Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is also stated that her mother in law had beaten her for demand of Rs 50,000/- on 31/03/1993 before dropping her to the parental home. It is further stated that reconciliation meetings took place which were arranged by her father and mother at her Phupha's house at Lal Quarter and one of the meetings was on 11/04/1993. In that meeting apart from reconciliation, her Istridhan was demanded but accused persons declined to return and stated that they would see later on. Again meeting on 25/05/1993 where accused Hira Lal stated that he was not interested in marriage and her parents forced him to marry to take Rs 50,000/-. It is further stated that accused persons were again approached by father of complainant and her Phupha by visiting her matrimonial home and they demanded her Istridhan back but accused persons refused to give the same and threatened that they could do whatever they wanted to and they would be killed. On their refusal to return the Istridhan, the complaint was made on 12/06/1993 before CAW Cell which is Ex PW-1/A. The marriage card is Ex P-1. The photographs State Vs Hira Lal of marriage are Ex Y-1 to Ex Y-12. The statement of complainant made before police is Ex PW-1/C. Her list of dowry articles is exhibited as Ex PW-1/D. Again her statement was recorded on 14/07/1993. Some of the articles were returned to her in Dowry Cell on 29/07/1993.

Ld APP for State has relied upon Surinder Kumar Yadav and ors. Vs The State 2000 (53) DRJ 83 that non return of Istridhan also amounts to Harassment. In this regard it is stated that Istridhan was demanded back after she had gone to her parental home. Harassment coupled with demand should be essentially there during the stay of complainant with accused. This is not a kind of cruelty which can cause danger to life, limb or health of complainant.

The punishment for commission of offence U/s 405 IPC is given U/s 406 IPC.

Now adverting to the facts of the complaint, the complainant in her complaint had stated that after marriage her Doli was taken to the maternal uncle of accused Hira Lal namely Shyam Lal Sethi and from there after two days they shifted to B-35, Krishna Nagar, Delhi along with the articles. She has stated that Istridhan articles are lying in the possession of accused persons i.e. accused husband Hira Lal, mother in law Geeta and father in law Raj Kumar. Her mother in law Geeta had already expired. She has stated that else than receiving certain articles in CAW Cell on 29/07/1993 vide list Ex PW-1/E, no other Istridhan articles have been returned to her. Her list of remaining articles is Ex PW-1/D. It is pertinent to mention here that articles mentioned in list bearing Ex PW-1/E i.e. which were returned to the complainant contained no jewellery at all. She had given a list of dowry articles Ex PW-1/B and Ex PW-5/A mentioning articles received by her from parents and her relatives and from in laws side respectively. She had stated that that jewellery worth Rs 1,19,000/- have not been returned and the entire articles which are State Vs Hira Lal not returned were worth Rs 1,86,390/- including jewellery.

She has stated that the articles were demanded from the accused persons in Biradari meetings conducted on 11/04/1993, 25/05/1993 and finally on 08/06/1993. On 08/06/1993, the articles were demanded through her father and her Phupha K. L. Madan as they went to the house of accused persons but they were threatened there and accused persons refused to return the articles.

Perusal of the cross examination of accused i.e. DW-1 Hira Lal shows that he has stated in his cross examination dated 24/03/2012 that the Istridhan was taken to the house of Shyam Lal Sethi (Maternal Uncle of accused Hira Lal) after marriage and then it was shifted to B-35, Krishna Nagar, Delhi however in subsequent cross examination dated 25/08/2012, he stated that he had gone alone to the house of Shyam Lal Sethi with PW-1 Rita and not with the Istridhan articles. He has given two different versions on two dates meaning thereby that he had deliberately given false statement. He has admitted certain articles received by the complainant in her marriage. The story of the accused Hira Lal is that the complainant had gone for "Ashtami" to her parental home and he dropped her at her instance whereas DW-3 Witness Satnam Kaur had stated in her statement that she was the neighbour of the accused persons and she saw that on the day of Holi, the brother of State Vs Hira Lal complainant namely Sanjay along with his two friends had come to the matrimonial home of the complainant to apply colour on her face and when they were applying the colour her ear rings were misplaced. She denied the suggestion that no one came on the occasion of Holi from the family of the complainant to the matrimonial home of the complainant. When she was asked whether one ear ring was misplaced or both, she stated that one ear ring was misplaced whereas version of accused Hira Lal is that both the ear rings were misplaced. DW-3 Satnam Kaur had further stated that on the next day of Holi, complainant Rita left her matrimonial home saying that she would not stay at her matrimonial home as her parents got her married forcefully there but accused Hira Lal says that he took her on the occasion of "Ashtami". The statement of both the witnesses are contradictory in this respect. Accused Hira Lal in his cross examination had admitted that no articles except the one returned in CAW Cell had been returned anywhere else to the complainant. He has further stated that in his cross examination dated 25/08/2012 that the complainant went for "Ashtami" only in clothes she was wearing on that day whereas in the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights Ex PW-1/H U/s 9 HMA at para 6, he has stated that the complainant had taken three rings, four gold bangles / karas, one pair of ear rings, one pair of tops along with Rs State Vs Hira Lal 600 in cash and some valuable sarees on the occasion of "Ashtami" and promised to come back to the house of petitioner after celebrating the "Ashtami". He has given two contradictory versions before two forums with respect to her going to her parental home. The jewellery articles and valuable sarees mentioned above which she is alleged to have taken along with her clearly shows that she was having these articles as her Istridhan and therefore it is not to be proved that these all articles were given to her either from the parents side or from the side of in laws to her at the time of her marriage. In respect of the aforesaid articles, there is no need of proving entrustment as the statement of the accused Hira Lal in petition U/s 9 HMA and in cross examination dated 25/08/12 clearly reveals that he had given a false statement before the court with respect to the aforesaid point. Therefore, it is settled that she is entitled to get back these articles. In fact the statement of accused Hira Lal is nothing but a bundle of lies.