IN THE COURT OF MM (MAHILA COURT02)
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: NEHA, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Vedpal & Ors.
FIR No. 1130/06
PS: Dabri
Date of Institution : 25.07.2009
Date of reserving of order : 03.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 24.07.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 84/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Mithlesh
3. Date of complaint : 26.07.2006
4. Name of accused person : 1. Ved Pal
S/o Sh. Daya Ram
2. Harpal
S/o Sh. Daya Ram
3. Omwati
W/o Harpal
4. Ramwati
W/o Late Sh. Daya Ram
All R/o Village Nawada,
PS Binawar, District
Badaun, U.P.
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 16
PS: Dabri
5. Offence charged : U/s 498A/406/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Counsels for the parties.
Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Tej Pal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. All accused persons have been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“). It has been alleged by the prosecution that after marriage of accused Vedpal with complainant Smt. Mithlesh, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, subjected the complainant to cruelty for fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the accused were also entrusted with isridhan of complainant which they refused to return on demand.
2. Complaint was made and an FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet has been filed for offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against Ved Pal (husband), Daya Ram (fatherinlaw), Ramwati (motherinlaw), Harpal (brotherinlaw) and Omwati (sisterinlaw).
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 16 PS: Dabri
3. Cognizance of offence was taken and all accused were summoned to face trial. The copy of the chargesheet was supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused persons.
4. Vide order dated 16.10.2012 charge for offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was directed to be framed against all accused persons. Charge was accordingly framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial, Sh. Daya Ram (fatherinlaw) expired and proceedings against him was abated vide order dated 22.05.2015.
6. Prosecution Witnesses have been summoned for evidence and total five prosecution witnesses have been examined to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused persons.
7. PW1 SI Mururi Lal is the Duty Officer. He has proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B.
8. PW2 Ms. Mithlesh is the complainant. She has deposed that her marriage was solemnized with Vedpal. She went to her matrimonial house. She lived at matrimonial house where for one year, she was treated good but after one year, husband and inlaws started harassing her for dowry. Accused Vedpal used to come home after consuming alcohol and beat her. When her mother fell ill, she asked accused Vedpal to take her to her parental house, but he did not allow her to go. He took her to a rented accommodation at Aman Vihar where she lived with accused Vedpal for 23 months. When her FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 16 PS: Dabri father had come to take her, the accused persons did not allow her to go alongwith her father.
9. PW2 has further deposed that accused Vedpal used to forcibly send her to a glass factory for work. Whenever all accused used to go out, they used to lock her inside the house. One day when they left the house without locking the main door, she came out and called her maternal uncle from STD booth. Her maternal uncle, with the help of a Pradhan, called the police and she was taken to her parental house. On the next day, all accused came to her parental house and asked her to come to the matrimonial house. All accused persons also dragged her in the gali by pulling her hair and gave her beatings. The neighbours intervened and saved her. She filed a complaint in CAW Cell which is Ex.PW2/A. She also produced list of dowry articles which is Ex.PW2/B.
10. The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State and during crossexamination, PW2 has deposed that in February 2004, all accused had thrown her out of the matrimonial house and when her father gave Rs. 30,000 to accused persons, she was allowed to enter the house. In the month of April, motherinlaw had tried to kill her by tying a rope around her neck. She also poured kerosene oil on her on 15.06.2006 to kill her and all accused gave her beating. Somehow she managed to save herself and called her father. Her stridhan articles were lying with inlaws which they did not return on demand.
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 16 PS: Dabri
11. PW3 ACP Rajni is the official, who had conducted inquiry on the CAW Cell complaint. The report is Ex. PW3/A.
12. PW4 Sh. Rampal is the uncle (tau) of the complainant. He has deposed that after marriage, the complainant was harassed by husband and inlaws and they used to demand motorcycle, colour TV and cash Rs. 50,000. An amount of Rs. 32,00033,000 was also given to the accused persons.
13. PW5 Smt. Munni Devi is mother of complainant. She has deposed that till one month of the marriage, complainant was kept fine in the matrimonial house but thereafter, accused Vedpal started harassing her for dowry and also gave beatings to her to fulfill demand of a colour TV, motorcycle and Rs. 51,000 cash. Due to harassment, complainant was brought to the parental house. Thereafter, a panchayat was also held and it was settled that Rs. 30,000 would be given to accused persons and thereafter, the complainant would be taken to the matrimonial house. After panchayat settlement, accused Vedpal had taken complainant to rented accommodation at Aman Vihar where she was again harassed for fulfillment of demand of colour TV, motorcycle and cash of Rs. 51,000. In rented accommodation, accused persons even tried to kill the complainant by putting a rope around her neck but she somehow saved herself. After 1530 days, again all accused persons tried to kill her by pouring kerosene upon her. She and her husband brought the complainant to the parental house after that incident.
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 16 PS: Dabri
14. PW5 has further deposed that on one day, all accused persons came to the parental house along with 30 persons and the accused persons gave merciless beatings to the complainant and also abused her and entire family.
15. All the witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.05.2018. All accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence were put to them separately. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence.
16. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
17. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused. The complainant and other prosecution witnesses have proved that all accused used to harass the complainant to fulfill illegal demands and they had kept the jewelery of the complainant and refused to return the same on demand. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and the guilt of the accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused persons may be convicted.
18. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimony of FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 6 of 16 PS: Dabri the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not reliable. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused persons had ever beaten the complainant or demanded dowry or that they had misappropriated istridhan of the complainant. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused persons and they may be acquitted.
19. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
20. In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.
21. This Court shall now discuss the allegations of the prosecution and shall decide whether the prosecution has been able to prove those allegations beyond reasonable doubts.
22. All accused persons have been charged with offences punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC. The material witness examined in this case by the prosecution are the complainant /PW2, her uncle/PW4 and her mother/PW5.
23. The uncle of the complainant has been examined as PW
4. Perusal of the testimony of PW 4 would show that he is not an eye witness to any of the incident. His statement is only hearsay. During examination in chief, the witness had not made any allegations against the accused persons. Only when the witness was crossexamined by FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 7 of 16 PS: Dabri Ld APP for the State, he stated that complainant was harassed for dowry and the complainant disclosed to him that her husband was demanding motorcycle, color TV and cash of Rs 50,000/.
24. The witness has admitted during crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel that no demand was ever made in his presence. He has also admitted that no article was ever given to accused persons in his presence. He has also admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the harassment and cruelty. It is thus clear from evidence of PW4 that his evidence is only hearsay. He has never personally seen complainant being harassed or any demand being made by the accused persons. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence of PW4 is of no help to the prosecution in proving the allegations made against the accused persons.
25. The complainant and her mother have made allegations against the accused persons. The complainant is the victim and mother is alleged to be eye witness to some incidents alleged by the prosecution.
26. The testimony of the complainant would show that she has made self contradictory statements during her evidence. On the one hand, during cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the complainant has stated that in April, motherinlaw tried to strangulate her with rope and in June 2006, the accused persons had tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her.
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 8 of 16 PS: Dabri
27. Thereafter, during crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the complainant has stated that she had lived with accused Vedpal only for one year after the marriage. PW2 has stated, “I stayed at the matrimonial home at village and Aman Vihar for around 1 year. After this, I am living at my parental home. After this the case has started. Since then I did not visit my matrimonial house”. She has further stated, “It is wrong to suggest that I lived with Ved Pal only for a period of 23 months. (Vol. I lived with him for one year regularly.) My parents had tried to settle the dispute when I came to live at my parental house after one year of marriage”.
28. The complainant has categorically stated during her examinationinchief, “I remained at matrimonial house for one year after the marriage. For one year, the behaviour of the husband and in laws was good”.
29. The marriage of the complainant has been solemnized in 28.05.2003. As per aforesaid statement of the complainant, she was kept well in the matrimonial house for one year. The statement of the complainant also makes it clear that she had lived in the matrimonial house for period of one year regularly. Once the complainant had stated that she had lived with the accused persons only for one year and thereafter she started living at her parental house and for that one year, she was kept well, there is no question of any incident of cruelty having been taken place in year 2005 or 2006 as alleged.
30. The record would also show that the statement made by FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 9 of 16 PS: Dabri the complainant is also full of contradictions and it does not inspire confidence.
31. Perusal of the testimony of the complainant would also show that in the entire examinationinchief, the complainant had not made any specific allegation of demand of dowry or harassment by the accused persons to fulfill any illegal demand.
32. It was only during crossexamination by the State that the complainant has stated that in February 2004, she was thrown out of the house in wearing cloths to fulfill the demand and only when her father had given Rs 30,000/, she was allowed to enter the matrimonial house.
33. In the entire examination in chief, the complainant has not stated that she was ever thrown out of the matrimonial house at any point of time. She has rather stated that accused Ved Pal brought her to tenanted house at Aman Vihar where she lived for 23 months and when her father had come to take her from the rented house, the accused persons did not allow her to go to her parental house.
34. Further, during crossexamination by the Ld. APP for the State, the complainant has stated that in April, her motherinlaw tried to strangulate her with rope. However, in the police complaint Ex.PW 2/A, she has stated that the husband had tried to kill her by strangulating her with a rope in the month of April.
35. The complainant has also alleged in examinationinchief FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 10 of 16 PS: Dabri that the husband and inlaws used to lock her inside the house whenever they used to go out, so that she was not able to go to her parental house. Once when the husband and inlaws left the house without locking the main door, she came out and called her maternal uncle from STD booth. Thereafter, her maternal uncle called the Pradhan of Aman Vihar (who was his friend) and the police was also called. With the invention of police, her family members took her to the parental house.
36. The complainant has alleged that she was taken to her parental house only with the intervention of police. However, the prosecution has not summoned the record of PS Aman Vihar which could prove the allegations that the complainant was taken to parental house only with intervention of police. The mother of the complainant has also not deposed that complainant was ever rescued from her matrimonial house with the intervention of police. There is nothing on record to show that any such incident had ever taken place.
