Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CHARGE:

3. Charge   was   framed   against   the   accused   u/s   498A/406   IPC   on 25.03.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

4. Prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case:
(a) Complainant PW1 Nuzhat Farzana has deposed that her marriage was solemnized with accused in Lucknow as per Muslim Rites and Ceremonies   and   her   parents   gifted   her   dowry/istridhan   articles including utensils made of silver and copper, jewelery articles i.e a gold chain 20 gms, 4 gold bangles, two gold ear rings set, one gold   finger  ring,   one  Ruby  studded   gold  set  weighing   about   60 gms and one pearl set weighing about 50 gms and furniture and cash of Rs. 50000/­ and other articles as per the list Ex.PW1/A. She further deposed that the amount of Mehar was fixed as Rs.2 lakhs   and   after   her   marriage,   PW1   joined   matrimonial   home   at Mubarik Pur, Azamgarh UP. She further deposed that   after her marriage, accused was not happy with the dowry articles and used to  taunt  PW1 and  accused  used  to  object  on trivial   issues  and taunt PW1 saying what had she learnt from her family. She further deposed that   accused also used to abuse her in filthy language and taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry for accused. PW1 further deposed that she lived in matrimonial home in Azamgarh in 1989   and   accused   used   to   tell   her   to   bring   money   from   her parents for accused and also used to threaten her that accused would falsely implicate her and her family members in false cases.
FIR No.252/05                                                                                                                                          STATE  V.  FASIUL HUSNAIN Page No.5

