Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
8. PW4 Sh. Mange Ram is the father of the complainant. He deposed that on 07.12.1996 his daughter Santosh got married with accused Gyan Chand (correctly identified) according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After about one year of the marriage, the in laws of his daughter started beating and harassing her for demand of dowry. He stated that he has given the Istridhan to his daughter according to his means and capacity. After one year, his daughter came to his house. He tried to compromise between his daughter and son in law but no result came out. After that 23 accused took his daughter to his house and she was sent back after beating. His daughter has two children. In the year 2000 his daughter made a complaint to the police and in January 2001 his statement was recorded. The accused has opted not to cross examine PW4.
St. Vs. Gian Chand FIR No.16/01, P.S. R.K. Puram
15.During his cross examination, he stated that at present notice given to the complainant to join the investigation not placed on record, the same may be kept in CAW Cell or police file. He stated that he had not verified the receipts given by the complainant and her parents. He had not taken any of Istridhan items of complainant in his possession. He was told by complainant that Istridhan items were in the possession of her husband. He had gone to the house of accused for his arrest. As the complainant did not accompany with him therefore, he was not able to identify the Istridhan items. He had called the complainant when he went to the house of the accused but she was not available at that time. He several times tried to call the complainant for the recovery of Istridhan but she was not available. He had not served any notice to the complainant. The facts were verified from the parents of the complainant. He admitted that he cannot tell to whom he made the inquiry regarding the address of the accused in the village nor he had called any responsible person from the village before making the arrest. Neither he had issued any written notice to independent witness those who were present there. He stated that he asked the responsible persons from the villages to join the investigation but none has joined. He could not take the action against them as they left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. He stated that they were in civil dress and went to arrest the accused at his place. Accused was known to him and he knew him very well as the accused several times came to CAW Cell for joining the investigation. He does not remember exact time but he reached there at about 12.00/1.00 pm and St. Vs. Gian Chand FIR No.16/01, P.S. R.K. Puram remained there for about an hour and then they came back by bus but he does not remember the bus number. He denied the suggestion that no proper investigation was carried out by him or any efforts were made to solve the case as per requirement. He denied the suggestion that he had only done the formal investigation and deposing falsely by getting swayed by emotions of the victim. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being police officer.
36. From the aforesaid, even the basic requirement of entrustment having been made in favour of the accused is not established. Moreover, the IO clearly stated in his cross examination that the complainant failed to accompany him to the house of the accused for recovery of Istridhan despite his repeated efforts to take her along with him for recovery of Istridhan. She was not available whenever he visited her for taking her for recovery of Istridhan. The prosecution has not explained the reluctance of complainant in identifying and recovering her Istridhan.
37. In judgment of Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others, 138 (2007), DLT 152, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed the mandate of for preparation of list of dowry articles at the time of marriage duly signed from bride side as well as from groom side, in terms of provision of 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the increasing trend of making exaggerated claims by the complainant and his family regarding Istridhan given to the complainant was also noticed. To curb the same, it was held that the complainant and her family members, are bound to disclose the source of such expenditure on marriage. In St. Vs. Gian Chand FIR No.16/01, P.S. R.K. Puram the instant case, no list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage signed by both sides. The complainant in her testimony while describing jewellery given to her in marriage by her parents, mentioned certain gold ornament which do not find mention in list of stridhan Ex. PW 1/A. No bill of such jewellery has also been produced. Apart from that the complainant also stated in her evidence that his father was earning only Rs. 4500/ p.m at the time of her marriage in 1996. But she claimed that her father spent Rs 2 lacs or more in her marriage. The prosecution has not explained the source of expenditure incurred by father of the complainant in her marriage, which appears to be much beyond his capacity. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 406 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused Gian Chand is also acquitted for offence under Section 406 IPC. Bail bonds & Surety bond discharged. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on this th day of 30 August 2012 (PRIYA MAHENDRA) Metropolitan Magistrate: