1 IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY]: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NEW DELHI. STATE VS LALIT ETC. FIR NO. 429/2007 P.S. Mandir Marg U/S 498-A/406 [ACT] 10.08.2010 JUDGMENT:
1.Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 323/2 & 17.11.2008
2.Date of commission of offence
3.Name of the complainant State through Smt. [ENTITY]
4.Name of the accused 1. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o S-57, [ENTITY], Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
2. [ENTITY] (Discharged) S/o Late Sh. [ENTITY], R/o S-57, [ENTITY], Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Smt. [ENTITY] (Discharged) W/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o S-57, [ENTITY], Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
4. [ENTITY] (Discharged) S/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o S-57, [ENTITY], Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Smt. [ENTITY] (Discharged) W/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o 103, 104, Khayala, J.J. Colony, New Delhi.
6. Sh. [ENTITY] (Discharged) S/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] R/o 103, 104, Khayala, J.J. Colony, New Delhi.
7. Smt. [ENTITY] (Discharged) W/o [ENTITY], R/o 172, [ENTITY], Rampura, [ENTITY], New Delhi.
8. Sh. [ENTITY] (Discharged) S/o Late [ENTITY], R/o 172, [ENTITY], Rampura, [ENTITY], New Delhi.
5.Nature of offence complained of U/[SECTION] [ACT]
6.Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Date reserved for order 27.07.2010
8.Final Order Acquitted
9.Date of such order 10.08.2010 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Accused [ENTITY] was challaned by PS Mandir Marg for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] on the allegations that he being the husband of the complainant Smt. [ENTITY] during the subsistence of marriage subjected the complainant to cruelty and further he committed breach of trust in respect of the articles as mentioned in the list Mark A and converted the same to his own use.
2. After supply of copies under [SECTION] [ACT] charge for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused [ENTITY] vide order dated 21.2.2009 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order of said date accused [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY] were discharged for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 8 witnesses.
PW1 Lady [ENTITY] deposed that on 17.12.2007 she was posted as Constable at CAW Cell, New Delhi. On that day the IO/ SI [ENTITY] handed over to her a tehrir/ statement of Smt. [ENTITY] in Hindi and sent her to PS Mandir Marg for registration of the present case. Accordingly she got the case registered and returned back to the CAW Cell and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO SI [ENTITY].
PW2 [ENTITY] deposed that on 7.1.2008 she was posted as HC in CAW Cell, New Delhi. On that day IO seized two photographs of marriage vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and the photographs are Mark X1 and X2. The same were handed over by Smt. [ENTITY] to the IO at CAW Cell, Parliament Street.
PW3 [ENTITY] proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Smt. [ENTITY] is the complainant in the present case; PW5 Smt. [ENTITY] is the mother of the complainant and PW6 Shri [ENTITY] is the father of the complainant.
PW7 SI [ENTITY] deposed that on 23.4.2007 a complaint of complainant [ENTITY] was assigned to her while she was posted as SI at CAW Cell, Parliament Street and she acted on the same in accordance with the rules and submitted her report Ex.PW7/A (colly). Photocopy of list of dowry articles was also produced by the complainant. After due approval of senior officers present case was registered. 5 days notice was issued to the accused persons. Statement of complainant and other witnesses was reduced in writing under [SECTION] [ACT] Photographs of marriage were produced by the complainant and same were seized as per seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. Dowry and stridhan articles were recovered as produced by accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. She stated that she had seen the accused. Thereafter she proceeded on leave and further investigation was assigned to SI [ENTITY]. She had deposited the seized dowry and stridhan articles with MHC(M) on 11.2.2008 vide entry No.1064 and copy of the relevant extract in the said regard is Ex.PW7/C. PW8 SI [ENTITY] deposed that on 8.3.2008 further investigation of the case was assigned to him. He arrested the accused persons namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] vide their respective arrest memos Ex.PW8/A to G and they were released on bail.
4. After prosecution evidence was led statement of the accused was recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] wherein all the incriminating material existing on record including exhibited documents were put to the accused to which the stand of the accused was of general denial. He stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence but thereafter it was stated that no defence witness was to be produced and defence evidence was closed vide order dated 12.7.2010.
5. I have heard the learned APP for state, the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused. The learned APP has argued that from the material on record the offence is made out against the accused.
6. Written submissions were filed on behalf of the accused which I have perused. It is argued that the complainant got married with the accused on 29.4.2004 at Delhi. After the marriage the complainant joined the matrimonial society of the accused. One daughter was born out of the wedlock and the complainant started to live in joint family and after that the complainant shifted in the rented accommodation where she lived with the accused and after that the complainant lodged a false complaint against the family members of the accused at the CAW Cell. After that the case was registered against the family members of the accused and against the accused under [SECTION] [ACT] and against the other family members including father in law, mother in law etc and the court heard the arguments on charge at length and discharged all the family members of the accused except the present accused [ENTITY]. It is argued that the complainant as PW4 in the chief examination leveled false allegations regarding beating and demand of money only against the mother in law and other accused except the present accused. In her chief examination she used the word 'they' which was not clear that against whom the complainant wanted to say and the complainant failed to disclose the date-month and year of the beating of the complainant and had not placed any medical certificate in the said regard.
