State vs Naresh and Ors

Excerpt: There cannot be demand of dowry because if the accused had demanded dowry and had given her poison on , she could not have expressed desire to live with them in village Khera Khurd. If the accused party was greedy one, they would not have proposed her to live in a tenanted house at Rohini. They would not have been ready to bear her and her husband’s daily expenses. This kind of admission completely rules out the story of demand of dowry.
Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh Etc. 1 Of 22 on 19 March, 2014
Author: Sh. Umed Singh
                         ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

SC No.29/2011
FIR No.124/2009
PS Shahbad Dairy
U/S 498A/307 IPC



1.         Naresh Kumar,
           S/o Jagbir Singh, 
           R/o H.No.100, 
           Village Khera Khurd,

2.         Kamla Devi,
           W/o Jagbir Singh, 
           R/o H.No.100, 
           Village Khera Khurd,

3.         Jagbir Singh,
           S/o Ran Singh, 
           R/o H.No.100, 
           Village Khera Khurd,

4.         Rekha,
           D/o Jagbir Singh, 
           R/o H.No.100, 
           Village Khera Khurd,

State Vs. Naresh etc.                                     1 of 22

5.         Ramesh,
           S/o Jagbir Singh, 
           R/o H.No.100, 
           Village Khera Khurd,
                                             Date of Institution:.23.01.2011
                                Date of conclusion of Arguments:13.03.2014
                            Date of pronouncement of Judgment:19.03.2014

Appearance:                   Mr. Ashok Kumar, Addl. PP for the State.
                              Mr. Pradeep Rana, Counsel for all accused.


1. All five accused have been forwarded by police to face trial u/s 498/307/34 IPC. Accused Naresh Kumar is husband of complainant Samiksha, accused Kamla Devi and Jagbir Singh are her parents­in­law and accused Ramesh and Rekha are brother and sister in law.

2. Facts are that complainant Samiksha was married to Naresh Kumar on 03.02.2006 according to Hindu Rites and ceremony but accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and hence used to harass for more cash. On 15.05.09, mother in law asked her to bring cash from parental home and on refusal her father in law Jagbir Singh caught her by feet, husband Naresh and Dever Ramesh caught both hands, sister in law Rekha caught her by hair and mother in law forcibly poured State Vs. Naresh etc. 2 of 22 poison in her mouth. Some poison fell on her body. She intimated police by dialing 100 number, thereafter came unconscious and when regained consciousness she found herself in Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd.

On statement dt. 18.05.09, Executive Magistrate made endorsement for registration of case. Consequent to which case FIR was registered.

3. Charge u/s 498/307/34 IPC was framed against all accused on 15.10.11 to which they claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined 21 witnesses. Accused also examined two witnesses in defense.

5. PW­8 SI Shri Kishan was posted in PCR on 15.05.2009 and was deputed on Ambulance 100. On that day he was present in village Nangli Puna with ambulance staff when he received information from PCR Van Libra­01 about pouring of poison in the mouth of a lady in village Khera Khurad. He deposed that he alongwith staff reached the said house and found accused Naresh sitting outside the house. Main gate was found closed. Naresh did not allow them to enter the house telling that no call was made from his house to PCR. PW­8 called back the mobile number from which PCR call was made but there was no response. In the meantime, beat Ct. Dharmender also reached there and with his State Vs. Naresh etc. 3 of 22 help the door was got opened. He further deposed that the lady Nita wife of Naresh was found in the house in semi­conscious state. She was taken to MB hospital and in the way she told that her in laws had forcibly poured poison in her mouth. PW­14 HC Dharampal was beat Ct. in the area of village Khera Khurad on 15.05.09 when he saw a PCR van stopping outside the house of complainant Samiksha at 10.00 am. He deposed that he was already aware that there used to be quarrels in that house between Samiksha and her in laws. He further deposed that when he reached the house, accused Naresh was telling the PCR officials that no call was made from his house to the PCR van and was not allowing them to enter his house. He asked Naresh to open the gate and then they entered the house and found Samiksha lying unconscious. She was taken to hospital in PCR Ambulance. After some time, first IO HC Anil also reached to the spot. PW­1 HC Rajbir Singh was DO on 15.05.09 at 10.05 am when he received information from wireless operator that in laws had forcibly poured poison in the mouth of a lady in house no.100, village Khera Khurd. He recorded the information vide DD no. 13 A Ex. PW­1/A. He further deposed that he registered FIR Ex. PW­1/B on 18.05.09 at 9.45 am on receipt of a rukka from HC Anil Kumar. He made endorsement Ex. PW­1/C on rukka about registration of FIR.

6. PW­21 HC Anil Kumar and PW­12 Ct. Sushil Malik had State Vs. Naresh etc. 4 of 22 reached the house of the accused on receipt of DD no. 13 A Ex. PW­ 1/A. PW­21 deposed that he came to know that the injured lady Samiksha had already been taken to MB hospital by PCR van and so he alongwith PW­12 reached the said hospital where injured Samiksha was found unfit for the statement and hence DD no.13 A was kept pending. Doctor handed him over the sealed gastric lavage on 15.05.09 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A and deposited in Malkhana. He further deposed that Samiksha was declared fit on 16.05.09 and he sent information to SDM North Delhi for recording her statement as seven years had not elapsed from marriage. SDM deputed Tehsildar Virender Chauhan for recording her statement. He made endorsement Ex. PW­21/A on her statement and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR. PW­14 Ct. Sushil Malik deposed that he and PW­21 came to know from the house of accused that Samiksha had been taken to MB hospital. They also reached there and found her unconscious. He further deposed that the treating doctor had handed over a bottle of liquid to HC Anil which he seized vide memo Ex. PW­12/A. PW­10 Tehsildar Virender Kumar deposed that he received information from PS Sahabad Dairy on 16.05.09 about admission of a girl in hospital in unconsciousness state and her regaining consciousness. He reached the MB hospital at 8.15 pm and found Samiksha conscious and oriented. He made inquiries State Vs. Naresh etc. 5 of 22 from her and HC Anil Kumar recorded her statement Ex. PW­10/A on his dictation.

PW­2 HC Shambhu was posted as MHCM in PS on 15.05.09 when HC Anil deposited a sealed pullanda with him and he made entry no. 223 Ex. PW­4/A in register no. 19. He deposed that pullanda containing gastric lavage was sent to FSL on 22.05.09 vide RC no. 51/12/09 Ex. PW­2/B. FSL result was received in the malkhana on 26.08.09 which was handed over to the IO. PW­5 HC Joginder Singh took the gastric lavage pullanda from MHCM on 22.05.09 and deposited the same in FSL and after deposit, he handed over to MHCM copy of RC and receipt acknowledgement. Both these witnesses did not temper with the case property until it was in their possession.

7. PW­15 SI Kaptan is the second IO to whom investigation was assigned on 18.05.09. He deposed that he reached the house of accused and prepared rough site plan Ex. PW­ 15/A. He tried to arrest the accused but they were untraceable. He visited MB hospital and tried to inquire facts from complainant Samiksha but she was unable to speak properly due to her condition and so he recorded statement of her mother.

PW­13 SI Gulshan Gupta, PW­11 Ct. Parmod, PW­6 Rai Singh and PW­7 Pardeep are witnesses to the arrest of accused Naresh Kumar, Kamla Devi and Jagbir Singh. PW­13 is the third IO State Vs. Naresh etc. 6 of 22 and investigation was assigned to him on 08.07.09. He arrested the accused Naresh on 09.09.09 vide arrest and personal search memos PW­13/A and PW­13/B. He arrested accused Kamla vide arrest memo and personal search memos Ex. PW­13/B and PW13/C respectively and accused Jagbir Singh vide arrest memo Ex. PW­3/A and personal search memo Ex. PW­6/A. He seized three letters from complainant which she had written to her parents when she was residing at her matrimonial home. He verified the dispatched report of those letters from post master vide application Ex. PW­13/E. He collected PCR form and FSL result Ex. P­X. He was transferred on 14.11.09.

PW­17 ASI Anil Kumar is the 4th IO to whom investigation was assigned on 24.11.09 after transfer of SI Gulshan Gupta. He collected FSL result, obtained opinion from doctor on MLC of the victim Samiksha and formally arrested Rekha and Ramesh on 21.07.09 vide arrest memos Ex. PW­17/A and PW­17/B respectively and thereafter filed charge­sheet.

8. PW­18 Dr. S.K Aggarwal examined Samiksha medically on 15.05.09 at 11.00 am as she was brought there by PCR van with the history of consumption of some unknown substance (All Out?) but she was conscious and oriented and so he prepared MLC Ex. PW­18/A. He collected gastric lavage and handed over to the IO and referred the patient to SR Medicine. PW­19 Dr. Jitender State Vs. Naresh etc. 7 of 22 examined gastric lavage FSL report on 23.09.09 and gave opinion on MLC. He deposed that Samiksha was declared fit by Dr. Shailender on application Ex. PW­19/A moved by first IO HC Anil Kumar. He identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Shailender at point B.

