{"id":134,"date":"2008-12-09T19:53:37","date_gmt":"2008-12-09T14:23:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/696-2004\/"},"modified":"2008-12-09T19:53:37","modified_gmt":"2008-12-09T14:23:37","slug":"696-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/696-2004\/","title":{"rendered":"Narender Kumar and Anr – (498a) Justice Dhingra Verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of Reserve: 03.9.2007
\nDate of Order: 01.11.2007\n<\/p>\n

Crl.Appeal No. 696\/2004 01.11.2007<\/p>\n

Narender Kumar and Anr. \u2026 Appellants Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

Versus<\/p>\n

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) \u2026 Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, Advocate<\/p>\n

Crl.Appeal No. 748\/2004<\/p>\n

Vijay Kumar and Anr. \u2026 Appellants Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

Versus<\/p>\n

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) \u2026 Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, Advocate<\/p>\n

Crl.Appeal No. 787\/2004<\/p>\n

Gyan Prakash \u2026 Appellant Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

Versus<\/p>\n

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) \u2026 Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, Advocate<\/p>\n

Crl.Appeal No. 749\/2004<\/p>\n

Jeevani Devi @ Jamuna Devi \u2026 Appellant Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

Versus<\/p>\n

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) \u2026 Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor, Advocate<\/p>\n

CORAM<\/p>\n

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA<\/p>\n

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.<\/p>\n

2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes.<\/p>\n

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes.
\nJUDGMENT:
\n1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10th September, 2004 whereby he
\nconvicted the appellants under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section
\n307 read with Section 34 IPC and against the order of sentence dated 14th
\nSeptember, 2004 whereby he sentenced each of the appellants to undergo RI for 02
\nyears and a fine of Rs.3,000\/- under Section 498A and RI for 07 years and a fine
\nof RS.5,000\/- under Section 307\/34 IPC.<\/p>\n

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that
\ncomplainant Veena Rani was married to accused Gyan Prakash on 24th November,
\n1997. She was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital on 9th May, 2002 by her husband
\nat about 10.00 p.m. with 25 % burns. She told the doctor that she received burn
\ninjuries accidentally while she was cooking food on LPG stove and her dupatta
\ncaught fire accidentally resulting into burn injuries. Her MLC Ex. PW 3\/1 shows
\nthat her pulse rate, Blood Pressure were normal her chest was clean she was
\noriented to time, place and persons. The injuries present on her body showed
\nthat she was having thermal burns on upper parts of the body i.e. upper exteme
\nface, lower abdomen and some patches over the back. Police was informed of the
\nadmission by the duty constable in hospital vide DD No. 4A (Ex. PW 1\/1) on the
\nnight of 9th and 10th May, 2002. The investigation was given to ASI Ramesh
\nChand, who requested SDM to come to hospital and record statement of Smt. Veena.
\nStatement of Smt. Veena was recorded by SDM on 10th May, 2002. Doctor\u2019s
\nendorsement of her being fit for giving statement is Ex. PW 12\/1. In her
\nstatement given to SDM (Ex. PW 2\/2) she stated that on previous night around
\n7.00 p.m. she was at home, her jethani and mother-in-law were also at home, LPG
\nStove was lying on floor. She was standing near the stove and food was being
\ncooked. Her dupatta caught fire from the LPG stove and she cried of catching
\nfire, her mother-in-law and jethani extinguished the fire. Her husband was on
\nduty at the time of incident. Thereafter, she was brought to hospital by her
\nhusband. She had been living happily with her family and was not being harassed
\nfor dowry, everybody in the family loved her. The incident was an accident and
\nshe had no doubt on anyone. She was in full senses and gave the statement
\nwithout any pressure.
\n3. Father of complainant Roshan Lal came to see her on 10th May,
\n2002 itself. On 11th May, 2002, her father made an application Ex. PW5\/1 to
\nSDM wherein he stated that her daughter Veena was being mistreated by her in-
\nlaws. His son-in-law Gyan Prakash was having no business or work and due to
\nthis reason his family members used to throw him out of the house and on this
\nattitude of family of his son-in-law, he had to bring his daughter to his own
\nhouse sometime for four months and sometime for six months. His daughter was
\nhaving one son, who was also living with him for about last three years. Due to
\nunemployment of his son-in-law he got his daughter employed in a private firm as
\na labour, so that she could maintain herself. During this period he had also
\nbeen sending his daughter to in-laws house with the help of inter-mediators.
\nMother-in-law of his daughter told him that he should get his son-in-law Gyan
\nPrakash settled by opening a clothier shop for him. Since he (father-in-law)
\nwas not a rich person this was not possible for him. On 9th May, 2002 around
\n7.00 p.m. girl\u2019s two jeths (brothers-in-law) viz. Narender and Vijay, two
\njethanis (sisters-in-law) viz. Om Prabha and Nirmal and mother-in-law viz.
\nJeevani Devi @ Jamuna Devi and her husband Gyan Prakash poured kerosene oil on
\nhis daughter and set her on fire. He was not informed of the incident.
\nHowever, he got information on 10th May, 2002 at 10.00 a.m. from some
\nacquaintance that Veena had met with an accident. So, when he went to know well
\nbeing of his daughter at her in-laws\u2019 house there her father-in-law Pandit
\nPrabhati Lal told him that Veena was in burns ward of the Safdarjung Hospital.
\nWhen he reached Safdarjung Hospital he learnt that SDM had already recorded his
\ndaughter\u2019s statement. His daughter told him that she made statement to SDM as
\nper the wishes of her in-laws since her in-laws had threatened her that they
\nwould kill her and her son and that she would be divorced. By his application
\nEx. PW5\/1 he requested SDM that another statement of his daughter Veena should
\nbe recorded.<\/p>\n

4. After the application made by father of complainant, SDM again
\nrecorded a statement of the complainant Venna (Ex. PW 2\/1). In this statement
\ncomplainant stated that her husband Gyan Prakash used to do a private job and
\nshe herself was doing a private job. She was having a child around 3 ? years
\nold. For about a month after her marriage she was kept by her in-laws properly
\nthereafter her in-laws started harassing her on small things. She remained at
\nher parents house for 8-9 months thereafter. She was again called by her in-
\nlaws after a compromise and she remained at her in-laws for about two months
\nthereafter. After two months she was against harassed for dowry. She used to
\nbe told that she had no brother and she had brought so less dowry. She again
\nwent to her parents\u2019 house and lived there for about 8-9 months and again came
\nback to her in-laws house after a compromise and she was living at her in-laws
\nhouse since 8th December, 2001. About 15 days before the incident she had a
\nquarrel with her Jeth and mother-in-law. Her in-laws had purchased a Maruti Car
\non the day of Holi Festival and they told her that in case she wanted to remain
\nalive she should bring 2 ? lac rupees or a clothier shop be opened for her
\nhusband in Chandni Chowk. She refused to accede to these demands telling her
\nthat her father had no money. On this she was told to pack up and go from the
\nhouse. This quarrel continued till the days of the incident. On the night of
\nWednesday again a similar quarrel took place and her in-laws gave her beatings
\nand all went for sleeping. On Thursday morning she got up and cooked meals and
\ngot ready for going to office. She was told by her in-laws that in case she
\nwanted her safety, she should bring 2 ? lac from her parents or she should call
\nher father. She however, went to her office\/job and after doing her job came
\nback home. When she came back from office, all members of the family viz. both
\nher jeths, jethanis and mother-in-law were sitting in the house. Her in-laws
\nasked her why she had not brought her parents. When she went to her room, she
\nfound that her goods were lying packed. Her mother-in-law and jethani abused
\nher and told her that she should pick up her goods and go away. When she
\nrefused they bolted the main gate from inside and her jeth said that she should
\nbe beaten. Jethani said that she should be burnt and cremated. In the meantime
\nher mother-in-law brought kerosene oil in a tin and poured kerosene oil on her.
\nWhen she cried then her elder jethani lit fire and set her ablaze. She cried
\nfor being saved then all of them went away from there. A bucket full of water
\nwas lying there, she picked up the bucket, poured water on herself the fire got
\nextinguished. She asked them to take her to hospital, on this they started
\nbeating her. She kept lying in the house for about two hours and they told her
\nthat they would take her to hospital only if she would not testify against them
\notherwise her son and father would be killed. When she agreed to this, she was
\nremoved to hospital. She was also threatened on the way to hospital and even
\nbeaten. She made her earlier statement under pressure. Her earlier statement
\nwas not correct. Since her parents had met her in the hospital now she was
\nunder no fear and had made the statement without pressure. Her mother-in-law
\nher jeths viz. Narender and Vijay, her husband Gyan Prakash her jethanis Om
\nPrabha and Nirmal had burnt her.<\/p>\n

5. The accused persons were put to trial under Section
\n406\/498\/307\/34 IPC. Smt. Veena appeared as PW 2 and testified against the
\naccused persons more vehemently, making improvements even over her second
\nstatement given to the SDM. Her father and mother also testified against the
\naccused persons and based on the statements, the appellants were convicted.<\/p>\n

6. The learned Trial Court observed that the two contradictory
\nstatements made by Veena before SDM have been explained and the testimony of the
\ncomplainant given in the Court was trustworthy and cannot be looked upon with
\nsuspicion. The Trial Court also observed that had the complainant been having
\nnice time with her in-laws and been loved and respected as stated in the first
\nstatement, she would not have turned a somersault and implicated everyone of her
\nfamily merely because her father had come to the hospital and met her. The
\nTrial Court observed that earlier statement made to the SDM was under a threat
\nand therefore could not be used to erase the credibility of complainant\u2019s
\ntestimony in the Court. The Trial Court also observed that had the incident
\nbeen an accident only, the appellant would have not concealed the incident from
\nthe father of the complainant and would have immediately informed the father of
\nthe complainant. The fact that father of the complainant was not informed about
\nthe incident by the in-laws\/appellants proves guilty mind of the appellants.
\nThe Trial Court brushed aside the contradictions in the ocular testimony of
\ncomplainant and the medical evidence observing the same being inconsequential
\nholding that the doctor who examined her had not taken the case of the
\ncomplainant seriously and considered it as a case of accident and not a case of
\nburning. Trial Court also brushed aside the contradiction in the stand taken by
\nthe complainant about the incident in her maintenance petition and in the Court
\non the ground that there must have been communication gap. There were other
\ncontradictions in the statement of complainant made in the Court and the earlier
\nstatement but all these were considered as immaterial by the Trial Court.<\/p>\n

7. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that the Trial
\nCourt had grossly ignored the entire sequence of the evidence and the
\ncircumstances which proved that the complainant had made false statement in the
\nCourt out of vengeance, only to see that her husband, who was not earning well
\nand was not able to maintain her properly and the in-laws should be taught a lesson.<\/p>\n