7. It is further argued that the complainant stated in cross- examination that her father spent in her marriage approximately Rs.6-7 lakhs and the father of the complainant Shri [ENTITY] PW6 had stated in his cross-examination that he spent in the marriage of his daughter approximately Rs.3-5 lakhs. It is argued that in the chief as well as in the cross-examination the complainant failed to show that the accused [ENTITY] gave any beating to the complainant and the counsel for the accused gave suggestion to the complainant that she compelled the accused to demand his share in the property of his parents and when he refused then the complainant got registered the present false case against the accused persons. PW5 who is the mother of the complainant stated in her chief examination that the father of the accused [ENTITY] called her and demanded motorcycle and Rs.1.5 lakhs, she arranged only Rs.50,000/-. The said accused had already been discharged. There was no allegation against the present accused. She stated that initially the father in law, mother in law harassed her daughter for dowry, nanad also used to come and beat her. No date - month and year were mentioned and all the accused persons had already been discharged. There were no allegations against the accused [ENTITY]. PW5 also stated that the complainant and her husband started to live in a rented accommodation along with her articles and belongings - in her cross-examination she stated that she spent in the marriage of her daughter approximately Rs.4-6 lakhs. She stated that the father of the accused demanded Rs.1.5 lakhs from her at the time of marriage and Rs.70,000/- when the child was born. She admitted that her daughter started living separately from her in laws in a rented accommodation with her husband after taking all her belongings and articles. PW6 who is the father of the complainant also stated about demand by the father of the accused though he was already discharged and giving Rs.51,000/- in cash.
8. It is argued that in the chief examination and cross- examination there are so many contradictions in the statement of the witnesses i.e. mother in law, father in law and the complainant [ENTITY]. No medical report of [ENTITY] is on record. All the allegations are against the in laws of the complainant and they had already been discharged. There were contradictions about the amount spent in the marriage. It is argued that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons. The complainant used the word 'they' which clearly showed that there was no specific allegation against any specific accused. She admitted in her cross-examination that she lived with her husband at only one place at a tenanted premises. She stated that after missing she never joined her husband. So all the allegations in the chief examination and in cross-examination clearly showed that the present accused [ENTITY] was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case. It is argued that although the accused [ENTITY] always fulfilled the demand of [ENTITY] but she never cooperated with the accused and his parents.
9. On an appreciation of the evidence the material witnesses in the present case are PW4, PW5 and PW6. PW4 Smt. [ENTITY] deposed that she was married to accused [ENTITY] on 29.4.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Uttam Nagar. Her husband [ENTITY] started torturing her just after two days of her marriage. He used to call her bad character. When she got pregnant he started saying that the child in the womb did not belong to him and that the child was the child of her father or brother. She stated that her husband used to beat her at night after consuming liquor. Her brother in law [ENTITY] used to offer her to stay with him and not with the accused so that she may avoid torture of her husband. She told about the same to her husband but he defended his brother and on the contrary made allegations of bad character against her. Her husband also threatened her not to disclose the said matters to her parents otherwise he would kill her and her parents.
PW4 further deposed that at the time of marriage her father in law demanded Rs.1.5 lakhs and one motorcycle and other dowry articles. When she gave birth to a daughter after one year they demanded Rs.70,000/- as she had given birth to a daughter. On her not bringing the same they called her 'kangle ki aulad, nange ki aulad' and abused her mother and sisters calling them 'randi'. They physically and mentally tortured her. Once her father in law misbehaved with her in presence of her husband on date she did not remember. When she asked her husband to stop him he called her 'badchalan', he stated that his father was not like that and she must have done something. From time to time she was mentally tortured and taunted for dowry. Her mother in law tried to burn her twice on dates she did not remember. That time she was pregnant. When she was alone at home with her mother in law she used to taunt her for dowry, she would beat her, she would instigate her husband so that there would be no trust between her and her husband. When they came to know that she was pregnant, her sisters in law and everyone tried to get her child aborted. In ultrasound they came to know that the child in her womb was a daughter so they tried twice to burn her to death but she survived. She stated that when she was pregnant she was not given anything to eat and she was made to work the whole day.