PW1 further deposed that in the end of year 1989, she alongwith accused and children shifted to Delhi and started residing at H. No.   41B,   Pocket   ­C,   Siddharth   Extension   Delhi   in   own   flat   of accused. She further deposed that   even in Delhi, behaviour of accused   did   not   change   and   accused   used   to   beat   PW1   and children   on   trivial   issues.   She   further   deposed   that     on   one occasion, when six months old daughter was not able to sleep, accused   beat   her   up   and   closed   her   inside   a   room   and   while crawling on the floor, baby had bolted the door from inside and the bolt   had   to   be   broken   by   PW1   with   the   assistance   of   labour working near her house in order to rescue the baby. PW1 further deposed   that   after   4­5   years   of   marriage,   she   started   a   small business   of   selling   embroided   clothes   from   her   house   and   the payments received in the business used to be deposited by her in her bank account of State Bank of Shaurashtra, Bhagwan Nagar, Siddharth Extension Branch. She further deposed that   however, accused   used   to   withdraw   that   amount   from   the   bank   without knowledge of PW1 after taking blank signed cheques from her. She further deposed that   accused also mortgaged the house at Siddharth   Extension   and   the   mortgaged   amount   was   given   by PW1 from her savings. PW1 had also made several calls on 100 number   as   accused   had   beaten   her   several   times   over   trivial issues. She further deposed that   police used to arrive at home and   after   instructing   accused   to   behave   properly,   they   used   to leave.   PW1   further   deposed   that   in   the   year   2002   she   filed   a complaint in CAW Cell Amar Colony and accused and she were summoned there. She further deposed that   accused apologized for  his behavior  there  and  promised  the authority  to keep  PW1 properly   and   thereafter,   that   complaint   was   disposed   of.   She further deposed that  after compromise in CAW Cell, his behavior was proper for some days, but later on, one day accused gave beatings to PW1 and demanded a cash amount from her which was kept with her as savings. She further deposed that  accused also took away Rs.3 lakhs from her possession on that day. She further deposed that   after few days, accused called his relatives namely Aziz Asgar, Hasim, Zafrul Husnain and Nafisa Bano and asked them to drag PW1 out of the house. She further deposed that thereafter those people started residing with both of them off and on and every day they used to taunt PW1 to leave the house and that they wanted to conduct second marriage of accused. She further   deposed   that     this   continued   till   November   2002.   PW1 Nuzhat Farzana further deposed that on 10.11.2002 accused beat up PW1 mercilessly with belt  for demand of cash  and asked her to hand over all of her jewelleries to accused. She further deposed that  thereafter accused snatched her wearing jeweleries and cash amount  of  Rs.20,000/­   which  she  was  having  at  that   time.  She further deposed that  accused also used to bring one Maulana at his house often and used to ask him to perform divorce of accused and PW1. She further deposed that  in the same month, accused threw   out   PW1   from   matrimonial     house   after   beating   her mercilessly.   She   further   deposed   that     thereafter,   PW1   went   to Lucknow at her parental home and at that time, all three children were   residing   in   Delhi.   PW1   further   deposed   that   her   family members, relatives and neighbours contacted accused and tried to persuade accused to take PW1 back to matrimonial home, but accused did not pay any heed to it and threatened them stating that in case PW1 returns, they will be liable for any injury to her life and  person.   She  further   deposed   that     thereafter  PW1  used   to frequently visit Delhi to meet her children and she used to meet them in the house of neighbours and children communicated to her that accused were torturing them physically and mentally and her daughter Nilofar communicated to her that accused used to sexually abuse her and ask her to wear her lingerie   in front of him.   She   further   deposed   that   thereafter,   accused   threw   their children out of his house in April 2004 and PW1 ­ who had taken a rented accommodation in February­March 2004 - (after more than an year of being thrown out) brought her children to that house after they were thrown out by accused. She further deposed that thereafter accused lodged a false complaint of theft against the three children and elder son was interrogated, but police did not find any evidence against his children. She further deposed that after 2­3 months i.e July ­August 2004 when Nilofar was returning from school and walking from her bus stop, accused tried to drag her inside his car, but she managed to escape and returned home and narrated the incident to PW1, who also learnt after some time that   accused   had   started   living   with   another   woman.   PW1   has deposed  that she filed a complaint in CAW Cell Ex.PW1/B  and accused   joined   proceedings,   but   efforts   for   compromise   failed. She further deposed that CAW Cell directed for registration of FIR. PW1 further deposed that after FIR, some istridhan articles were seized from his home vide Ex.PW1/C and released on superdari to PW1 and rest of the istridhan articles are still in his possession including jewelleries of PW1 and not returned despite requests of PW1. PW1 also deposed that she handed over list of transaction of her bank account done by accused, Mark­A. PW1 also deposed that during her stay with accused in Siddharth Extension, accused used   to   bring   unknown   woman   at   his   house   and   tell   PW1   that accused had performed Muta marriage and they would reside with both of them and on protest of PW1, accused used to forcibly lock her and her children in a room. She further deposed that accused used to pay all the bills for renovation of house, household utilities and his credit card bills from account of PW1 i.e Ali Enterprises Account   No.   CA/204  in  State  Bank   of  Shaurashtra.  She   further deposed that accused were also running a business through a firm named Ali International and used to transfer money from account of PW1 to his firm account and accused snatched cheque book of the firm of PW1 after forcibly getting it signed by her. PW1 also deposed   that   statement   of   her   firm   is   Ex.PW1/D.   She   further deposed that accused used to harass her son Arzu and due to it he left house in December 2011 and did not return  home.  She further   deposed   that   accused   also   used   to   visit   office   of   his daughter   at   Hero   Motor   Corp.   in   Vasant   Kunj   and   defame   her amongst   her   colleagues   and   seniors   and   used   to   spread   bad words about PW1 to his family and business acquaintances due to which   her   business   suffered   and   later   on   finished.   She   further deposed that during her stay with accused, accused used to force her to write down good things about him in the letters sent to his relatives. She further deposed that accused also prepared a list regarding the amount due to the firm of PW1, Ex.PW1/E and PW1 identified accused during her testimony in the court. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS AND DECISION FOR REASONS