PW­16 Rai Singh Vashisht was post master of village Khera kalan on 05.10.09 when SI Gulshan Gupta produced photocopy of three letters Ex. PW­3/C, PW­3/D and PW­3/E before him to make inquiry about seals and dates appearing on them. He deposed that as per his report all three letters were dispatched from Khera Kalan post office on 23.08.07, 12.09.07 and illegible date “28.01.08”. PW­20 Amar Pal, Assistant Director(Chemistry), FSL Rohini examined the gastric lavage and found on chemical, TLC and GC­MS examination that it was not containing alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides. His report is Ex. PX.

9. PW­9 Rai Singh is the cousin brother of father of complainant. He deposed that Rai Singh got his daughter Samiksha married with Naresh on 03.03.06 and spent Rs. 15­16 lacs in marriage. He deposed that he was told by Rai Singh that Samiksha’s in­laws used to harass her for bringing dowry as they wanted Rs. 10 -­15 lacs cash.

PW­4 Savitri Devi is the mother of the complainant. She deposed that her daughter started living with the accused in their State Vs. Naresh etc. 8 of 22 house no. 100 village Khera Kalan, after marriage. All accused started torturing her for not bringing sufficient dowry as per their desire. She was beaten by accused severely in 2008 for which she had to be admitted in SRHC hospital. They used to beat and pressurize her for bringing cash of Rs. 10 lacs and a car. 2­3 months before 15.05.09, the matter was compromised in CAW Cell and Samiksha joined her husband’s company and started residing at her matrimonial home. About the incident of 15.05.09, PW­4 deposed that she was present at that time at about 10.00 am when she received a telephone call from Samiksha and she told that “Pata Nahi inhone mujhe kaya pila diya”. Thereafter, phone was disconnected and she tried to establish contact with her daughter but in vain. Ultimately Samiksha’s mobile phone was picked up by somebody else and he informed that she had been taken to MB hospital. When she reached hospital, Samiksha was unconscious and vomiting. She regained complete senses on 18.05.09 and told her that accused Jagbir had caught hold of her from feet, Naresh and Ramesh caught her hands, Rekha caught her hairs and Kamla Devi put forcibly some “Dawai” into her mouth. Some drops of dawai had split here and there. Lastly, she deposed that Samiksha had sent them letters 2­3 times and had also told orally that all accused were torturing her for more dowry. Her husband and some respectables of the village had visited the house of accused to make State Vs. Naresh etc. 9 of 22 them understand but same was the rut.

PW3 Samiksha is the complainant wife.

10. In statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused Ramesh claimed that on the said date and time, he was appearing in examination in a school. Other accused admitted their relationship with complainant but denied having demanded any dowry from her. They claimed that on the day of the incident, complainant was residing with her parents as the divorce case between her and accused Naresh was pending.

11. DW1 Uday Kant Roy is the Examination In­charge. He deposed that accused Ramesh had appeared in examination on 15.05.2009 under roll No.27038283471 and time of examination was from 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. He proved the certificate as Mark PW5/DA. DW2 Rajbir Singh is a property dealer running his shop adjacent to the house of accused Jagbir. He knows complainant also. He deposed that matrimonial litigation was going on between Naresh and Samiksha in 2009 and so, Samiksha was residing at her parental home for long time. He reached to his office at 8.00 A.M. on 15.05.2009. A car stopped in front of house of Jagbir at 8.30 – 9.00 A.M. Samiksha alighted from the car and went inside the house of Jagbir. He felt it strange because litigation was going on between Samiksha and accused party but he thought that matter might have been compromised, and hence, State Vs. Naresh etc. 10 of 22 he did not see what was going in the house of Jagbir. He further deposed that a PCR van came 15­20 minutes thereafter and asked him, accused Naresh and others as to from which house the call was made. But they were not aware, and hence showed ignorance. These officials went inside the house of Jagbir and took out Samiksha after five minutes. At that time, she came out walking. PCR van left with Samiksha.

12. Ld. Counsel for complainant and APP argued that accused used to demand cash of Rs.10 lacs and flat from Samiksha and on her inability to fulfill those unreasonable demands, she was harassed. She was beaten in 2008 for which she was admitted in SGMH and MLC was prepared. They further argued that complainant PW3 has been corroborated by her mother Savitri PW4. She has further been corroborated by three letters written to her parents when she was cohabiting with Naresh at her matrimonial home. The counsels further argued that PW3 is consistent on the incident of 15.05.2009. On this issue, she is fully corroborated by her mother who was informed about the incident by PW3 herself after the incident. Even, she told those facts to the PCR officials PW8 and PW14 who had taken her to the hospital.