PW4 deposed that when the daughter was born they locked her in one room and did not give her anything to eat. Her sisters in law [ENTITY], her husband [ENTITY], her younger [ENTITY] and her husband [ENTITY] were also part of the conspiracy. Their eyes right from the beginning was on wealth as their husbands did not do any work. They did not let her intermingle with her family. They used to instigate her mother in law to beat her and to burn her. They had conspired to get her child aborted. They got her sent to a rented accommodation and said in front of everyone that she had not got married but had run away and come. They used to come to the rented accommodation also and beat her. Neither she was given food nor anything to drink there and she was kept alone there. They instigated her husband and he left her from there. On 12.4.2007 her husband left without telling and thereafter she did not meet him. She made complaint to CAW Cell on 14.4.2007 which is Ex.PW4/A. PW4 also deposed that after compromise through CAW Cell they remained together for one month. On 16.8.2007 she went to another rented accommodation with her husband but there also his attitude was the same. He used to beat her and her daughter after drinking. He would not get anything to eat. On 19.9.2007 in the night he came home late at night. He was drunk and asked them to sleep after having dinner. He tried to smother her and her daughter to death. She saved herself and her daughter with great difficulty and she ran and called police from PCO. Police got her medically examined. Her parents were called and then she was sent with her parents. Some complaint was made against accused and thereafter he was in custody. Thereafter the case was separately proceeded for attempt to murder. He was released. Thereafter she used to get threats. Even after she went to her parental home he did not stop harassing her. He used to threaten her that he would get acid thrown on her face and get her sisters killed and would bring her to disrepute and he also used to threaten to kill her parents and brother. She stated that she had given a list of dowry articles in CAW Cell which is Ex.PW4/B and also handed over photos vide Ex.PW2/A. Some dowry articles were recovered but the same were broken and jewellery was not returned rather it was alleged that she had stolen the articles and taken to her parental home. The list of balance articles is Ex.PW4/C.
10. PW5 Smt. [ENTITY] deposed that her daughter [ENTITY] was married to [ENTITY] on 29.4.2004 who was son of [ENTITY]. 3 days prior to ring ceremony demand was raised by accused. Prior to that no demand was raised. The father of the accused [ENTITY] called and demanded motorcycle and Rs.1,50,000/-. She could arrange for only Rs.50,000/- and took motorcycle on installments. Other articles were also given in marriage TV, Fridge, Washing Machine, necklace, 2 tola gold chain to boy - in all 6 tolas gold jewellery, clothes for ladies - 21 pairs, 21 pairs for men. Despite that her daughter was tortured. Initially the father in law and mother in law harassed her daughter for dowry. The nanads also used to come and beat her. [ENTITY] also used to beat her. The accused used to demand balance Rs.1 lakh cash but she did not have the same and they beat her daughter for the same. Even when her daughter was pregnant she was beaten. Even ultrasound was got done and accused wanted her to get abortion done but she did not agree. She gave birth to a daughter in 2005 on 9th February. At the Nursing Home they demanded Rs.70,000/- from her but she expressed her helplessness. After that she was not allowed to meet her daughter.
11. PW5 further deposed that after one - one and a half months she went with relatives and after compromise brought her daughter to her house. The accused did not come to take back her daughter for 8-9 months and her daughter was 10 months. With intervention of relatives she left her daughter at her matrimonial house. After 2-3 months her daughter became ill and accused asked her to get her treated at her place and left her at her place. Thereafter he did not come to take her back. After 15 days along with relatives PW5 went and left her at her matrimonial house. Thereafter accused [ENTITY] took her daughter and grand daughter and they started residing separately. On 12.4.2007 the accused left her daughter in the rented accommodation and went away. Her daughter called up that even there was no milk for the grand daughter to drink. On 13.4.2007 she reached her house in the morning at 10-11 a.m. and neighbours stated that accused had left. She lodged complaint at PP [ENTITY] that her son in law had left. They went to his house but his mother did not open the door. They came back. The police at PP [ENTITY] told them to take her daughter with them and to lodge complaint at CAW Cell. She lodged complaint at CAW Cell on 15.4.2007.
PW5 also deposed that on 7.5.2007 they were called to CAW Cell and on 6.8.2007 after compromise [ENTITY] was sent with [ENTITY]. On 19.9.2007 in the night she received call from PS Bindapur SHO that they had brought her daughter in injured condition. [ENTITY] had beaten her after drinking. After 4-5 hours both were medically examined and it was found that [ENTITY] was injured and accused [ENTITY] was drunk. Thereafter case came before court. In CAW Cell some articles were given to them and some were broken. She stated that fridge etc were broken and there was no TV. The jewellery had already been sold. She stated that they were given Rs.50,000/- by accused in CAW Cell. The seizure memo of the articles is Ex.PW5/A. She stated that since then her daughter was residing with her.
12. PW6 Shri [ENTITY] deposed that his daughter [ENTITY] was married to [ENTITY] on 29.4.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. All articles were given according to their capacity motorcycle, 2 tola gold chain, ring, watch. He stated that the father of the accused had demanded Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.51,000/- were given. Cash, utensils, clothes etc were also given. He stated that the accused [ENTITY] and his parents used to beat his daughter and harassed her for dowry. She was shifted with the accused to separate accommodation in Uttam Nagar. They had made complaint to CAW Cell after accused ran away after beating her on 12.2.2007. Matter was compromised in CAW Cell on 6.8.2007 and she went with accused. But accused again started beating her and he would beat her after drinking. Thereafter complaint was made and police was called on 100 number. He stated that the accused gave leg blows to her. Accused was taken by police in drunk condition. Complaint was made at 9.30 p.m. and they received information at 11.30 p.m. from PS Bindapur and thereafter they reached there. Accused was sent to custody. He stated that they had given list of dowry articles. Certain articles were recovered in CAW Cell. He stated that for 2 years his daughter was residing with them and accused was not paying any maintenance to her. He stated that strict action should be taken against the accused.