8. As per testimony of PW 2 complainant, made in the Court after
\nmarriage, the accused started asking her to bring 2 ? lac from her father or to
\nget a shop opened for her husband. This part of the testimony is contrary to
\nEx. PW 5\/1, a written application made by her father to SDM wherein her father
\nhad clearly stated that her son-in-law Gyan Prakash was unemployed and for this
\nreason he was turned out by his family and he (PW 5) was forced to keep his
\ndaughter with him sometime for 04 months and sometime for 06 months and he also
\nhad to get his daughter employed as a labour in a private company. She in her
\nstatement to SDM and in court tried to make out a case as if she lived at her
\nparents\u2019 house for 8-9 months together due to dowry demands. Her statement in
\nCourt is also contrary to her second statement made to SDM implicating her in-
\nlaws. In Ex. PW 2\/1 she talked of demand of Rs. 2 ? lac after purchase of a car
\nby in-laws on Holi festival of 2002 while deposing in Court she alleged of this
\ndemand from day one of her marriage. It is clear that it was not a case where
\nthe in-laws were demanding 2 ? lac after marriage of the girl but it was a case
\nwhere the girl was married with a boy who was practically unemployed and had no
\nsource of earning. The boy must have been unable to earn livelihood and for
\nthis reason he was being turned out from the house by his own family members.
\nHad the in-laws been trying to extract money and been asking Rs. 2 ? lac from
\nthe parents of the girl, they would not have turned out their own son. Once a
\nperson grows up and attains age of majority, gets married, he has to earn for
\nhimself and his wife. His elder brothers or parents cannot be expected to
\nsustain him and his family even after his marriage. Because of joint family
\nsystem prevalent in India sometimes the parents go out of way to help such of
\ntheir sons, who are not able to earn properly and do establish them in business
\nor help them to earn livelihood but that is possible only if the parents are
\nhaving enough money for this. Where the parents belong to poor or middle class
\nand do not have enough money to extend this help, they have no alternative but
\nto turn out such non-earning persons hoping that this would compel him to
\nsustain himself by striving and struggling. Ex. PW 5\/1 is the first admitted
\nwritten account from complainant\u2019s father that Gyan Prakash was being turned out
\nfrom house time and again, so that he was able to sustain himself and struggle
\nfor himself and it seems ultimately Gyan Prakash got some private job and
\nstarted going on work. Complainant in order to sustain herself also got a
\nprivate job with the help of her father and the couple left their son with
\nmaternal grand parents out of poverty. The initial period of their married life
\nwent like that. It has come in evidence that father of the girl was running a
\nclothier shop in Gurgaon. It is possible that the parents of Gyan Prakash had
\nasked father of the complainant to help Gyan Prakash in opening a clothier shop
\nwhen he was unemployed however, there was no dowry demand alleged by PW 5 in his
\napplication Ex. PW 5\/1. Had there been any persistent dowry demand as testified
\nby PW 2, nobody stopped PW 5 from writing the same in his application made to SDM.<\/p>\n

9. Let me consider the different statements made by the complainant
\nin this case. In her first statement, she told SDM that she met with an
\naccident. Presuming that this statement and the story of accident told by the
\ncomplainant to the SDM was made under pressure but there was no pressure on the
\ncomplainant as far as other facts are concerned. In her first statement, made
\nto SDM she stated that her husband was on duty at the time of incident and at
\nthat time her mother-in-law and jethani were at home. One may consider that
\nthere may be pressure on her to say that she had caught fire by accident but
\nthere could be no pressure on her to mis-state about the presence of persons in
\nthe house at the time of the incident. As per her first statement, except her
\nmother-in-law and one jethani, no one was present at home at the time of
\nincident. However, in the second statement Ex. PW 2\/1 she stated that her
\nmother-in-law, two jeths and two jethanis were present at the time of incident
\nand her husband was not there when incident of burning took place. Her jethani
\nand mother-in-law bolted the outer door from inside. In her statement before
\nthe Court she went further and made her husband also present at the time of
\nincident and stated that it was her husband who bolted the door from inside at
\nthe time of incident. It is obvious that her testimony in respect of presence
\nof persons at the time of incident is changing from one statement to other and
\nthe effort was gradually to implicate every member of the family. This reflects
\nthe mental process of the complainant who seems to wrack vengeance against the
\nfamily by implicating one after statements of the family members in successive.<\/p>\n

