Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined the most crucial witness ­ complainant cum victim cum sole eye witness i.e. PW1­ Smt. Komal Arora and she stated that she was married to Sh. Chander Prakash Arora on 17.07.1994 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies through a middle woman Smt. Bishni W/o Sh. Kishan Lal. She further stated that dhaka ceremony was held on or about January 1994 in which her parents gave gifts worth Rs.5,500/­ to her husband and his parents and the said gifts included cash of Rs.3,100/­. She further stated that from the date of fixing of FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri marriage itself and after the demise of said middle woman Smt. Bishni, her husband, her mother in law, her father in law, her jaith & jaithani used to make demands for dowry and even tried to break her marriage, but due to intervention of Sh. Praveen Kumar, relative, son in law of her mother in law her marriage was settled. She further stated that on 16.07.1994 at the time of betrothal ceremony, her parents gave a golden ring, T.V. Set, wrist watch, fruits, sweets, dry fruits and Rs.3,100/­ in cash to her husband and her parents also arranged for meals of 42­45 persons and the expenditure incurred might be approximately Rs.12,500/­. She further stated that the gifts were given to them i.e her husband, her in laws, as demanded by them. She further stated that on 17.07.1994 on the day of solemnization of marriage her parents gave her following gifts i.e one almirah, one stool, sofa set, dressing table, double bed, T.V (black & white), gold ring to Chander Prakash, one gold set to her and other clothes i.e. 11 suits and sarees, two warm gents suits for Chander Prakash. She further stated that as per her, her parents spent Rs.70,000/­ in cash at her marriage besides the following gifts and the said gifts were given to her by her parents so that the same could be utilized for her benefit. She further stated that all her istridhan articles were taken on the day first itself by her mother in law as soon as she reached her matrimonial house even the gold earnings of FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri her and all her gold jewellery and clothes were taken over by her mother in law. She further stated that after 2 to 4 days of her marriage, her husband and her mother in law accused Shanti Devi started raising demand from her for cooler, a colour T.V, scooter and they also demanded from her cash of Rs.5,000/­ or Rs.10,000/­ and on many occasions they even raised the demand for cash more than the stated sum. She further stated that all her in laws used to quarrel with her and pressurized her to bring the above mentioned things from her parents and she conveyed their demands to her parents who gave a scooter, black and white T.V to the accused persons still they were not satisfied. She further stated that on non fulfillment of their demands, she was thrown out of matrimonial home and left at her parental home by her husband Chander Prakash and her husband did not came to take her back to her matrimonial home and thereafter she made a complaint at CAW Cell. She further stated that after 15­16 days of her marriage, her husband alongwith her jethani on the pretext of going outside for traveling took her deceptively to Garg Nursing Home at Avantika, Rohini. She further stated that on reaching the said hospital, it was revealed to her that her husband and her jethani requested the doctor to issue a medical certificate whereby she be declared as a mad woman and doctor in a rapid fire manner asked her many questions to which she gave satisfactory FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri answer and consequently the doctor did not issue the said certificate, however, doctor gave a medicine to her husband asking to give her the same and on reaching home, she was asked by her husband to consume the same, however, she asked him the reason that why she should she consume such medicine and to tell her if she is suffering from any ailment and on which her husband had no valid reason and he forced her to consume the said medicine. She further stated that after 3­4 days of her marriage when she requested her mother in law accused Shanti Devi to allow her to cook food on gas stove as at her parental home she used to cook food on gas stove and she had never cooked food before on heater, her mother in law taunted her that everybody can cook food on heater and she was intentionally making such excuses and her mother in law also slapped her when she requested her to cook food on gas stove. She further stated that her husband and in laws used to force her to bring cash on various repeated occasions from her parents on the pretext that her husband had to set up a business of making readymade shirts and so on various occasions she gave her husband cash of Rs.20,000/­, Rs.10,000/­ so that he could set up the said business, however, he was not satisfied with the same and kept on making from her further demands to bring more cash. She further stated that her husband also asked her to bring a scooter after a month of her marriage and she FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri told the said to her parents who were not able to arrange the same due to financial constraint and she told to her husband and requested him that her parents due to financial constraint are not in position to fulfill his said demands and on knowing the same her husband and her mother in law treated her with physical and mental cruelty and they used to beat her, used filthy language against her and her family and on many occasions she was not