IN THE COURT OF MS. NITI PHUTELA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03 (MAHILA COURT) SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors U/S 406/498A/34 IPC PS Malviya Nagar DETAILS OF THE CASE a) CrC No. of the case : 2031045/2016 b) Date of commission of offence : From 22.10.2001 till lodging of the present FIR. c) Date of institution of the case : 28.05.2009 d) Name of the complainant : Ms. Sujata e) Name, Parentage & Address : (1). Kawaljeet of the accused S/o Sh. Harbansh Singh (2) Simmi W/o Lt. Sh. Jagjeet Singh Both R/o H No. 63/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi f) Offence complained of : U/s. 406/498A/34 IPC g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty h) Arguments heard on : 26.06.2018 i) Date of judgment : 03.07.2018 j) Final Order : Acquittal FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 1 / 15 JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution as alleged by the complainant that she had filed a complaint against her husband on 14.04.2004 for the harassment and torture. The said dispute was got settled between her and her husband/accused Kanwaljeet on 21.06.2004. Again on 17.01.2005 a settlement was arrived in respect to another complaint lodged at PS. Despite the same, the accused did not mend his ways and gave her beatings with fists and blows till late night hours. He even kicked on her stomach when she was pregnant. He banged her head against the wall, due to which she suffered contusions, but she never disclosed regarding the harassment suffered by her to her parents when they used to ask her about the injuries, only to save her marriage. Accused also did not provide her proper food. He used to threaten her to divorce her. She gave birth to her daughter at her parental house. On 10.08.2006 at about 06.00 pm accused quarreled with her as she asked for money for her maintenance. After that, she came to her parental house.
2. As per complainant, accused Simi also used to quarrel with her. He had also not returned Rs.25,00/ which he took from her mother which her mother had borrowed from someone on interest. He used to beat her for money. Therefore, in this background, on the complaint of complainant an FIR was got registered at PS Mehrauli.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court. Copies were supplied to both the accused. Charge under section 498A/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and charge under section 406 IPC was FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 2 / 15 framed against accused Kawaljeet vide order dt. 24.10.2013 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution got examined eight (8) witnesses. The gist of deposition of the prosecution witnesses is discussed in the paragraphs that follows: PW2 Ms Sujata (Complainant): She deposed that on 22.10.2001, her marriage was solemnized with accused Kanwaljeet Singh at Arya Samaj Mandir. In the said marriage, her father gifted household articles and jewellery articles. After marriage, her husband left her at her parental house at Sultanpur for one month and from there he took her to rented accommodation at Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi where they used to live with accused Simmi along with her daughters. After one week of her marriage, accused Simmi started fighting with her and used to ask her to leave the house. Whenever, she used to inform accused Kawaljeet about the behavior of accused Simmi towards her, he used to ask her to ignore. After 1520 days her father visited her. On that day, her brotherinlaw i.e. Jagjeet Singh reached their house, as accused Simmi had called him. Both the accused persons and her jeth quarreled with her father and manhandled him. Thereafter, her father left. She was allowed to meet only her father and brother and not mother and sister as per wish of both the accused.
She also deposed that accused Simmi used to incite accused Kawaljeet, against her and accused Kawaljeet without asking anything from her, used to quarrel with her and beat her. During her pregnancy, accused Simmi used to taunt her that she was only feigning illness to avoid work even though she was aware that doctor had FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 3 / 15 advised her bed rest.
In the year 2002, one month before Raksha Bandhan, accused Kawaljeet told her that he was facing financial crisis and asked her to give her jewellery articles for selling them and paying money for the chit funds. She handed over the same to accused Kawaljeet but he never returned them or bought new for her. She stated that accused Kawaljeet used to regularly beat her on trivial issues. When her mother visited her house to see her new born child, accused Simmi did not allow her to enter the house. When she objected the same, accused Kawaljeet started quarreling with her and told her that he can divorce the complainant but cannot leave his sister.