10. In her testimony, she alleged that a number of times she used
\nto be confined in a room under lock and sometimes she used to be kept hungry for
\ntwo days at stretch and sometimes she used to be turned out of the house. She
\nhas not stated any such thing in Ex. PW 2\/1 her second statement to SDM.
\nMoreover, she was a working girl. She was attending her office at Gurgaon and
\nused to commute by the conveyance provided by the company, as is admitted by her
\nin her cross examination. She was working as a labour. If she had been
\nconfined in the room for a number of days she would not have been able to attend
\noffice and would have been terminated from service for regular absence from the
\noffice. This aspect of her testimony whether she was attending office regularly
\nor not could not be verified by the IO because she in her statement to the SDM
\nhad not stated that she was confined by her in-laws in the room. Keeping her
\nhungry is also not believable since she was living with her husband in a
\nseparate room, as is admitted by her in cross-examination and she was going to
\noffice daily. She herself stated that on the day of incident she had cooked
\nmeal in the morning and went to office. A lady who used to cook food herself
\ncannot be kept hungry by others. Moreover, she had every opportunity of taking
\nmeals at her work place. Her purse recovered from the room contained Rs.1,500\/-
\nshowing she used to carry sufficient money to enable her to meet her
\nrequirements. In her statement before the SDM she stated that her husband was
\ndoing a private job, while in her testimony before Court she stated that her
\nhusband was not working anywhere. In her statement before the SDM she stated
\nthat she was being taunted by in-laws that she had no brother while in her
\ntestimony she admitted that she had a brother. In such a case nobody could have
\ntaunted her that she had no brother. In her testimony she stated that there was
\nno telephone at her parents\u2019 house and telephone was installed only after the
\nincident. However, her father PW 5 in his testimony stated that there was a
\ntelephone in house even before the incident and demand of Rs. 2 ? lac was made
\nby mother-in-law on telephone and accused Narender and Vijay also talked on
\ntelephone. He also asserted that he was informed about the incident by some
\nacquaintance on telephone.<\/p>\n

11. Her testimony seen in the light of previous admitted statement
\nshows that in order to implicate each member of the family she changed the
\nversion of incident. In her testimony in the Court she described the incident
\nof burning her differently. She stated that her mother-in-law Jeevani Devi @
\nJamuna brought Kerosene Oil and when she tried to save herself running here and
\nthere, she was held by her both jeths (brothers-in-law) and her sisters-in-law
\nNirmal pressed her hand against her mouth to prevent her from raising alarm and
\nthen mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and her elder sister-in-law Om Prabha set
\nher ablaze. Her husband had bolted the main door from inside and did not try to
\nsave her. After she was set ablaze, she rushed to tap and poured water kept in a
\nbucket on her. She also tore her clothes and extinguished the fire, of her own
\nefforts. Her testimony in the Court was recorded on 1st May, 2003. She was in
\na better position to remember the details on 11th May, 2002 i.e. soon after the
\nincident when she described the incident to SDM in Ex. PW 2\/1. The description
\nof incident given by her in her statement to SDM on 14th May, 2002 is altogether
\ndifferent from the description given by her in the statement given in the Court.
\nShe has nowhere stated in her earlier statement that she had torn her clothes.
\nShe did not state that she was held by her two jeths or her mouth was gagged by
\nher jethani Nirmal or her husband bolted the door from inside and kept watching
\nbut did not try to save. In a case of maintenance her allegations changed. Her
\nunemployed husband suddenly started earning Rs.8,000\/- p.m. and she was set
\nablaze by her jethani Nimal and not Om Prabha. All these improvements and
\nchanging versions have been made by her just to see that entire family is
\nimplicated.
\n12. It is her own case that a container of 05 litres of kerosene
\noil was poured on her. 05 litres of kerosene oil is an enormous quantity of oil
\nand if this quantity is poured on a person and fire is lit, he\/she will
\nimmediately turn into a fire ball. Presuming that the complainant had
\nextinguished the fire immediately by pouring a bucket full of water on herself
\nand by tearing her clothes, in that case the unburnt kerosene oil would remain
\non clothes and she would have been profusely smelling of kerosene oil. Not only
\nher clothes but her entire body would have been drenched with kerosene oil and
\nher clothes would have been drenched with kerosene oil and water. It is not her
\ncase that when she was removed to hospital her clothes were changed or she was
\nwashed off and bathed, rather her allegations are that she was continuously
\nbeaten for two hours before having been removed to the hospital and she kept
\nlying there for two hours in kerosene oil and water. It cannot be believed that
\non seeing a patient in such a condition, doctor would have closed his eyes and
\nwould not record the condition in the MLC. There is no mention of smell of
\nkerosene oil coming from her body in MLC, there is no mention of traces of
\nkerosene oil on her clothes, there is no mention of her clothes being torn,
\nthere is no injury on any part of her body except the burn injuries in the MLC.
\nA woman, who had been continuously beaten for about two hours definitely would
\nreceive some injury on some part of the body but no injury of the nature was
\nfound on her body as per MLC. The oral testimony of Smt. Veena\/complainant is
\ntotally in contradiction with the medical testimony.<\/p>\n