On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel argued that Samiksha was conscious and oriented but her statement has been diversely claimed to have been recorded on 16.05.2009 and State Vs. Naresh etc. 11 of 22 18.05.2009. She did not allege any specific demand. Letters have also been doubted on the ground that all three letters have been written with the same ink though those have been shown to have been posted within a span of one year. Defence counsel next argued that incident of 15.05.2009 has not been supported by the expert opinion. The counsel also drew the attention of the Court towards the deposition of PW3 wherein she admitted that whenever any talk of compromise was held between her family members and in­laws, her in­laws were ready to arrange a flat on rent for her and accused Naresh and they were also ready to bear day­to­day expenses. It is also argued that accused Ramesh was not at all present in the house on 15.05.2009 at 10.00 A.M. A specific defence has been taken that divorce petition was pending between Samiksha and her husband Naresh and so she was residing at her parental home since 2008. On 15.05.2009, she came in front of the house of accused and created a scene so that they may be implicated falsely and ultimately she succeeded.

13. PW3 deposed that she regained consciousness on 16.05.2009 but her statement was recorded by the police on 18.05.2009 as police had met her only on 18.05.2009. Her mother PW4 Savitri deposed that when she along with her husband reached hospital, she found Samiksha vomiting but police did not allow them to meet her. She claimed that she talked to her State Vs. Naresh etc. 12 of 22 daughter first time on 19.05.2009. Her statement was recorded only after the statement of her daughter when she regained consciousness i.e. 19.05.2009. PW21 HC Anil Kumar is the first IO and he deposed that Samiksha was declared fit for statement on 16.05.2009. He made endorsement on 18.05.2009 on that statement and got the FIR registered. He made it clear in cross­ examination that Samiksha’s statement was recorded by PW10 Tehsildar on 16.05.2009 at 4.00 P.M. PW10 Tehsildar Virender Kumar also deposed that statement of Samiksha was recorded on 16.05.2009. Statement is Ex.PW10/A. There is an endorsement dated 16.05.2009 by PW10 on that statement. It means that statement was recorded on 16.05.2009 but rukka Ex.PW21/A was prepared on the back side of the statement on 18.05.2009. FIR was also registered on 18.05.2009. As per doctors, when Samiksha was first brought to hospital, she was conscious and oriented. It means she was fit to make statement in the morning of 15.05.2009. Prosecution does not have any explanation why her statement was not recorded on 15.05.2009. It has no explanation why the FIR was registered two days after the recording of the statement. PW3 is deliberately stating that she regained consciousness on 18.05.2009 so that she may justify the delayed registration of FIR. Prosecution has failed to explain the delay in registration of FIR.

State Vs. Naresh etc. 13 of 22

14. PW3 and PW4 deposed that all accused used to demand dowry from Samiksha. On 15.05.2009 also, accused Kamla Devi asked her to bring money from her parents and on her refusal, she was administered poison possibly. PW4 deposed that just after marriage, all five accused started torturing her daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry as per their desire and that fact used to be conveyed to her by Samiksha telephonically. Due to demand of dowry, Samiksha lived at parental home for many days. She was beaten severely in 2008 for which she was admitted in SRHC hospital. In cross examination, PW3 deposed that flat and cash were demanded by the accused. It is a vital improvement and she has been duly contradicted by the defence counsel at page No.7 of cross­examination. The incident of beating in 2008 has also been confronted at page No.6. So, prosecution has failed to prove any specific demand.

Prosecution is heavily relying upon letters written by complainant to her parents when she was residing at her matrimonial home. These letters are bearing the date and post office stamp. PW16 Raj Singh Vashisht, Sub­Postmaster, village Khera Kalan attempted to prove the genuinity of the letters by deposing that those were posted from post office Khera Kalan on the date mentioned in the letters. The letters are Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E purporting to have been written on State Vs. Naresh etc. 14 of 22 23.08.2007, 12.09.2007 and 23.01.2008. So, these letters were written in a span of five months. These are bearing the same ink and have been written in continuous and smooth flow. A person cannot be expected to use the same pen continuously for 4­5 months. Use of same ink is causing doubt on the genuinity of the letters, and hence, these are not being taken into account.

15. Ld. counsel for complainant admitted candidly that expert witnesses are not supporting his case u/s 307 IPC but PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW12 are corroborating it. PW3 deposed that on 15.05.2009, her mother­in­law accused Kamla Devi demanded Rs.10 lacs and on her refusal, she became angry and threatened to teach her a lesson. All accused came to her when she was lying on the bed. Her father­in­law Jagbir Singh caught her feet, husband Naresh and devar Ramesh caught her hands, Nanad Rekha caught her hair and mother­in­law Kamla Devi forcibly put something like dawai into her mouth. She claimed that just after the incident, she complained to her mother on phone. Her mother also deposed that Samiksha had told her on phone that her in­laws had forcibly poured something into her mouth. PW8 and PW14 deposed that Samiksha told them while on the way to the hospital that her in­ laws had forced her to drink “All Out”.

The material part of testimony of PW3 is in stark contradiction to her statement Ex.PW10/A on which FIR was State Vs. Naresh etc. 15 of 22 registered. In that statement, she had stated that her in­laws had tried to put something into her mouth. The word “tried” means that they had attempted. What was tried to be put into her mouth was not specified in that statement. While on the way to the hospital, she told PW8 and PW14 that it was “All Out”. Same facts were told by her to the attending doctor PW18 Dr. S.K. Aggarwal. It is quite interesting that the doctor put “?” after the words “All Out”. He was asked in cross­examination as to why he had put “?” and his reply is that there was no evidence to suggest that case was of consumption of “All Out”. Gastric lavage was collected by PW18 and was handed over to the first IO who deposited the same in the malkhana. The lavage was sent to the FSL and report Ex.PX of the lab is that alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in it. PW18 Dr. S.K. Aggarwal and Mr. Amar Al Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry Division of the FSL are the expert witnesses. They have completely ruled out the presence of any poison in the body of PW3 complainant. Oral testimony of PW3 is not supported by the expert witnesses, and hence, prosecution has failed to prove that any poison was attempted to be put in the mouth of the complainant.

16. It is the case of PW3 and PW4 that dowry was being demanded from Samiksha continuously by all accused but it is very interesting that PW3 admitted that during the pendency of divorce State Vs. Naresh etc. 16 of 22 petition, settlement talks were held and an offer from the accused party was that they were ready to obtain a house on rent in Rohini for her and her husband. They were even ready to bear their expenses. She further admitted that she was insisting that she would live in the house of accused at village Khera Khurd. She further admitted that such proposals came from the side of accused party even at the stage of hearing of anticipatory bail applications in the High Court. She further admitted that even after registration of the case, she was desirous of residing at her matrimonial home in Khera Khurd with her in­laws but they were asking her to residing in a tenanted flat at Rohini with her husband only. She further admitted that they were ready even to pay her the expenses. This clearcut admission shows that there cannot be demand of dowry because if the accused had demanded dowry and had given her poison on 15.05.2009, she could not have expressed desire to live with them in village Khera Khurd. If the accused party was greedy one, they would not have proposed her to live in a tenanted house at Rohini. They would not have been ready to bear her and her husband’s daily expenses. This kind of admission completely rules out the story of demand of dowry.

17. PW3 Samiksha is not consistent in her statement. Her statement Ex.PW10/A was recorded by the SDM on 16.05.2009 on which endorsement was made on 18.05.2009 consequent to which State Vs. Naresh etc. 17 of 22 case FIR was registered. She materially deviated from the statement when she appeared in examination­in­chief. She made following material improvements:­ i. My mother­in­law Kamla Devi had put forcibly something like dawai into my mouth.

ii. Thereafter, I started becoming giddy and first I rang up my mother from my mobile phone and told “pata nahi inhone mujhe kya pila diya”.

iii. I had vomited before making call to PCR.

iv. I was severely beaten up by the accused in February, 2008 resulting into injury for which I was admitted in SRHC hospital where MLC was prepared, and thereafter, I had also lodged a complaint against the accused.

v. There was compromise with my husband and in­ laws and that is why, I was residing with them in village Khera Khurd since 15.03.2009.

vi. While going to hospital in PCR van, I was unable to speak properly due to vomitings.

vii. Accused persons used to demand Rs.10 lacs and in alternative a flat.