When her son was 13 months old, one day, accused Kawaljeet quarreled with her left for his office. Accused Simmi threw her and her child out of their house. Thereafter, she went to her sister’s house at Chattarpur. After 10 days, accused Kawaljeet visited her sister’s house to take her back. Accused Kawaljeet took complainant to separate rented accommodation at Manglapuri near Sultanpur. Whenever complainant used to ask for household expenses, he used to assure her that he would give Rs. 100/ daily for household expenses by whatever means. After 23 months, accused Kawaljeet along with complainant and her daughter shifted to Sultanpur. Accused Kawaljeet discontinued giving her Rs. 100/ for bearing household expenses. He remained there for around 12 months but left the house without informing her and returned only after 2 months and apologized to her. She filed a complaint before CAW Cell which is Ex.PW1/A. Lateron, he also joined CAW Cell proceedings where they reached at a compromise. Thereafter, she FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 4 / 15 filed a letter to the IO of CAW Cell which is Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. Complainant along with accused Kawaljeet Singh started residing together at Sultanpur in a rented accommodation. As per her, even there he used to quarrel with her over minor issues. In February 2006, her second girl child was born and when she was around 45 months, she was suffering from pneumonia, accused Kawaljeet left the house without informing her and returned only when her daughter was about oneyearold. Since then, accused Kawaljeet never resided with her. Thereafter, in year 2006, she again filed complaint in CAW Cell which is Ex.PW1/D. She had also handed over the list of stridhan articles which is Ex.PW1/E. Before separation, she requested accused Kawaljeet Singh to buy jewellery articles for her but he never paid any heed to her. During investigation, she handed over marriage photographs and copy of her marriage certificate vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. Copy of marriage certificate and photographs are Mark A and Mark B respectively. She also gave her complaint to SHO Mehrauli against accused Kawaljeet which is Ex.PW1/G. During investigation police recorded her statement. She was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged. PW4 Moolchand Dhimani: He deposed that his daughter Sujata got married to accused Kawaljeet in a Mandir. In her marriage, he had spent approximately Rs. 2 to 2.5 lakhs and also gave sum of Rs. 50,000/ in cash to her. As per him, since her marriage, behaviour of accused Kanwaljeet was not decent. He used to beat her daughter after consuming alcohol. His elder daughter namely Pooja is married to elder brother of accused Kawaljeet but she is living happily in her matrimonial life.
FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 5 / 15 Once he had gone to meet both her daughters as they were living together in one house, at that time her elder soninlaw i.e. husband of Pooja gave beating to him. Thereafter, complainant and accused Kawaljeet started residing separately. However, there also, accused Kawaljeet used to beat his daughter. He deposed that once he saw injury marks on the face of his daughter and he asked her regarding the same. She tried to conceal the fact by pretending that she had fallen and got hurt but later on he came to know that accused Kawaljeet had given beatings to her which resulted in injuries to her face. When the minor daughter of complainant was merely three months old, accused Kawaljeet threw her on the bed and even gave beating to complainant and to his wife Jaswant Kaur. He admitted his signatures at point B on seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. He further admitted that facts mentioned in his statement Mark A, were correct. He was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged.
PW3 Jaswant Kaur: She deposed that marriage of her daughter Sujata @Vindheswari was solemnized with accused Kawaljeet on 22.10.2001. In the said marriage, her husband spent money beyond his capacity and had given dowry articles/jewellery and cash of Rs. 50,000/. After the marriage, both the accused persons started harassing her daughter on petty issues and also in regard to demand of dowry. She testified that accused Kawaljeet gave beating to her at his house in regard to demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/. She was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged.
PW8 ACP Rajni : She deposed that on 14.08.2006, present case was marked to FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 6 / 15 her. During the proceedings, she issued notice to both the parties to join the proceedings. During the proceedings, complainant showed her inclination not to reside with accused Kawaljeet Singh and inlaws. She tried to make both the parties to settle the matter, but in vain. Thereafter, she prepared the final report which is Ex.PW8/A and after approval from the senior authorities, she sent the complaint to PS Mehrauli for registration of FIR. She was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged.
PW5 Girish Gothwal : He deposed that on 08.02.2007, present case was marked to him for investigation. During investigation, he recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 161 CrPC and prepared seizure memo of documents handed over by her vide memo Ex.PW5/A. On 09.03.2007, he arrested accused Kawaljeet Singh and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively. Thereafter, he was transferred. He was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged.
PW1 ASI Bali Ram : He deposed that on 08.02.2007 at about 06.20 PM, he received a rukka given by SI Girish Gothwal on the basis of which he registered FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and he also made endorsement on the said rukka which is Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Girish Gotwal. He was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged.
PW6 Insp Bishwajit Kumar: He deposed that on 15.05.2008, present case was marked to him for further investigation. During investigation, he interrogated FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 7 / 15 accused Simmi. Thereafter, he was transferred and file was handed over to MHC(R). He was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged. PW7 Retd SI Gajraj Singh : He deposed that on 22.02.2009, he received the chargesheet from Prosecution Branch after scrutiny which was submitted by the previous IO. After necessary compliance, he filed the chargesheet in the concerned court. He was crossexamined by Ld Defence Counsel and was discharged.