13. Thus PW4 deposed that her husband [ENTITY] started torturing her just after two days of her marriage and used to call her bad character. When she got pregnant he started saying that the child in the womb did not belong to him. Further her husband used to beat her at night after consuming liquor. However it is not stated that any demand was raised and pursuant to the same she was tortured or beaten. She stated that her brother in law [ENTITY] used to offer her to stay with him and not with the accused and when she told her husband he only made allegations of bad character against her. However there is nothing when the brother in law said so. Again there is nothing about any demand being raised by the brother in law. She also alleged that her husband threatened her not to disclose the said matters to her parents otherwise he would kill her and her parents but it is not stated when the threats were raised. She stated about her father in law demanding Rs.1.5 lakhs and one motorcycle and other dowry articles at the time of marriage. She also stated that when she gave birth to a daughter after one year they demanded Rs.70,000/- and on failure to do so they taunted and abused her mother and sisters but it is not stated who raised the demand of Rs.70,000/-. They physically and mentally tortured her. She also alleged that once her father in law misbehaved with her in presence of her husband and her husband blamed her only but again it is not stated when and in fact she stated that the date she did not remember. She stated that from time to time she was mentally tortured and taunted for dowry but there is nothing about any specific demand being raised. She stated that her mother in law tried to burn her twice but again she said that the dates she did not remember though she stated that time she was pregnant. However there is nothing about any complaint being lodged then or the same being pursuant to any demand. She also stated that her mother in law used to taunt her for dowry and would beat her and instigate her husband but again there is nothing about any specific demand being raised.
14. The complainant has further alleged that her sisters in law and everyone tried to get her child aborted and on knowing that it was a daughter they tried twice to burn her and she was not given anything to eat and she was made to work the whole day. When the daughter was born they locked her in one room and did not give her anything to eat. But again there is nothing about any demand or about any complaint being lodged then. She stated that her sisters in law [ENTITY], her husband [ENTITY], her younger [ENTITY] and her husband [ENTITY] were also part of the conspiracy and their eyes right from the beginning was on wealth and they did not let her intermingle with her family and used to instigate her mother in law to beat her and to burn her and conspired to get her child aborted. However again it is not stated that the same was pursuant to any demand nor any specific incident is stated. She alleged that they got her sent to a rented accommodation and used to come there and beat her but again it is not stated that the same was pursuant to any demand. She stated that she was not given food or drink and was kept alone there and they instigated her husband and he left her from there. On 12.4.2007 her husband left without telling and thereafter she did not meet him.
15. PW4 stated that after compromise through CAW Cell they remained together for one month but again at the rented accommodation the attitude of her husband was the same and he used to beat her and her daughter after drinking and would not get anything to eat. As such even then the problem was on account of drinking habit of her husband and there is nothing about demand of dowry. She has stated about the alleged incident of 19.9.2007 when he came drunk and tried to smother her and her daughter to death and she ran and called police. However she herself has stated that the the case was separately proceeded for attempt to murder. She has stated about getting threats to get acid thrown on her face and get her sisters killed and to bring her to disrepute and to kill her parents and brother but there is nothing specific nor when the threats were extended. As such the only allegation regarding demand is by the father in law at the time of marriage and of Rs.70,000/- after the birth of the daughter but it is not even stated who raised the latter demand specifically. Further there is nothing specific about harassment pursuant to the demand nor dates of any incidents are stated except the alleged incident of 19.9.2007 but even there is nothing to show that the same was pursuant to any demand.
16. The complainant had made certain allegations against the brother in law but there is nothing specific nor about any demand being raised by him or harassment pursuant to the same. There are allegations against the sisters in law and their husbands of having an eye on the wealth and of harassing her and instigating her husband and mother in law but again there is nothing to show when they raised any demand or beat her pursuant to the same. Similarly the allegation against the mother in law is of trying to burn her twice but it is strange that both the times the complainant managed to save herself and even the mode of trying to burn her is not stated nor the dates nor there is anything about any complaint being lodged then. She had also stated about the mother in law taunting her and beating her but again there is nothing about demand and harassment pursuant to the same. Regarding the father in law there is an allegation of misbehaviour but it is not stated what was the nature of misbehaviour. There is an allegation of demand being raised by him at the time of marriage but there is nothing to show harassment at that time. Thus the allegations against the family members are only general and vague and they have already been discharged.
