Court Rejects Unclear Allegations in 498A Case - Shonee Kapoor

District Court Karnal

JUSTICE Sumit Kumar Saini

State Versus xxxxxx On 03 January 2015

Law Point:  Vague, uncorroborated allegations without specific evidence or dates cannot sustain conviction under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, and 506 IPC.

JUDGEMENT

1. The accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/406/506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was received by the police wherein the complainant alleged that she got married to accused on 26.02.2009 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Indri. Her father had spent about ₹ 20 lacs and had given sufficient dowry articles in the marriage. After the marriage, the accused and his relatives started harassing her for bringing less dowry. She was also taunted for not bearing any child. One day, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home by the accused after giving beatings to her. Then she had moved a complaint in the Women Police Station in the year 2012 and as the accused persons had apologized, the complainant had again started residing in the matrimonial house. In May 2013 the accused took the complainant to Sri Maa Vaishno Devi Temple, where the accused pushed her with an intention to kill her but her life was saved and she had suffered multiple injuries. The accused again apologized, as such, she did not take any action against the accused. The father of the complainant had died on 18.09.2014. Several Panchayats were also convened but to no effect. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born on 18.05.2018. Thereafter, the accused demanded a car from the complainant. The complainant showed her inability to fulfill the demand. However, her mother gave ₹ 2 lacs in cash and gifts worth ₹ 1 lac to the accused. The accused used to beat her up in front of her sister-in-law. The accused also misappropriated her dowry articles. When the accused got job in Delhi, the complainant started residing with him in Delhi, where her parents-in-law started harassing her. The accused also beat her up in Delhi. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened and then the complainant started residing with her husband in apartment in Delhi. Thereafter, her parents-in-law started instigating accused xxxxxx against the complainant over the phone. On 09.04.2021, uncle of complainant namely xxxxxx had died. But the accused did not come to attend the last rites of xxxxxx nor allowed the complainant to come to attend the funeral. On 11.10.2021, the accused gave beatings to her and turned her out of the matrimonial home. On this complaint, after registration of the case against accused, investigation was set in motion. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court for commencement of trial against accused.

3. Copy of challan was supplied to the accused free of costs as enshrined under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

4. The accused was charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/323/406/506 of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 16.01.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses:

1. PW1 is HC xxxxxx, who stated that on 08.08.2022 xxxxx son of xxxxx produced the accused in the police station. Thereafter, the accused was arrested by Investigating Officer P/SI Neha vide memo Ex.PW1/A. The Investigating Officer took gold tops and locket and silver anklet vide memo Ex.PW1/B and the same were released on superdari vide memo Ex.PW1/C.
2. PW2 is P/SI Neha, who stated that on 11.05.2022, FIR was registered as Ex.PW2/A and its endorsement was made as Ex.PW2/B. On 15.05.2022, complainant and her brother produced list of dowry articles and a wedding photograph, which were taken in police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. On 08.08.2022, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/D and his disclosure statement was recorded as Ex.PW1/A. Then gold topaz and locket and silver anklet were taken in police possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B and the same were released on superdari vide memo Ex.PW1/C. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared by SHO xxxxxx.
3. PW3 is complainant, who stated that on 26.02.2009, her marriage was solemnized with accused as per Hindu rites & ceremonies. After the marriage, they resided at Jagadhri for two years and then they had moved to Delhi. When she was living at Jagadhri, the accused used to harass her on account of dowry demands. The accused used to demand a car. Her father had spent ₹ 20 lacs in the marriage. However, her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in the marriage and they used to taunt and beat her. In the year 2014, her father had expired. Also, in 2014 they had gone to Sri Mata Vaishno Devi, where the accused pushed her and resultantly, she had suffered multiple injuries. The accused had apologized for his act. In the year 2018, a son was born to her. Thereafter, the accused again harassed her. She further stated that firstly, she was harassed by the accused in the year 2012 and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home. At that time, she had moved a complaint in the Women Police Station but the matter was compromised. In the year 2021, she came to her parental house. On 09.04.2021, her uncle had expired but the accused did not allow her to come to her house and then she came to attend Rasam Kariya. On 11.10.2021, she was again turned out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the accused did not give any response. Then she moved a complainat in Women Police Station, on which FIR was registered. The accused refused to take her along. She proved her complaint as Ex.PW3/A, list of dowry articles as Ex.PW3/B, photo as Ex.PW3/C, identification memo as Ex.PW1/B, superdari as Ex.PW1/C and recovery memo as Ex.PW2/C.
4. PW4 is brother of complainant, who stated that marriage of his sister was solemnized with accused xxxxxx on 26.02.2009. After the marriage, the accused started harassing his sister. In the year 2012, a complaint was moved in the Women Police Station. After the marriage, the accused started demanding a car but the matter was compromised in the year 2012. Even thereafter, the accused used to taunt his sister. In the year 2014, his sister had gone to Sri Mata Vaishno Devi with the accused, where the accused made an unsuccessful attempt to push his sister but she had suffered multiple injuries. His father had expired due to tension. In the year 2018, his sister gave birth to a child but even thereafter, the accused did not mend his ways. In the year 2021, his sister was turned out of her matrimonial home after being given severe beatings. A Panchayat was also convened but to no effect. In the year 2021, his uncle had expired but the accused did not allow his sister to come to her parental house. He and his sister had given list of dowry articles and photo to police, which were taken in police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Gold topaz, silver anklet and gold locket were released in favour of his sister on superdari vide memo Ex.PW1/C.

6. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State closed the prosecution evidence by making a separate statement in this regard.

7. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused has stated that he innocent and false case has been registered against him.

8. No defence evidence has been led by the accused and the same was closed.

9. Arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused carefully.

10. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution had to prove that the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty on account of dowry demands, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the dowry articles belonging to the complainant and voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant. It is also to be proved that accused criminally intimidated the complainant with dire consequences of life.

11. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint moved by the complainant, who appeared in the witness box as PW3 and proved her complaint as Ex. PW3/A. A perusal of complaint Ex.PW3/A as well as testimony of complainant (PW3) clearly reveals that the allegations of the complainant against the accused regarding committing cruelty on account of dowry demands are general, vague, ambiguous and omnibus in nature. No particular instance of alleged cruelty or alleged demand of dowry has been specifically stated by the complainant. She only stated that firstly, she was harassed by the accused in the year 2012 and she was turned out of her matrimonial home. Then a complaint was moved by her in Women Police Station, where the matter was compromised. However, no such complaint has been proved on record by the prosecution. Further, in her complaint she stated that in the year 2013, she alongwith the accused had gone to Sri Maa Vaishno Devi, where the accused pushed her with an intention to kill her but she had suffered multiple injuries. In contrast, in her testimony she stated that the above incident pertains to year 2014. In her cross-examination, she specifically stated that neither she was medically examined nor she moved any complaint in this regard and voluntarily stated that the accused had apologized for his act. She also stated in her cross-examination that she did not move any complaint against all family members for giving beatings to her and for throwing her out from her matrimonial home.

12. Further her brother appeared in the witness box as PW4 and stated that in the year 2014, his sister alongwith her in-laws had gone to Sri Mata Vaishno Devi, where the accused made an unsuccessful attempt to push his sister. However, it is not the case of prosecution that PW4 was also accompanying the complainant when the aforesaid incident took place. In other words, the testimony of PW4 in this regard is hearsay, as such, the same cannot be read in evidence. In the complaint (Ex.PW3/A) as well as while appearing in the witness box as PW3, the complainant stated that her mother gave ₹ 2 lacs in cash and gifts worth ₹ 1 lac to the accused at the time of birth of son of complainant. However, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the aforesaid statement of PW3.

13. As regards the list of dowry articles (Ex.PW3/B), the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the said articles had ever been purchased by the family of the complainant in order to give the same as dowry to the accused. No bill/receipt regarding the purchase of any article has been produced on the record to prove that said articles were purchased by the complainant or her family and were given in dowry.

14. In the case of Prem Singh and Ors. Vs. Smt. Surta and Ors. 1992 (2) RCR 608, it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that when in any complaint by a wife alleging harassment, no time or date of her harassment is mentioned in the complaint, the allegations would be deemed to be vague and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Similarly, in the case of Harbans Lal and Anr. Vs. Rama Rani, 1992 (1) RCR 682, it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that where no specific allegation against the accused with regard to the alleged mal-treatment at their hands has been leveled, the charge of cruelty against the husband and his parents under Section 498A, IPC, is not made out.

15. Even in the case of Harsh Vardhan Arora Vs. Smt. Kavita Arora, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 499, it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that a complaint bearing omnibus allegations against all the accused in respect of the complaint of dowry, harassment, torture and beatings given to her during the period she stayed in the matrimonial home without any specific date, month or year when these incidents had taken place, charge under Section 498A, IPC, is not made out. It has been so held even in the case of Partap and Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana, 1990 (3) RCR 529. In the case titled as Amar Singh Versus State of Rajasthan and State of Rajasthan Versus Jagdish & Anr., 2010 (2) Criminal Court Judgments 378, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prosecution witnesses must show the exact conduct of the accused which caused harassment or specific act of torture. Merely using the word “harassed” or “tortured” does not describe the exact conduct of the accused. The overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such relations cannot be held guilty on the basis of mere conjectures and implications. In the present case, the allegations of the complainant are routine allegations which have been leveled by the complainant against the entire family members of the accused.

16. As regards the offence under Section 323 of IPC, the allegations of severe beatings of the complainant are also not supported by any evidence. There is no medical record from which it could be made out that the complainant was given severe beatings by the accused.

17. The allegations of criminal intimidation are also vague and ambiguous. There is no evidence led by the complainant or prosecution that she was ever given criminal intimidation by the accused that she will be killed.

18. As far as the misappropriation of dowry articles of the complainant is concerned, the complainant (PW3) has not stated in her statement as to what dowry articles were specifically entrusted to the accused or that the accused refused to hand over the dowry articles to her on her demand. There is no evidence of criminal misappropriation led by the prosecution against the accused. Moreover, the routine and daily gifts given at the time of marriage cannot be included in Istridhan, so as to make out offence of misappropriation against the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and others Vs. Monika 2009(3) Recent Criminal Judgments 866 that any gift made to the bridegroom or his parents at the time of marriage in accordance with the custom or otherwise would not constitute any offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. Even if allegation raised by the wife of misappropriation of such item. Therefore, the offence of criminal misappropriation is also not made out against the accused in the present case.

19. All the facts taken together, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Case property if any, be dealt with as per rules after the expiry of period of appeal or revision. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us