10. Coming   first   to   the   allegation   under   section   406   IPC,   it   is imperative   on   the   part   of   the   prosecution   to   show   that   there   was   an 'entrustment' of the istridhan/any other good/s of the complainant to the accused. It is pertinent here to mention that in the complaint as well as in the testimony of the complainant there is nothing to suggest that after marriage,   the   alleged   istridhan   articles   or   dowry   articles   of   aggrieved were handed over by her to the accused. In the complaint Ex.PW1/B, the only averment made is that on 10.11.2002, accused had snatched the amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   kept   in   the   purse   of   the   complainant   and   her jewelleries were also snatched. Complainant (PW­1) has not uttered a word   in   her   complaint   Ex.PW­1/B   to   suggest   that   her   jewelleries  / istridhan were ever entrusted to the accused Fasiul Husnain. There is no averment on the part of the complainant in her testimony or complaint to the effect that she had ever entrusted any of her istridhan articles or any other goods belonging to her to the accused. During her testimony in the court, PW1 deposed that on 10.11.2002, accused had snatched all the jewelleries, which she was wearing. However, she did not specify what jewellery   she   was   wearing   on   that   day.   It   is   not   the   case   of   the prosecution that the cash amount or any jewellery was entrusted to the accused   on   10.11.2002   or   any   other   date.   As   far   as   the   allegation regarding the snatching of money and jewellery is concerned, it is seen that the allegation is not only vague but also unsubstantiated. She has not explained from where the amount of Rs.20,000/­ was arranged by her, the denomination of the currency notes and the reason for presence of   the   amount   in   her   purse.   She   has   also   not   disclosed   anything   to suggest that the money was withdrawn from the bank and if so, for what purpose. Further, she has not disclosed what items of jewelleries she was wearing on 10.11.2002, as was allegedly snatched by the accused. Moving further, it is seen that PW1 has not specified the date/s on which any istridhan article was handed over to accused by the complainant. Even the time, day and place of any entrustment of jewelleries or any other istridhan article to accused is not specified. It is further interesting to note that during her testimony, while PW1 made allegation against her husband   that   the   jewelleries   she   was   wearing   was   snatched   on 10.11.2002, she did not whisper a word in her entire testimony to the effect what jewelleries, out of the jewelleries as mentioned in the list of dowry   articles   Ex.PW1/A,   she   was   wearing   on   that   day.   She   did   not specify as to what articles were entrusted to the accused or snatched by him or when the same were demanded back from the accused. Though she deposed that rest of her istridhan articles are in possession of the accused  and  also  her  jewellery articles  and  the  same  have  not been returned despite her request, she did not specify the date, time and year when the jewellery articles were asked to be returned. In Sukhbir Jain & Anr. vs. State, II (1992)DMC 249, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Jain, Delhi High Court held that:

11. There is nothing in the complaint Ex.PW1/B or the testimony of the complainant to show that any istridhan article was ever handed over to the accused by her. It is further seen that though list of dowry articles Ex.PW­1/A  is filed on record,  however,  neither  there  is any averment that the articles mentioned in the list or some of the articles mentioned in the list were handed over to the accused nor any bills are placed and proved on record regarding purchase of these articles/jewelleries. During her   cross­examination,   though   PW­1   deposed   that   at   the   time   of marriage, list of jewellery articles was prepared, she failed to disclose the date on which the such list was prepared. Though she deposed that she had given copy of the said list to CAW Cell, no such list is placed and proved on record. There is nothing on record to suggest that list Ex.PW1/A was prepared at the time of marriage. PW1 nowhere deposed that the bills in proof of the articles given in this list, were handed over to the IO during investigation and if not, why so. There is no whisper in the testimonies of PW­1 & PW­2 to suggest that the bills were misplaced. No specific description like date of purchase, make, brand and design of the jewelleries   and   other   articles   are   specified   by   the   complainant   in   her testimony. As far as the list Ex.PW1/A is concerned, the same was not prepared at the time of the marriage and prepared only after registration of FIR. PW­1 has not given out a single date, time and place when the istridhan  articles were demanded from accused and were not returned. There is no bill and specific description like model, make and design of the articles (as mentioned in the list Ex.PW1/A) given either in the list or in the testimony of PW1. According to the testimony of PW1, accused used to withdraw the payments received by her from her business by withdrawing money from her bank account without her knowledge after taking   bank  signed   cheques   from  her.   Again,  PW1  has  not   uttered   a word to suggest that the cheques were entrusted to the accused and if so,   for   what   purpose   and   what   was   the   directions   given   by   her   for discharge   of   those   blank   signed   cheques.  The   description   of   the cheques is not given by her either. It is not the case of the complainant that the cheques used to be given to her husband for safe custody or for some purpose whereas misused by the accused for his own gain. PW1 deposed regarding document mark A which is stated to be list of the transaction   of   the   bank   account   of   the   complainant   purportedly conducted by the accused. Document Mark A is not proved on record as per law. Further, a bare perusal of this document Mark A shows that it is a   hand   written   record   of   some   cheque   numbers   and   the   amount   for which the cheques were drawn and the persons / company concerned, perhaps in whose name, the cheques were drawn. This list has several entries in the name of Ali International. The list is unsigned and undated. This in itself does not go to prove anything. The statement of account of the complainant Ex.PW1/D does not at all go to prove that the cheques were entrusted to accused, filled up by the accused and utilized against the  instructions   of the  complainant.  Hence,  the  alleged  offence  under section 406 IPC is not conclusively proved against the accused.