Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PS Dabri State Vs. Virender Singh & others u/s 498A/406/34 IPC

2. The Chargesheet U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was filed in the court. The accused persons were supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. and vide order dated 20.01.2004 charges were framed U/s 498A/406/34 IPC against the accused persons to which they plead not guilty and claim trial.

3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 3 formal police witnesses and 4 public witnesses in all and the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 13.08.2013.

4. Brief testimony of witnesses:­ PW1, SI Santosh is the Duty Officer, who has proved the registration of FIR No.336/99 u/s 406/498A as Ex.PW1/A. PW2, Smt. Sunita Devi @ Savita is the complainant who has stated that her marriage with accused Virender Singh got solemnized on 14-02-1986 at Village Nangla Malkhan, District Eta, UP according to Hindu Rites and Customs and her parents gave sufficient dowry articles to the accused persons. She has further stated that after marriage she was taken to matrimonial home at Village Jasupura, District Eta along with all the dowry articles. After the marriage she was given beatings by her in laws. Her husband Virender Singh used to beat her daily PS Dabri State Vs. Virender Singh & others u/s 498A/406/34 IPC after taking liquor and never paid any money for household expenses. Her husband Virender Singh along with his parents had asked complainant to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents but complainant showed her inability as that amount was beyond the capacity of her parents. She has further stated that her husband left her at Mahavir Enclave where they were residing on rent and took all the dowry articles with him. She tried to trace him but she could not find him. Once accused met her at Jehangir Puri and he was brought at Mahavir Enclave and matter was compromised at PS Dabri where she had given her complaint, however after 4-5 days, accused Virender Singh attacked her with a "belan" and she sustained injuries on her head. Police was called and accused Virender Singh was apprehended and complainant took medical aid. Complainant has given complaint to CAW Cell which is Ex.PW2/A in which she had given the list of articles which were in the custody of accused Virender Singh. She had demanded back her dowry articles and the articles which were purchased during their stay in rented premises but accused refused to return the same. She has further stated that complainant had gone to reside with accused Virender Singh in a rented accommodation at Najafgarh during the pendency of the present case as per advice of Hon'ble Court however he did not keep her well there. He used to come with other persons in that home and used to take liquor with them PS Dabri State Vs. Virender Singh & others u/s 498A/406/34 IPC and he did not provide food and clothes to the complainant and her children and he again left the complainant in that rented premises and went away. He is not maintaining her and her children. She has further stated that she went back to matrimonial home and asked for her dowry articles however accused jeth Subhash Chand and mother in law Ram Rati did not allow her to stay there and did not return her dowry articles and stated that all dowry articles are with her sister in law as her husband had taken them there. When she visited to her sister in laws house, she stated that her husband had taken all the articles from there and on this pretext she refused to return the same. All the dowry articles are still in the possession of husband and in laws of complainant.

7. I have carefully considered the rival arguments and have also perused the record carefully.

8. At the outset it is noted that accused Kamla Devi has expired during trial and the proceedings qua her were abated vide order dt.20.07.2011.

9. Regarding guilt of accused Virender Singh (husband of the complainant), accused Subhash (Jeth of complainant), accused Rajbir Singh (husband of sister in law of complainant) and accused Ramawati (sister in law complainant) for the offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC, it is borne out of the evidence of complainant that she has made general and vague allegations that accused persons used to force her for bringing cash of Rs.50,000/­ and on her inability to meet the said demand due to the poor financial condition of her parents, accused persons had given beatings to the complainant. Her evidence is found lacking in respect of specific details like any time, date, month, year, place or occasion of such cruelty/ harassment. It is settled law that allegations of cruelty should not be vague and general in nature nor should they be wanting in details and substance. In the case of cruelty specific acts of cruelty and the PS Dabri State Vs. Virender Singh & others u/s 498A/406/34 IPC occasions when, and the place where such acts were committed have to be pleaded and vague allegations of cruelty are not sufficient to convict the accused.

13. The own brothers of complainant, PW4 Shri Anand Kumar and PW6 Shri Ranbir Singh have also not supported the prosecution and pleaded total ignorance regarding the harassment of the complainant by accused persons on account of dowry demands. The prosecution also failed to extract anything supporting the prosecution in their detailed cross examination by Ld. APP. The testimony of PW4 and PW6 create cloud of doubt over the entire story of the prosecution.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons subjected the complainant to dowry related harassment and accused persons Virender Singh, Subhash, Ramawati and Rajbir Singh are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 498A/34 IPC.