17. PW5 stated that 3 days prior to ring ceremony demand was raised by accused and the father of the accused [ENTITY] demanded motorcycle and Rs.1,50,000/-. She stated that she could arrange only Rs.50,000/- and took motorcycle on installments and about other articles given in marriage. She stated that even then her daughter was tortured. Initially the father in law and mother in law harassed her daughter for dowry but the complainant had not stated about any torture by the father in law and mother in law initially. She stated that the nanads also used to come and beat her but there is nothing about any demand being raised by the said persons or there being any harassment pursuant to the same. The complainant had made some allegations against the brothers in law as well but PW5 did not stated about their role. She stated that [ENTITY] also used to beat her and he used to demand balance Rs.1 lakh cash but the complainant herself did not state about the same specifically. She stated that even when her daughter was pregnant she was beaten and the accused wanted her to get abortion done. She stated that at the Nursing Home they demanded Rs.70,000/- from her but it is not stated who had demanded the said amount. She stated that after that she was not allowed to meet her daughter.
PW5 stated that after compromise she brought her daughter to her house but the complainant had not stated about the same. She stated that with intervention of relatives she left her daughter at her matrimonial house. After 2-3 months her daughter became ill and accused asked her to get her treated at her place and left her at her place but again the complainant had not stated about the same. She stated that after 15 days along with relatives PW5 went and left her at her matrimonial house and thereafter they started residing separately. She had also stated that on 12.4.2007 the accused left her daughter in the rented accommodation and went away. PW5 stated that after compromise [ENTITY] was sent with [ENTITY]. On 19.9.2007 in the night she received call from PS Bindapur SHO that they had brought her daughter in injured condition. She stated that [ENTITY] had beaten her after drinking and both were medically examined. However there is nothing about demand then. Thus PW5 had also made some allegations against the father in law, mother in law and nanads but there is nothing specific nor any specific incident is stated qua them nor even there is anything about any demand being raised except by the father in law at the time of marriage. Even qua the accused [ENTITY] the only allegation is that he used to demand Rs.1 lakh which was balance but it is not stated when the said demand was raised and no specific incident is stated except of 12.4.2007 and 19.9.2007 but there is nothing about any harassment pursuant to any demand on the said dates.
18. PW6 stated that the father of the accused had demanded Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.51,000/- were given. He stated that the accused [ENTITY] and his parents used to beat his daughter and harassed her for dowry but it is not stated what was demanded and when. Further he has not stated anything about the sisters in law or brothers in law. He stated that she was shifted with the accused to separate accommodation in Uttam Nagar. He stated that they had made complaint to CAW Cell after accused ran away after beating her on 12.2.2007 but there is nothing that the same was pursuant to any demand. He also stated that the matter was compromised in CAW Cell on 6.8.2007 and she went with accused but the accused again started beating her and he would beat her after drinking. As such he has also stated about the accused beating the complainant after drinking and not that beating was pursuant to any demand. As such he has not stated about any specific demand being raised by the accused or harassment pursuant to the same and his testimony is only general in nature.
19. The complainant was cross-examined on the complaints made by her and during cross-examination PW4 stated that she is a Graduate. She lodged her complaint before Women Cell herself. She lived in her matrimonial home upto one year after her marriage. She lodged her complaint before Women Cell only once but she was called by the CAW Cell for enquiry on various dates. She made her statement before the Women Cell which she mentioned in her examination in chief in the court. She lodged her complaint before Women Cell against her in laws when she was living in the tenanted premises. She lodged only one complaint at PP [ENTITY] Chowki, Uttam Nagar only regarding missing of her husband. She stated that after missing of her husband the police staff of PP [ENTITY] sent her to her parents' house and after that she never joined her husband anywhere. She stated that her initial complaint was pending even after her living with her husband after settlement by the Women Cell. She revived her previous complaint against her in laws before the Women Cell.
20. Thus the complainant stated that she lived in her matrimonial home upto one year after her marriage. She stated that she lodged her complaint before Women Cell only once and later she had revived the said complaint. Further she stated that she lodged her complaint before Women Cell against her in laws when she was living in the tenanted premises but nothing much turns on the same as it is also her case that even at the rented accommodation the sisters in law used to come though there is nothing about demand against them. Further she lodged only one complaint at PP [ENTITY] Chowki, Uttam Nagar regarding missing of her husband. As such there is nothing about any complaints being lodged earlier or even when her mother in law allegedly tried to burn her or she was allegedly tortured though PW6 stated that his daughter made several complaints regarding beating by her husband. However there is no such complaint proved on record except on the basis of which the present case was lodged. Thus there is nothing material which has come out in the cross-examination in this regard.
