except to the relatives, brother and father of the injured who were enmical or interested witnesses. The sole testimony of the injured who has deposed on 31.12.2008 after about four days of the incident. Even though as per the MLC she was fit for statement. The statement of PW­2 Richa Narang recorded in court is contradictory from Ex.PW2/A and in the manner as deposed regarding the incident. She has not been stated anywhere in her complaint Ex.PW2/A that who caught hold her legs and hands and the manner in which she has been thrown from the first floor. The statement made in the court is St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC improvement and contradictory which could be afterthought due deliberation and concentration.

16. So far as with respect to the offence under section 406 IPC, it is contended that neither the dowry articles returned to the complainant, her fridge, washing machine and other gold articles were St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC lying with the accused persons. The jewelery which was given at the time of marriage is also lying with the accused persons. Some jewelery articles were returned before the court. The PW­2 Richa Narang also submitted a list of articles Ex.PW2/D. The PW­3 Darshan Lal in his cross examination admitted that he has moved an application Ex.PW3/A for return of the Istridhan before the court and some articles returned on15.03.2009. Some gold articles were received vide Ex.PW2/DA and a sum of Rs.75,000/­ was also received but the said amount was not towards the medical expenses and the balance Istridhan. PW­2 Richa Narang in her statement admitted that she has not made any complaint regarding entustment of Istridhan, demand or refusal personally. In Ex.PW2/D it is written that her in­ laws had kept her precious articles with them mentioned in the list.

24. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and the authority cited, the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses including the complainant who made categorically allegations against the accused for kept holding the part of Istridhan, dowry articles as well as demand of cash and also harassed her with ulterior motive. The conduct of the accused persons tantamount to the offence of cruelty as well as withholding of the part of the Istridhan. It is sufficient to substantiate the prosecution case and the prosecution has been able to proved its case against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence under section 406/498A/34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Alok Narang, Madan Lal Narang and Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang are hereby convicted for the offence under section 498A/406/34 IPC.