even allowed to have proper meals. She further stated that finally in the month of August 1994, her husband turned her out of her matrimonial home and left her at her parental home and threatened her not to come back to him till her parents agree to give scooter to her husband. She further stated that when her parents tried to contact her husband and in laws, it was made clear to them that until and unless their said demands made by her husband and her mother in law would not be fulfilled, they will not take her back in her matrimonial home. She further stated that due to lapse of time unfortunately, she is not in a position to tell the exact date of incident that occurred to her, however, it is true that she was treated with mental and physical cruelty by her husband and in laws for fulfilling their unlawful demands. She further stated that when she was turned out of her matrimonial home, all her jewellary and istridhan articles were still in the possession and custody of her husband and her mother in law and despite repeated demands of her, FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri the said were not returned to her by accused person. She further stated that her complaint made to CAW Cell is Ex.PW1/1 and list of her istridhan articles is Ex.PW1/B and the list of remaining istridhan articles is Ex.PW1/C. She further stated that the few istridhan articles were returned to her through the instance of CAW Cell and court, however, all her original gold jewellary which were given to her by her in laws at the time of her marriage is still in the possession of her husband and her mother in law and her mother in law had malafidely and intentionally converted the same into fake peetal jewellary with gold polish over it and she had presented the same in CAW Cell. She further stated that however, as she could recognize the said jewellary to be fake so she did not claim the same and the original gold jewellary should be returned to her. She further proved the wedding card is Ex.PW1/D, original istridhan receipts are Ex.PW1/B (colly) running into two pages and the medical prescription of Bansal Clinic and Nursing Home is Ex.PW1/F.

14. Prosecution to prove its case examined PW4 Inspector Ram Kishan­ the first Investigating Officer and he stated that on 09.02.1995, he was handed over the investigation in the present case and during investigation he again examined all the witnesses and FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri also obtained their new addresses, recovered the dowry articles and deposited the same in malkhana and he also collected the marriage wedding card, list of istridhan articles, balance list, photocopies of the bills pertaining to istridhan articles. He further stated that he arrested all the accused persons in the present case and released them as they were already on anticipatory bail. He further proved the Seizure memo of istridhan articles is Ex.PW4/A, Wedding Card is already Ex.PW1/B, receipt of istridhan articles is already Ex.PW1/E (colly). At this stage, he was cross examined at length by the Ld. APP for the State as he was not disclosing the complete facts.

16. On the other hand, accused Shanti Devi has raised the only defence that there was no kind of dispute between her and the complainant and she had taken the complainant to a doctor when she informed her that she might be expecting and on returning from the doctor, she told her that she wanted to visit her parents and her son accused Chander Prakash had taken her to her parents, however, thereafter she never returned back. She further alleged that once the matter was compromised before the court and complainant alongwith her son Chander Prakash started residing separately, however, complainant did not reside with her son for long and even left him. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that there was a delay of around 13 years in filing the present charge sheet and the FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri delay was condoned by the ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 01.09.2007 in the absence of the accused persons and without hearing them. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that this fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that a collected reading of all the statements and the complaint shows that the complainant Komal Arora repeatedly change her stands and the statements of the complainant nowhere inspire any confidence and the conviction could not be based on the testimony of sole eye witness i.e. the complainant PW­1 Komal Arora. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that complainant Komal Arora in her statement U/s 161 CrPC given on 19.06.1995 has stated that she was kept properly for 8 to 10 days after the marriage and there was no question of the complainant raising the allegations of 19.07.1994 i.e. just two days after the marriage as mentioned in the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that PW­1 Komal Arora in her cross examination stated that when with the instance of the CAW Cell her istridhan were recovered, the above stated gold articles were recovered by her from the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that this shows that there is no criminal breach of trust committed by the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that the prescription Mark B written FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri by Doctor on 31.08.1994 from the Garg Nursing Home shows that complainant is suffering from Anxiety and psychiatric problems. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that this shows that complainant was herself suffering from some psychiatric problem and accused has not done any offence as alleged by complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that PW­3 SI Babu Lal second Investigating Officer has failed to verify the source of Rs. 10,000/­ alleged by the complainant to be given by her to her husband accused no.1 Chander Parkash and IO also failed to clarify that from whom the istridhan articles were demanded and when they were demanded back by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that PW­4 Inspector Ram Kishan first Investigating Officer in his cross examination stated that he did not verify the receipts with respect to alleged istridhan articles submitted by the complainant. He further stated that he did not conducted any search & seizure of remaining dowry articles from the house of the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that this shows that there is a defective investigation and this fact further throws doubt on the prosecution story. Ld. Counsel for the accused further contended that all the accused persons reside at PS Sultan Puri and all allegations in complaint pertains to residence of accused and therefore, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri entertain the present case. Ld. Counsel for the accused also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Y Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr"

26. Keeping in view the fact that the essential ingredients for the offence U/s 406/34 IPC are that "accused alongwith other accused persons being in any manner entrusted with the property or with any dominion over property, in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly misappropriates or converts to their own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully suffers any other person so to do". To prove it prosecution examined complainant cum victim cum sole eye witness PW1­ Komal Arora and she stated that she was married to the accused Chander Prakash on 17.07.1994 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. She further stated that all her istridhan articles were taken on the day first itself by her mother in law accused Shanti Devi as soon as she reached at her matrimonial house and even the gold earrings of her FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri and all her jewellery and clothes was taken over by her mother in law accused Shanti Devi. She further stated that when she was turned out of her matrimonial home, all her jewellary and istridhan articles were still in the possession and custody of her husband and her mother in law accused Shanti Devi and despite repeated demands of her, the said were not returned to her by the accused persons. She further alleged that the list of istridhan articles is Ex.PW1/B and list of remaining istridhan articles is Ex.PW1/C. She further stated that the few istridhan articles were returned to her through the instance of CAW Cell and the court, however, all her original gold jewellary which was given to her by her in laws at the time of her marriage is still in the possession of her husband and her mother in law accused Shanti Devi and her mother in law accused Shanti Devi had malafidely and intentionally converted the same into fake peetal jewellery with gold polish over it and her mother in law had presented the same in CAW Cell. She further stated that however as she could recognize the said jewellery to be fake so she did not claimed the same. She further stated that the original gold jewellery should be returned to her. Also, PW1 Komal Arora in her cross examination denied the suggestion that all of her istridhan articles which she had brought from her parental home at the time of her marriage were returned to her by the accused persons at CAW Cell. FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri She also denied the suggestion that all of her istridhan articles have been already returned to her by the accused persons at CAW Cell. Thus, prosecution is able to prove that some of the istridhan articles of the complainant were still not returned by the accused Shanti Devi to the complainant and the fake jewellery articles were prepared by the accused Shanti Devi to be returned to the complainant. This shows that part of istridhan articles is still in the possession of the accused Shanti Devi and her son accused Chander Prakash and accused Shanti Devi has also dishonestly misappropriated the gold jewellery given by the accused persons to the complainant at the time of her marriage and which forms part of the istridhan of the complainant as accused Shanti Devi had malafidely and intentionally converted the said original gold jewellery into fake peetal jewellery with gold polish over it and presented the same for returning to the complainant before the CAW Cell. Thus, prosecution is able to prove that accused Shanti Devi being the mother in law of the complainant alongwith accused Chander Prakash (since PO) being the husband of the complainant in furtherance of their common intention have wrongfully retained the part of istridhan of the complainant and did not return the same to the complainant despite demanded by complainant and accused Shanti Devi also malafidely converted the gold jewellery which was given to the complainant by her in laws FIR No.614/95 State Vs. Chander Parkash Arora Etc. PS:Janak Puri into fake peetal jewellery with gold polish over it for purpose of returning to the complainant so as to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Thus, prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients for the offence punishable U/s 406/34 IPC against the accused Shanti Devi.