Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.