21. The witnesses were cross-examined on the demand after the birth of the child. During cross-examination PW4 stated that she got ultrasound done in Kansal Nursing Home at Uttam Nagar by her in laws. She gave birth to her female child at Kansal Nursing Home at Uttam Nagar. Initially the medical expenses were paid by her in laws but later on they demanded Rs.70,000/- from her and her parents. But her parents were not capable to pay the same because they were poor persons. She denied the suggestion that she had remarried. She denied the suggestion that she was not beaten and harassed physically or mentally by her husband or by her in laws any time or that she lodged her complaint against her husband and in laws at the instigation of her parents. PW5 stated that her daughter was got medically examined once. She stated that father of the accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from her at the time of marriage and Rs.70,000/- when the child was born. Thus PW4 stated that initially the medical expenses were paid by her in laws but later on they demanded Rs.70,000/- from her and her parents and even PW5 had stated about demand of Rs.70,000/-. It is significant that even the complainant stated about the medical expenses being paid by her in laws and if it is her case that they wanted to get the child aborted they may not have done so. She had stated that later on they demanded Rs.70,000/- from her and her parents but her parents were not capable to pay the same and as such it is not the case that the said amount was in fact paid by her parents. A suggestion was also put to her that she had remarried which she denied but even there is nothing to show that she had remarried.
22. The witnesses were cross-examined on the complainant residing in the tenanted accommodation. During cross-examination PW4 stated that she lived with her husband at only one place at tenanted premises. She even could not tell the month and date but it was 2006 to 2007 in the tenanted premises. PW4 stated that she was medically examined and that was 19.9.2007. At that time she was living with her husband in the tenanted premises after mediation by the Women Cell. She stated that her husband never told her what he was doing when she was living with her husband in the tenanted premises. Her husband never told her what he was doing and whenever she asked him he used to beat her. At last she lived with her husband in the tenanted premises at Vishwas Park. She did not know whether her father in law had been discharged or not. She did not remember the name of the PCO because she was in terror. She denied the suggestion that she compelled her husband to demand his share in the movable/ immovable properties of his parents and when he refused then she implicated her in laws in the present false case under [SECTION] [ACT]. She admitted that the tenanted premises were in populated area. She did not know who used to pay the rent to the landlord. She denied the suggestion that she started to do her job when she was harassed and beaten by her husband or that she was a working lady in a private factory.
23. During cross-examination PW5 admitted that her daughter started to live separately from her in laws in a rented accommodation with her husband after taking her own belonging articles. They lived together in rented accommodation about 8-9 months. She denied the suggestion that her daughter ever compelled her husband to live separately or that accused [ENTITY] never beat her daughter.
24. During cross-examination PW6 stated that his daughter [ENTITY] was never medically examined during the period when she stayed at her in laws house with her husband. He stated that his daughter was never employed anywhere. He stated that his daughter made several complaints regarding beating by her husband. He did not know in whose presence he gave Rs.51,000/- to the father of the accused vol younger brother of accused was present at that time. He denied the suggestion that his daughter started to live separate from her in laws in a rented accommodation with her husband after taking all her belongings. He stated that the in laws of his daughter sent his daughter in her wearing clothes in a rented accommodation with her husband. He did not know for how much period his daughter lived separate from her in laws with her husband in the rented accommodation. He denied the suggestion that the husband of his daughter never beat his daughter or demanded any dowry from her or him. He further denied the suggestion that his daughter ever compelled her husband to demand his share in the movable or immovable property of his parents or that his daughter ever compelled her husband to live nearby them. He did not remember the denomination of the notes of Rs.51,000/-. The said amount was withdrawn by him from his account. He stated that he took permission from his department for withdrawing the amount of Rs.51,000/-. He stated that he is an Income Tax payee.
25. During cross-examination PW7 admitted that for a short period parties compromised and stayed together as husband and wife. During cross-examination PW8 stated that he had not recorded the statement of any witness in the said case and had merely formally arrested and done other formalities.
26. Thus PW4 stated that she lived with her husband at only one place at tenanted premises though she could not tell the month and date. However it is not even the case put forth by the accused that he and the complainant never went to rented accommodation and no suggestion was put to the complainant to that effect. It is pertinent that PW5 admitted that her daughter started to live separately from her in laws in a rented accommodation with her husband after taking her own belonging articles and as such she stated about the complainant taking her own belonging articles. On the other hand PW6 denied the suggestion that his daughter started to live separate in a rented accommodation after taking all her belongings and stated that the in laws sent his daughter in her wearing clothes. PW4 stated that she was medically examined on 19.9.2007 when she was living with her husband in the tenanted premises after mediation by the Women Cell though PW5 stated that her daughter was got medically examined once while PW6 stated that his daughter [ENTITY] was never medically examined during the period when she stayed at her in laws house with her husband. The complainant was also cross-examined on what her husband used to do and she stated that her husband never told her what he was doing and whenever she asked him he used to beat her and she also stated that she did not know who used to pay rent to the landlord but even no suggestion was put to the complainant as to what her husband used to do. She had stated about calling police from PCO but she did not remember the name of the PCO and stated that it was because she was in terror. However no such complaint has even been proved on record.