5. Thereafter, PE was closed, as the same was complete.
6. Joint statement of both the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr PC in which all the incriminating evidence and documents were put to them to which they stated that all the allegations of complainant are completely false. Accused Kawaljeet Singh stated in his statement that his marriage with complainant was a love marriage which was against the wishes of his family. It took time for him to convince his family members due to which she had to stay for one month in her house as her family was in favour of this marriage. Thereafter, they started residing together and were happily living. However, her mother started interfering in their life due to which quarrels started. He also said that the elder sister of complainant was married to his elder brother. As per him, his sister i.e accused Simmi had taken his care since he was 4 years old. As the husband of his sister expired at the time of his marriage therefore, he had to take care of her. His bhabhi also on the pretext to make his wife understand went to her parental house and both of them lodged false complaints against their respective husbands. His bhabhi settled all the disputes with his brother amicably and is still residing with FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 8 / 15 him, but complainant failed to reconcile with him despite his various efforts. He stated that he had taken full care of complainant during her both pregnancies as per his means. She was not willing to reside with his sister but he was not in position to leave his sister. However, later on, he even started residing separately with the complainant for her happiness but she failed to acknowledge his efforts. He said that he had never taken her jewellery from her and the same is in her possession. He denied giving of beatings to her. He stated that he left the house because he was not able to bear the quarrels which used to take place on daily basis and complainant had got him arrested on false grounds. He denied that his elder brother had given beatings to his fatherinlaw. As per him, there was merely verbal altercation between them. The allegations pertaining to spending of money and giving of cash are completely false as per him.
Accused Simmi in her statement stated that her parental family had not accepted the marriage of her brother with complainant, however, against the wishes of her family, she allowed her brother to reside in her house so that with the support of each other they could maintain each others’ families. She gave her auto to her brother for driving the same. She said that she had never quarreled with complainant but she was not interested in living along with her and despite residing separately from her she used to quarrel with her brother.
Accused persons were not interested in leading DE.
7. Final arguments addressed by both the parties. Heard. Record perused.
8. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution because on the strength of testimonies of its witnesses the fate of this case depends. For this, the FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 9 / 15 testimony of PW2 i.e. complainant is of utmost importance because she is victim and of PW3 and PW4 are also of relevance. In this context, in the complaint Ex.PW1/D in CAW Cell on the basis of which FIR was lodged which is dated 14.08.2006 and in her previous complaint to the CAW Cell which is Ex.PW1/A dated 31.03.2004, she has in general terms alleged that accused Simmi used to instigate accused Kawaljeet for demanding more dowry. She has not specified any time, date, month and year in respect to both the accused persons that when they made any demand from her. She has averred in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that accused Simmi used to demand sum of Rs. 50,000/ to be brought from her parents’ house and when she used to refuse to bring the same, accused Kawaljeet used to give her beatings. She has alleged that on one occasion, accused Simmi called jeth of complaint and both of them abused her and gave beatings to her and asked her to bring sum of Rs.50,000/. Again no specific time, date, month and year of the said demand is mentioned by her. In the letter Ex.PW1/B which is undated, she has mentioned that accused Simmi used to instigate her husband to beat her and used to demand sum of Rs. 10,000/ to be brought from her parents’ house. This averment is totally contrary to her previous averment for demand of Rs. 50,000/ She has also alleged that on 26.03.2004, as an installment for scooter of her husband was to be paid, accused Kawaljeet asked her to bring sum of Rs. 10,000/ from her parental house and when she refused to fulfill the said demand accused Kawaljeet gave her beatings and accused Simmi again repeated the act of calling jeth of complainant to abuse her and threw her out of the house demanding FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 10 / 15 sum of Rs. 50,000/. If the said averments of complainant are to be taken into account, the said fact should have been definitely mentioned in the complaint which is dated 31.03.2014 Ex.PW1/A, because above said alleged incident took place four days prior to lodging of the said complaint. However, nowhere in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, complainant has mentioned regarding demand of Rs. 10,000/ by accused Kawaljeet. She has merely stated in respect to demand of Rs. 50,000/.
9. Interestingly, nowhere in her testimony as PW1, she has uttered a single word regarding demand of either sum of Rs. 10,000/ or sum of Rs. 50,000/ by accused Kawaljeet or by accused Simmi. She has merely alleged that due to her quarrel with accused Simmi whenever she used to inform her husband i.e. accused Kawaljeet about the behavior of accused Simmi then her husband used to beat her. Thus, in absence of any averment in respect to any demand on the part of both the accused persons, the allegations of demand of dowry have not been corroborated.
10. It is also noteworthy that in the complaint Ex.PW1/D, complainant has alleged that accused Kawaljeet used to beat her with kicks and blowsin her stomach. She also alleged that he banged her head against wall due to which she suffered blue injury marks on her body, but there is no medical document to support her version. In respect to the said averment, she has not alleged anything regarding banging of her head by accused Kawaljeet in her testimony as PW2. In the complaint Ex.PW1/G, complainant has alleged that sum of Rs. 50,000/ was demanded by accused Simmi after the birth of her son due to which beatings were given by accused Kawaljeet, FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 11 / 15 Simmi and her jeth but again no medical document was placed on record to support her version. PW4 Moolchand has though alleged that once he had visited the house of complainant, he had seen injury mark on her face but she pretended that she had fallen and got hurt but he has also not mentioned any date as to when he had visited the house complainant to support the said averment.
