IN THE COURT OF MM (MAHILA COURT02) (SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER: NEHA, DJS. IN THE MATTER OF : State Vs. Balraj and Ors. FIR No. 85/07 PS: Delhi Cantt. Date of Institution : 11.02.2008 Date of reserving of order : 28.05.2018 Date of Judgment : 27.06.2018 JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 392/16 2. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Anita Yadav 3. Date of complaint : 02.11.2006 4. Name of accused person : 1. Balraj Singh S/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh 2. Vimla Devi W/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh 3. Gagan S/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh 4. Shamsher S/o Late Sh. Sardar Singh All r/o RZA64/65, Dabri Ext. East, main Nasirpur road, New Delhi45. FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt 5. Offence charged : Under Section 498A/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. Atul Kharbanda, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. All accused persons have been charged for committing offences punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“). It has been alleged by the prosecution that during the subsistence of marriage of accused Balraj Singh with complainant Anita, all accused in furtherance of their common intention treated complainant with cruelty to fulfill illegal demand of dowry.
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.
3. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused persons were summoned to face trial. The copy of the chargesheet was supplied under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused persons.
FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt
4. Vide order dated 29.09.2012, all accused persons were discharged for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and charge for offence punishable u/s 498A/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. 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.
6. PW1 Ms. Anita is the complainant. She has deposed that on 22.01.1997, she got married to accused Balraj Singh as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Since the day, the marriage got fixed, her mother in law namely Bimla Devi, brothers in law Gagan and Shamsher used to demand Rs. 2 Lakhs cash and a 50 sq. yards plot in Delhi. Her parents assured that they wold fulfill their demand. After her marriage, her parents in law did not use to treat her well. Her mother in law did not allow her to enter the kitchen and also did not provide her food. On several occasions, her mother in law had beaten her.
7. PW1 has further deposed that on 22.12.1998, she gave birth to a girl child namely Riya. On the occasion of Kuan Poojan of her daughter, her parents gave several articles but her parents in law were not happy with the articles. Her mother in law and brothers in law namely Balraj and Gagan abused her parents for giving insufficient articles. Her mother in law used to taunt her. On FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt 06.10.2000, she gave birth to a boy namely Yash. Thereafter, her mother in law and brothers in laws used to demand Rs. 2 lacs cash and 50 yards plot in Delhi. They also demanded a scooter. On the birth ceremony of her son, her parents gave various articles but her mother in law was not happy. On next day of birth ceremony, her mother in law abused and beat her up. She snatched her son and told her that unless their demand of cash and plot was not met out, she would not give back her son to her.
8. PW1 has further deposed that her parents were not allowed to visit her matrimonial house. Her husband used to ask money on several pretext like he wanted to purchase almirah or he did not have sufficient money to meet the daily expenses. On the death of her father, some money was released from his department. Her husband used to put pressure upon her to get that money from her mother. Her husband used to ask her to stay at her parent’s house on the pretext that he would take her back to her matrimonial house, when the attitude of her mother in law would change. When no one came to take her back to the matrimonial house, she herself went there. But the attitude of her mother in law remained unchanged and she did not allow her to enter the kitchen.
9. PW1 has further deposed that in September, 2006, her husband took her to her parental house along with children. After few days, her husband took the children with him but did not take her to the matrimonial home. When she reached the matrimonial house, she FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt was not allowed to enter the room and was thrown out of matrimonial home. When she used to go to school of children to meet them, she was not allowed. Her husband used to stand on the gate of the school so that she could not meet children. Thereafter, she went to CAW Cell and filed complaint Ex.PW1/A.
10. PW2 Smt. Urmila is sister of complainant. She has deposed that whenever, she had gone to the matrimonial house of her sister /complainant, she found her crying. The mother in law of Anita used to tell her not to come to her matrimonial house. She used to go to her matrimonial house after every 15 days. Once Balraj had quarreled with complainant. Probably, Balraj had lost money and later he recalled that he had given money to his cousin and for that money he had quarreled with her sister. Balraj physically abused complainant and also punched her in the stomach.
11. PW3 Inspector Tripti is the CAW Cell inquiry officer, who has conducted inquiry on the complaint and prepared report Ex. PW3/A.
12. PW4 Inspector Seema Singh is the first IO of the case, who had recorded the statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr. P.C. and seized the dowry articles and deposited the same in the malkhana vide memo Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B.
13. PW5 Inspector Adith Lily is the second IO of the case, who had interrogated the accused persons and formally arrested them FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt vide memo Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/D.
14. All the witnesses were cross examined. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 06.04.2018 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.
15. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused. The complainant and her sister have proved that all accused used to harass the complainant to fulfill illegal demands. The prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and the guilt of the accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused persons may be convicted.
17. 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 the complainant. The complainant has made allegations of demand of dowry before marriage, however it is proved on record that the marriage of complainant with accused Balraj was a love marriage and there was no demand. The sister of the complainant has also admitted FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt that she had never witnessed any incident of beating. 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. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and they may be acquitted.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The complainant has made allegations that after marriage was fixed and date of marriage was decided, mother in law/ accused Bimla Devi and brothers in law / accused Gagan and Shamsher started demanding Rs. 2 lacs cash and scooter. In the complaint to CAW Cell also, she has alleged that after the date of marriage was decided, all four accused persons including her husband started demanding scooter and Rs. 2 lacs cash.
22. From the allegations made in the complaint to CAW Cell as well as in evidence as PW1, it appears that marriage between Anita FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt and Balraj was an arranged marriage and when the date of marriage was fixed, illegal demand of accused persons started.