18.                     It   is   the   specific   case   of   PW3   that   accused 
Ramesh/devar   caught   her   hands   along   with   her   husband.     But, 

State Vs. Naresh etc.                                                            18 of 22

claim of accused Ramesh Maan is that on that day at that time, he was not present at home and rather, he was taking examination in a school. In this regard, he examined DW1 Uday Kant. He identified the signatures and handwriting of the Principal on document Mark PW15/DA. That document has been issued by the Principal of Joseph and Merry Public School, Nathu Pura, Burari. It is mentioned in that document that accused Ramesh Maan had appeared in the examination on 15.05.2009 held for 12th class from 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. Cross­examination of DW1 is of some waivering nature. He admitted that while issuing document Mark PW15/DA, he did not compare the signatures of accused Ramesh Maan with the signatures appearing on the attendance sheet dated 15.05.2009. That certificate was obtained from him by accused on the ground that he had to furnish it for an interview in Metro and he granted the certificate on humanitarian ground. The IO did not conduct any specific investigation on the point whether accused Ramesh was present in the house or not on 15.05.2009. On this issue, there is only evidence of DW1. There is no ground before this Court to disbelieve the testimony of DW1, and hence, it is held that on that day, accused Ramesh was not present in his house at 10.00 A.M. when the incident is alleged to have taken place.

19. Defence of the accused is that PW3 was not residing in their house since 2008 as a divorce case was pending between her State Vs. Naresh etc. 19 of 22 and Naresh since 2008 and so she was residing at her parental home in village Kanjhawala. In this regard, the defence version is supported by DW2 Rajbir who runs a property shop adjacent to the house of accused. He deposed that he was knowing the accused as well as PW3 as she was married with accused Naresh. He is also aware that a litigation was pending between accused and complainant party. Complainant came to the house of accused in a car on 15.05.2009 at 8.30 – 9.00 A.M. The car was parked about 200­300 mtrs. ahead of the house of the accused. DW2 felt it strange because case between the parties had not finished but he thought the matter might have been compromised, and hence, he did not try to delve into the matter. He further deposed that a PCR van came 15­20 minutes of arrival of Samiksha and PCR officials inquired from him, Naresh and other public persons about the person by whom PCR call was made and they showed ignorance. Thereafter, police officials went to the house of accused and came out with Samiksha who was walking. She was taken in the PCR van.

Ld. counsel for complainant argued that matter was settled between the parties in CAW Cell on 15.03.2009, and hence, complainant was residing in the house of accused since that day i.e. 15.03.2009. This argument has been cut short by complainant herself by deposing in cross­examination at page No.9 that in State Vs. Naresh etc. 20 of 22 application u/s 24 of H.M.A. as well as in the affidavit, she had mentioned her address as of Kanjhawala. She further admitted that in all the proceedings in that case, she had mentioned her address as of Kanjhawala. She stated it correct that she had received summons of divorce petition at her address of Kanjhawala. She did not move any application in divorce petition to the effect that she was no more residing in village Kanjhawala. She further admitted that she did not move any application or compromise deed showing that she and her husband had arrived at settlement in divorce petition and that she was residing with her in­laws in village Khera Khurd. She further admitted that she had mentioned in her application u/s 24 of H.M.A. dated 10.11.2008 that she was residing with her parents in Kanjhawala since 01.06.2008. Divorce proceedings have also been filed in the defence. As per ordersheets, the divorce petition was filed by accused Naresh on 15.07.2008. Respondent appeared in the Court on 03.10.2008. Reconciliation proceedings were conducted on 10.11.2008 but in vain. Application u/s 24 of H.M.A. was filed on 17.11.2008. On 16.01.2009, the matter was listed for reconciliation but petitioner did not appear though respondent was present with her counsel. On 04.03.2009, respondent was absent, and hence, matter was adjourned for reconciliation for 28.03.2009. On that day, the Ld. Judge was on leave, and hence, matter was State Vs. Naresh etc. 21 of 22 adjourned to 16.05.2009. On that day also, the P.O. was on leave, and hence, it was adjourned to 16.07.2009. There is no ordersheet which may suggest that there was any settlement between the parties. Without any settlement, it is very difficult and virtually impossible for a woman to go and reside at her matrimonial home with her husband who had already filed a divorce petition. So, presence of PW3 in house No.100, village Khera Khurd i.e. in the house of accused on 15.05.2009 in the capacity of a settled wife is highly doubtful.

20. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against any of the accused. Hence, all accused are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty if not required in any other case. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties discharged. Endorsement, if any, stands cancelled.

Announced in the open Court On this 19th day of March, 2014.

                                (UMED SINGH GREWAL)
                                ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
                                North:Rohini Courts:Delhi 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s