11. During crossexamination of complainant, complainant filed on record complaints dated 10.04.2007, which is Mark X, 21.09.2006 which is Mark Y and 31.08.2007 which is Mark Z. On perusal of the said complaints it is evident that only one specific instance pertaining to date 10.08.2006 is mentioned by her when allegedly accused Kawaljeet had given beatings to her and to her mother. She has also alleged that on 11.08.2006, she was taken to AIIMS for her medical examination but she had not lodged any formal complaint against accused in respect to the said incident. In the opinion of this court even if it is considered that complainant wanted to save her marriage due to which no formal complaint was lodged by her, however, medical document pertaining to said incident should have been placed on record to corroborate her version that she had actually suffered injuries due to beatings given by accused, but the same has not been done in the present case.
12. She had produced the above said complaints on the ground that she had lodged the same against accused Simmi, whereas there is not even a single averment against accused in respect to any quarrel/ dispute with accused Simmi. She admitted in her crossexamination that she had not handed over the copy of the above said three complaints to the IO during investigation. Therefore, no inquiry in respect to the said complaints was conducted, thus, they cannot be relied upon.
FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 12 / 15
13. An overall reading of the all the complaints lodged by complainant and considering her testimony, it is evident she had problem in residing together along with accused Simmi and had problem with accused Kawaljeet due to not providing her money. There is not even an iota of material available on record to show any kind of dowry demand by accused Kawaljeet or Simmi.
14. Even if, all the complaints filed by her i.e. Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/A, Mark X, Mark Y and Mark Z are considered and it is believed that accused Kawaljeet used to beat her and inflicted physical cruelty upon her, then also there is no medical document available on record to support her said averment. In her testimony as PW2, nothing has come on record in respect to demand of dowry and inflicting any cruelty upon her. All the allegations leveled are general and vague without specifying any date, time and month.
15. As far as testimony of PW3 is concerned she also alleged that both the accused persons used to beat the complainant for demand of dowry for the sum of Rs. 50,000/ but no time, date or month is mentioned that when the said demand was raised by them. PW3 also admitted in her crossexamination, that she failed to remember the date when the above said incident took place. PW4 had merely mentioned that accused Kawaljeet used to beat his daughter after consuming alcohol and his elder brother also gave beatings to him. He had nowhere alleged that any kind of dowry demand was made from complainant at any point of time. Moreover, in the crossexamination conducted by Ld APP for the State, the said witness admitted that in his statement under section 161 CrPC which is Mark A, FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 13 / 15 he had stated that accused Kawaljeet used to harass his daughter for demand of money of Rs, 50,000/. He failed to state any date that when the said demand was made from her daughter by accused persons. However later on, in his cross examination, by Ld defence counsel, he denied the fact that any such statement of his was recorded by the police officials. He was even reexamined by the ld APP for the State but he again remained on his stand that no such statement was recorded by police officials. Thus, the statement in respect to demand of dowry for sum of Rs. 50,000/ has also not been corroborated. He also failed to state in respect to beatings given to him or to his wife by brother of accused or by accused.
16. From the abovesaid discussion it is evident that no demand of dowry on the part of accused persons and cruelty as inflicted upon complainant is proved by prosecution. Thus, the guilt of accused persons under Section 498A IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. As far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, in testimony of PW2, she has specifically state that apart from her jewellery all the articles which were sold by accused Kawaljeet, rest of the stridhan articles are in her possession. She has not placed on record any bill/ description of the said jewellery articles to support her averment that when the said jewellery articles were sold/ misappropriated by accused. She has merely placed list of articles which were given in her marriage which is Ex.PW1/E which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused.
18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Neelu Chopra & Ors. Vs Bharti (2009)10 SCC 184 wherein the FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 14 / 15 allegations of complainant were general and the accused persons were discharged. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 4 as follows:
“………but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and so to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned”.
Para 5 : “In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not to be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague”.
19. Hence, in view of above discussion and in light of above stated judgment, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Kawaljeet in relation to charge under section 406 IPC.
20. Thus, accused Kawaljeet and Simmi stand acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC and accused Kawaljeet stands Digitally acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. signed by NITI NITI PHUTELA
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. PHUTELA Date:
2018.07.04 16:22:34 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (NITI PHUTELA) dated 03.07.2018 MM03, Mahila Court, South Distict, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 111/07 State Vs. Kawaljeet Singh & Ors. 15 / 15