27. PW6 stated that his daughter was never employed anywhere but no suggestion to the contrary was put to him. Even the complainant had denied the suggestion that she was a working lady in a private factory. PW6 had stated about giving Rs.51,000/- to the father of the accused but he did not know in whose presence he gave Rs.51,000/- to the father of the accused. He volunteered that younger brother of accused was present at that time. However there is no witness who could corroborate what has been stated by him. He did not remember the denomination of the notes of Rs.51,000/- but clearly that would not be possible after so many years. However he had stated that the said amount was withdrawn by him from his account and further that he took permission from his department for withdrawing the amount of Rs.51,000/- but no such proof which would have been available has been produced on record. As such there is nothing to substantiate that either any demand was raised by the father of the accused or any amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid to him. It is the contention of the accused that the complainant compelled her husband to demand his share in the movable/ immovable properties of his parents and when he refused then she implicated her in laws in false case but all the witnesses denied suggestions to that effect. But even there is nothing to show the same or even that the complainant ever compelled her husband to live nearby her parents.
28. It is thus seen that there are allegations against the in laws but there is nothing to substantiate the same nor anything specific is there about demand and harassment pursuant to the same. Regarding the accused [ENTITY] as well only general allegations are there and mostly it is stated that the accused [ENTITY] used to beat her after drinking which would not be within the ambit of [SECTION] [ACT]. Only PW5 had stated specifically about the demand of Rs.1 lakh by the accused but it is not even stated when the said amount was demanded and the complainant herself had not stated about any demand specifically. She had merely stated about being taunted and harassed and beaten for dowry but she did not state what was demanded and when. As such only certain general allegations have been made except about the alleged incident of 19.9.2007 but there is nothing to show any demand even then. A copy of one MLC is on record of the said date but the same also states that no fresh mark of any external injury was seen though it shows the nature of injury as simple and blunt but there is nothing to show any demand preceding the same.
29. It is settled law that it is not every harassment which comes within the purview of [SECTION] and there should be demand coupled with cruelty; it must be established that beating and harassment was with a view to force wife to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands of husband and in laws. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Smt. [PRECEDENT] where it was observed:
"It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract [SECTION] [ACT] -Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands."
Similar view was taken in Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana & Anr. 1991 (2) RCR 53 where it was observed that in case of beatings given to bride by husband and his relations due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry, offence under [SECTION] would not be made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] held that proximate or live link must be shown to exist between the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand and in [PRECEDENT] it was held that harassment to constitute cruelty under [SECTION] must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case would fall beyond the scope of [SECTION] Similar was the view expressed in [PRECEDENT] where after referring to various authorities the Hon'ble High Court held that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract the provision of [SECTION] [ACT] and that harassment to constitute cruelty under [SECTION] [ACT] must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if that was missing the case would fall beyond the scope of [SECTION] [ACT]. In the instant case as well there are only general allegations of demands being extended and harassment and beatings but there is no necessary correlation between the same and in fact there is nothing to substantiate any of the allegations.
30. The Explanation to [SECTION] also defines cruelty as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman and it would be argued on behalf of the prosecution that the case is covered under part (a). In the present case also there is nothing to show any act as to cause danger to life, limb or health.
31. Regarding the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] the prosecution in order to prove its case has to prove the following ingredients:
(i) entrusting a person with the property or with any dominion over property
(ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly used or disposed of that property or willfully suffered any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged,
(ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
32. PW4 had deposed about giving list of dowry articles and some photographs. She had stated about some dowry articles being recovered but the same were broken and jewellery was not returned rather it was alleged that she had stolen the articles and taken to her parental home. PW5 stated that she could arrange only Rs.50,000/- and took motorcycle on installments and she also stated about other articles that were given in marriage. She also stated that in CAW Cell some articles were given to them and some were broken - fridge etc were broken and there was no TV. She stated that the jewellery had already been sold but the complainant had not stated to that effect and it is not clear what is her basis of stating that the jewellery had been sold. She stated that they were given Rs.50,000/- by accused in CAW Cell. PW6 also stated that all articles were given according to their capacity. He stated that the father of the accused had demanded Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.51,000/- were given as also other articles. He stated that they had given list of dowry articles and certain articles were recovered in CAW Cell. However it is seen that while all the witnesses have stated about certain articles being given and PW5 and PW6 stated about Rs.51,000/- being given and also a motorcycle but none of them have stated to whom the articles were entrusted except that Rs.51,000/- was given to the father in law. Even none of them have stated about the demand of articles and refusal of the accused to return the same. Further all the witnesses had stated about certain articles being recovered in CAW Cell though some of them were broken and that the jewellery was not returned and PW5 stated that the jewellery had already been sold.
33. During cross-examination PW4 stated that her father spent in her marriage approximately Rs.6-7 lakhs vol Rs.1.5 lakh was given in cash in addition to the said amount which was paid to her father in law. She stated that they are two sisters. Her younger sister was studying. Her father was a government employee. She stated that she was compensated at the time of anticipatory bail of Rs.50,000/- partly against her jewellery.
34. During cross-examination PW5 stated that she is a housewife. She is illiterate. She stated that her husband is a book binder in a government office. She did not know how much salary he was getting. She spent in the marriage of her daughter approximately about Rs.5-6 lakhs. She stated that a list of dowry articles was prepared and given to the father of the accused. PW5 admitted that her daughter started to live separately from her in laws in a rented accommodation with her husband after taking her own belonging articles. During cross- examination PW6 stated that he is a government servant at National Archives. He had two daughters. [ENTITY] is his eldest daughter. He stated that he spent in the marriage of his daughter approximately about Rs.3.5 lakhs. He stated that the list of articles given at the time of marriage of [ENTITY] was given to the father of the accused.
35. Thus PW4 stated that her father spent in her marriage approximately Rs.6-7 lakhs and volunteered that Rs.1.5 lakh was given in cash in addition which was paid to her father in law. However PW5 and PW6 had stated about only Rs.50,000/- or Rs.51,000/- being given. Further there is no proof of the said amount being spent in the marriage and she had stated that her father was a government employee and as such proof would have been available but was not produced. PW5 did not know how much salary her husband was getting. Even she stated that she spent in the marriage of her daughter approximately about Rs.5-6 lakhs but there is no proof of the same. However PW6 stated that he spent in the marriage of his daughter approximately about Rs.3.5 lakhs and as such there is material contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses in the said regard besides there being nothing to show that even the said amount was spent.
36. PW5 had stated that a list of dowry articles was prepared and given to the father of the accused and even PW6 stated that the list of articles given at the time of marriage of [ENTITY] was given to the father of the accused but the list of dowry articles which has been produced on record does not contain the signatures of the father of the accused or any one else from the side of the accused. Though some photos were produced but no receipts have been produced on record in respect of any of the articles nor any witness from any of the shops was examined to prove what articles were indeed given in the marriage. It is pertinent that PW5 had admitted that her daughter started to live separately from her in laws in a rented accommodation with her husband after taking her own belonging articles and as such according to her her daughter had taken her own articles though PW6 had denied the suggestion to that effect. It is also seen that a number of articles already stood recovered. It is further material that PW4 had stated that she was compensated at the time of anticipatory bail of Rs.50,000/- partly against her jewellery and even PW5 had deposed to that effect. A copy of the order of learned ASJ dated 26.3.2008 is also on record which shows that an amount of Rs.60,000/- stood paid to the complainant at the time of bail.
37. It is thus seen that in the present case the witnesses have stated about articles being given but there is nothing specific about entrustment nor about demand and refusal. Even receipts have not been produced in respect of any of the articles to show what articles were indeed given in marriage. Reference may be made to [PRECEDENT] where it was held that in view of the vagueness of the allegation regarding entrustment of dowry articles and the alleged maltreating, the continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR would amount to any abuse of the process of the Court and it was observed that in that case there was no evidence as to which article was entrusted to which of the accused persons. In [PRECEDENT] it was observed that it was not clear from the complaint which was the basis for prosecution as to when the accused persons demanded articles or money or misappropriated the articles given to the bride or the bridegroom at the time of marriage. Again in [PRECEDENT] it was observed that there was no specific allegation that any specific article had been entrusted to the petitioners therein at the time of solemnization of marriage and there was no detail concerning individual acts of cruelty or harassment and as such no offence under [SECTION] or [SECTION] [ACT] was made out. In [PRECEDENT] it was held that the allegation that the articles were entrusted to all the accused was vague and in the present case as well the allegation is regarding all the accused persons. Further in [PRECEDENT] it was observed that to attract [SECTION] [ACT] there must be specific allegation of entrustment. Similarly in [PRECEDENT] it was observed:
"Regarding offence under [SECTION] [ACT] no specific allegation has been made as to which item was entrusted to whom and when she demanded back those articles and from whom and he/she refused. To constitute an offence under [SECTION] [ACT] it is essential that there must be a clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or with dominion or power over it by the complainant and that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the same or converted the same to his own use and that the accused refused to return back these articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. Mere general allegations made in the complaint concerning entrustment of articles of dowry to all the accused at the time of marriage or such like vague allegations would not be sufficient to prima facie make out a cognizable offence under [SECTION] [ACT]."
37. In that case it was held that there were no clear, distinct and specific allegations regarding entrustment to the petitioners, dishonest misappropriation by them or conversion to their own use and refusal by them to return back the articles and the most vital and essential ingredients of the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] were missing and it was held that even prima facie case was not made out whereas in the instant case after evidence has been led similar is the position. In the present case as well there are no clear, distinct and specific allegations.
38. Looking to the material on record the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused [ENTITY] for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT] beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused [ENTITY] is acquitted for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. Bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On this 10th day of August 2010 ([ENTITY]) NEW DELHI