Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
4. Material Witnesses : The prosecution examined PW2 Richa Narang complainant as a material witness. She has deposed in her examination the story as narrated in the preceding paras of the judgment. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons she stated that on 19.04.2008 marriage of his brother was solemnized. His father had given Rs.5,000/ as gift along with the customary gifts to her inlaws. But the accused persons told that Rs.5,000/ not enough, if she wants to live peacefully bring Rs.50,000/ from her father. When she told to her inlaws that she refused. Thereafter, the accused Geeta Rani @ Usha Narang got her beaten through the accused Alok Narang and she made a complaint to this effect on 22.04.2004 vide Ex.PW2/B. It is denied that the contents of Ex.PW2/B are written after discussion with her father and brother. It is admitted that she is not made any complaint Ex.PW2/B to the police station Rajouri Garden but the same was given to police station Khyala. It is denied that she has stated St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC before the doctor at Tagore Hospital that she has fallen from the stairs. She does not know who took her to the Flex Hospital. She has not given in writing to the police for requesting for not taking any action on complaint dt. 22.04.2008. She cannot tell when she was discharged from the hospital. She cannot tell when her statement was recorded. She did not tell the doctor upto 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008 that she has been thrown from the railing as she was in acute pain. It is denied that during 26.12.2008 to 31.12.2008, she compelled Alok Narang and his family member to execute a document to transfer the house in her name which is in th name of her fatherinlaw. It is further denied that when they did not consider her threat, then she lodged a false complaint Ex.PW2/A to pressurize them. It is admitted that she mentioned in her compliant that the accused persons had broken the lock of his almirah. She did not make any complaint regarding entrustment of Istridhan or demand of dowry personally. A complaint Ex.PW2/D on which it is written that her inlaws has kept precious articles which is written by her handwriting. She had received RS.75,000/ vide receipt Ex.PW2/DB at the time of hearing of the bail application of the accused persons. It is denied that this amount of Rs.75,000/ was given to her for her treatment & Istridhan. She does not know that on the date of incident a carpenter was repairing the stool in the lobby leading to the stair case. It is denied that on 26.12.2008, her son was with his grandfather and sitting his shop at ground floor. Her mother inlaw had caught hold of her two hands.
For the offence under section 406 IPC, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that PW3 Darshal Lal father of the complainant stated that no application prior to Ex.PW3/A had been moved for the return of Istridhan of her daughter. On 15.03.2009, part of Istridhan was returned vide receipt Ex.PW2/DC. Some gold articles were also returned vide Ex.PW2/DA. Rs.75,000/ were also received but they were not received in lieu of medical expenses and balance Istridhan. PW2 Richa Narang did not make any complaint regarding entrustment of her Istridhan, demand or refusal personally. Therefore, St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC the charges under section 406 IPC cannot be proved and counsel for the accused persons also relied upon
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.
20. In case titled as Renu 1991 Cri LJ 2049 (P&H), it is observed that Istridhan property remains to be of wife not only during the matrimonial home continues but even after its break. The husband is merely custodian of Istridhan and he cannot refuse to return it to wife. Dishonest misappropriation or conversion to use Istridhan property by husband would constitute offence under section 406 IPC.
The accused persons have not disputed the claim of the dowry articles including the fridge, washing machine and the other gold articles which have not been returned so far despite the demands. The articles or Istridhan appropriated by a mental act and dealing these properties of the complainant without right. The failure to account for the money proved to have been received by the accused or giving a St. Vs Alok Narang etc. FIR No.63/08, PS: Khyala U/s 498A/406/307/34 IPC false account as to its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. The mental act or intent to deprive the master of his property is the gist of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The similar view is impressed in the judgment titled as Emperor Vs Chaturbhuj Narain Choudhury AIR 1936 Pat 350.