37. The complainant has also stated, during cross examination by Ld. APP for the State that accused persons tried to kill by pouring kerosene upon her. She somehow saved herself and called her father. Thereafter she was taken to her parental house. This incident had allegedly taken place on 15.06.2006. PW5 (mother of the complainant) has stated that her husband had stayed at the matrimonial house of the complainant on that night and next day, the complainant was brought to the parental house.
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 11 of 16 PS: Dabri
38. The parents of complainant had come to know about the incident on the same day and the father also came to the matrimonial house of the complainant on the same day. Admittedly, no complaint was filed by the complainant or her father on that day regarding the alleged incident. This Court finds it difficult to believe that if a father / mother (resident of Delhi) would come to know that inlaws of his daughter had attempted to kill the daughter / attempted to burn her alive, they would not call PCR or file complaint with the police. Further, it is also not alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons had poured kerosene upon the complainant to force her to fulfill any demand of dowry. There is nothing to show that due to alleged beatings by the accused persons, the complainant sustained any grave injury to her body or mind.
39. The complainant and her mother, both have alleged that when complainant had come to parental house, the accused persons with some other persons came to her parental house and gave her beatings and also dragged her with hair. The neighbours saved her.
40. This incident has allegedly taken place while the complainant was living in her parental house. The prosecution has not placed on record any medical document to show that the complainant was medically examined in any private or government hospital for injuries caused due to alleged beating. There is nothing to show that the alleged beating was to fulfill any illegal demand or that beating caused any grave injury to the complainant.
FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 12 of 16 PS: Dabri
41. Record would also show that the statement of the complainant is also contradictory to the statement made by her mother. The mother /PW5 has stated that the complainant has lived in the matrimonial house only for a total period of 57 months. However, the complainant has stated that she lived in the matrimonial house for continuous period of one year and since after one year, she was living at her parental house.
42. In evidence, the complainant has stated that her parents used to visit her twicethrice a year during her stay at the parental house. However, she had never informed her parents during their visit that she was being harassed by any of the inlaws. She has further admitted that she never called her parents to inform them that she was being harassed by husband and inlaws. However, PW5, mother of the complainant has stated that complainant informed about the demand and harassment in 2004 when she had come to her house and prior to that the complainant had informed on phone about the demand.
43. The complainant, during her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, has stated that no panchayat was called when she had come to her parental house. However the mother of the complainant has stated that a panchayat was called in 2004 and after the panchayat settlement, the complainant was brought to rented accommodation at Aman Vihar. There is no averment in the CAW Cell complaint or in evidence of the complainant that any panchayat FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 13 of 16 PS: Dabri was called before the complainant was brought to rented accommodation at Aman Vihar. Rather the complainant has stated that when she was wanted to visit her parental house to see her ailing mother, accused Vedpal did not allow her to go and she was brought to rented accommodation at Aman Vihar.
44. The testimony of PW2/ complainant and PW5/ mother of complainant would show that they are many material contradictions in their statements. This Court has already observed that the statement of the complainant is self contradictory. The evidence of PW4 (uncle of complainant) is hearsay. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness to prove the allegations that the complainant was ever beaten to fulfill illegal demand of dowry or that any neighbour had come and saved her from alleged beating by accused persons.
45. To sum up, once the complainant has herself stated that she was kept properly for a period of one year after the marriage and after one year of marriage, she started living at her parental house, this Court finds it difficult to believe as to when she was harassed by the accused persons for dowry. The only incident stated by the complainant which took place at her parental house does not prove that she was harassed for dowry or that alleged beating caused any grave injury to her.
46. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons had subjected the complainant to cruelty or harassed her to FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 14 of 16 PS: Dabri fulfill any illegal demand.
47. The prosecution has also alleged that accused persons were entrusted with the istridhan of the complainant, which they refused to return on demand and converted to their own use.
48. Perusal of testimony of the complainant would show that in the entire examination, the complainant has not made any averment that she had ever entrusted her istridhan to any of the accused. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, the complainant has stated that her istridhan was lying with the accused persons, which they refused to return on demand. The complainant has not stated as to when she had handed over/ entrusted her istridhan to the accused persons and to whom it was entrusted. The prosecution has not placed on record any jewellery bill to show that jewellery as mentioned in the list Ex. PW2/B was purchased at the time of marriage of complainant. Mere vague allegations that accused persons were entrusted with the istridhan of the complainant and they refused to return the same on demand is not sufficient to prove that the accused persons had misappropriated the istridhan of the complainant.
49. In these facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were entrusted with the istridhan which they had converted to their own use or refused to return on demand.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court holds that FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 15 of 16 PS: Dabri the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, the ingredients of offences punishable under section 498A/406/34 IPC. Accordingly, benefit of doubts is given to accused persons and they are acquitted of the charges alleged.
51. Bail bond and surety bond of all accused persons U/s 437 A Cr. P.C. with photographs and address proof has been furnished, which has been considered and accepted. Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
2018.07.24 17:04:52 Pronounced in the open court (NEHA) +0530 On 24th July, 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02/Dwarka New Delhi FIR No. 1130/06 State Vs Vedpal & Ors. Page No. 16 of 16 PS: Dabri