23. In the cross examination complainant has admitted that her marriage took place in temple at Bhogal near Tis Hazari Courts. On the day of marriage, no one from her family or from the family of inlaws attended the marriage ceremony. She has further stated that since it was a lovecumarranged marriage, accused Balraj asked her not to tell about the marriage to her parents. She has admitted that both parents were not aware of the marriage.
24. The aforesaid statement of the complainant make it clear that family of accused Balraj or complainant Anita had not attended the marriage nor they were informed about the marriage. Further, in evidence PW2 /sister of the complainant has admitted that Anita got married of her own wish and consent as the same was love marriage. It is thus proved on record that marriage of complainant and accused Balraj was love marriage and not lovecumarranged marriage. Once it is proved on record that marriage of complainant with accused Balraj was a love marriage and their families were not aware of the marriage, this Court finds it difficult to believe that any demand of cash or plot or scooter was made by the accused persons from the family of the complainant before marriage.
25. Complainant has made contradictory statements before the police and in her evidence.
FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt
26. In the examination in chief, complainant has stated that since the date marriage was got fixed, mother in law Bimla Devi, brothers in law Gagan and Shamsher used to demand Rs. 2 lacs cash and 50 sq. yards plot in Delhi and her parents told that they would fulfill the demand. However, in the cross examination dated 12.01.2017, the complainant has stated that her husband and in laws did not demand any dowry prior to marriage.
27. The complainant has further admitted in the cross examination that at the time of marriage, family members of accused were not present. She has admitted that her parents did not give any article to her at the time of her marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir. She has further admitted that jewellery which she was wearing at that time was given by her mother in law.
28. In evidence, the complainant has stated that the demand of Rs. 2 Lacs was made at the time of marriage but not after the second child was born. She has further stated that no demand was made after birth of second child. She has voluntarily stated that she was taunted for not bringing dowry. The complainant has stated that she has mentioned about alleged beating after birth of second child in her complaint because to her “tana dena is equal to marna pitna”.
29. The contradictions in evidence of complainant as discussed above create doubt over the statement of the complainant that she was harassed for dowry or any demand of dowry was made FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt from her by accused persons.
30. The prosecution has also alleged that due to non fulfillment of demand of Rs. 2 lacs and plot of 50 sq. yards, the complainant was thrown out of matrimonial house.
31. In the examination in chief, complainant has stated that in September, 2006 her husband took her to the parental house alongwith the children and after few days, her husband took children with him but did not take the complainant to matrimonial house. Thereafter, she herself went to the matrimonial house where she was not allowed to enter the room and she was thrown out of the matrimonial house.
32. In the cross examination, the complainant has stated that she was dropped at her parental house with children by accused Balraj and she was not thrown out of matrimonial house. She has further stated that when she had gone to matrimonial house to take children, accused persons had thrown her out of the house. She has later stated that she had not gone to take children but she had gone to reside at the matrimonial house as she was left at parental house by accused Balraj.
33. In evidence, the complainant is not able to tell the date when accused Balraj had left her at parental house with the children. She is also not able the date when Balraj came to her parental house and took the children with him. She is also not able to tell the date when she went to matrimonial house to take children or to live there. The complainant has admitted that she did not file any complaint on FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt the day when she was thrown out of the matrimonial house.
34. The other material witness examined by prosecution is sister of complainant i.e. PW2 Urmila. In the cross examination PW 2 Urmila has stated that family of the accused were residing in front of her house and she was knowing them being her neighbours.
35. PW2 has stated that she had seen complainant only crying and she had not witnessed even single incident of beating to her. She has also admitted that she had not seen any injury visible on the person of Anita due to physical harassment inflicted by the accused persons. She has further stated that Anita had informed her that she was beaten by accused persons by fists and blow on her stomach. She has further stated that she had not taken Anita for any medical treatment due to such beating.
36. This Court finds it difficult to believe that if PW2/ sister of complainant would come to know about the alleged beatings to the complainant by the accused persons, she would not take her sister /complainant for any medical examination. The allegations of physical torture / beating upon the body of complainant are not corroborated by any medical record or MLC and therefore the same cannot be believed.
37. The PW2 has further admitted that complainant had informed her that accused persons were not allowing her to enter the matrimonial house. She has further stated that neither she nor FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt complainant had lodged any complaint with the police when complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house. The complainant has also stated that she did not file any complaint nor PCR was called when she was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial house. There is no explanation of the complainant or her sister as to why no complaint was filed with police when she was thrown out of the matrimonial house.
38. In examination, PW2/sister of complainant has stated that after birth of son, the complainant was abused, thrashed and thrown out of the matrimonial house by her motherinlaw to bring cash and ownership documents of plot. However as stated above, the complainant has stated that no demand of money was made from her after birth of second child (son) and she was only taunted for dowry.
39. The aforesaid contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses creates doubt over the allegations of the prosecution that any demand of dowry was made by the accused persons prior to marriage or that the complainant was harassed in the matrimonial house to fulfill the demand or that the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house by the accused persons.
40. The testimony of prosecution witnesses would also show that they have made general and vague allegations against the accused persons that they used to harass the complainant to fulfill illegal demand. The prosecution witnesses have not pointed towards any FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt specific incident which could be categorized under explanation (a) or
(b) of Section 498A IPC. In the case of cruelty, specific acts of cruelty and the occasions when, and the place where such acts were committed have to be pleaded and vague allegations of cruelty are not sufficient to convict the accused.
41. 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 fulfill any illegal demand. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to accused persons and they are acquitted of the charges alleged.
42. Bail bond and surety bond of all accused u/s 437A Cr.P.Chas been furnished with their photograph and address proof which has been considered and accepted. Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
2018.06.27 16:25:50 +0530 Pronounced in the open court (NEHA) On 27th June, 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02/Dwarka New Delhi FIR No.85/07 State Vs Balraj Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 13 PS: Delhi Cantt