13. It is rightly said that men may lie but circumstances do not.
\nHer lies have been nailed down by the circumstances. There is no seizure of
\ntorn clothes soaked with kerosene oil or water, there is no seizure of kerosene
\noil container by the IO moreover, there is no mention of kerosene oil smell
\neither from body or from clothes and there is no mention of torn clothes by the
\ndoctor in the MLC. All these circumstances show that the entire story put
\nforward by the complainant was a cooked up story and no kerosene oil was poured on her.<\/p>\n

14. If two of her jeths had caught her so that she could be doused
\nwith kerosene oil and one jethani had gagged her mouth as alleged by her,
\nnothing would have stopped them from burning her completely so that she did not
\nsurvive. It only seems that none of the persons except mother-in-law and one
\njethani were even present when incident of burning took place and the incident
\nseems to be an accidental burning and that is why she received only 25% burns at
\nupper part of her body near neck. The nature of injuries confirms to her first
\nversion that her dupatta caught fire, fire travelled through dupatta to her
\nupper portion. Since dupatta is normally worn by ladies around neck and keeps
\nhanging the burns in this case seen to be due to presence of dupatta on the
\nupper portion i.e. on neck and back that fire had travelled through dupatta on
\nthe upper parts of clothes worn by her.<\/p>\n

15. Trial Court has heavily relied upon a presumption against the
\naccused persons that parents of the girl were not informed. This is also belied
\nby the witnesses. PW 13 (Raghbir Prashad) is brother-in-law of the complainant
\n(sister\u2019s husband). He learnt about the incident on 9th May, 2002 i.e. on the
\nday when the incident happened from his father-in-law who informed him on
\ntelephone about the incident. However, he did not visit Veena at the hospital
\nand met Veena at her residence only after 5-7 days of the incident. This
\nwitness has not been cross examined by the APP on any point. He is a
\nprosecution witness. This testimony cannot be brushed aside. This shows that
\nfather of girl was informed on 9th May, 2002 itself, that is why he could inform
\nPW 13 on telephone on 9th May, 2002 but since the incident was not so serious
\nand the burns were received accidentally and complainant was not in any danger
\nof life, it was not taken seriously by this witness and he did not even visit
\nhis sister-in-law at the hospital and met her only when she came back home after
\n5 days. The non-serious nature of the incident is also reflected from the testimony of Smt. Kanta PW 6, who is mother of the complainant. She stated that
\nshe was informed about the incident by her husband, who made her a telephone
\ncall in the morning of Saturday i.e. 11th May, 2002 and thereafter she went to
\nhospital. Had the incident been serious her husband would have informed her at
\nleast on 10th May, 2002 when she claimed that he learnt about the incident and
\nshe also would have visited her on the same day along with her husband.<\/p>\n

16. PW 2 testified in the Court that after getting her bandaged,
\nnone of her in-laws looked after her and all left the hospital. Her testimony
\nis belied by the testimony of her own father. Her father stated that when he
\nreached hospital on 10th May, 2002 her mother-in-law, brother-in-laws etc. all
\nmet him in the hospital. Similar is the testimony of her mother, who visited her
\non 11th May, 2002. It shows that PW 2 was out to speak patent lies in the
\nCourt.<\/p>\n

17. There is another important factor in this case which shows that
\nthe case of dowry demand and breach of trust under Section 406 IPC was falsely
\nfoisted on the accused persons. PW 11 Sushma Rawat, SI CAW Cell, who
\ninvestigated the case testified that she had visited the house along with the
\ncomplainant and all her jewellery, dowry articles etc. were found in the room in
\nwhich she was residing when she was living with her in-laws. It was her room
\nand there was an almirah in the room and the key of the almirah was in the purse
\nof the complainant. The purse was also lying in the same room and her entire
\njewellery and Rs.1500 were found in the almirah. That shows that complainant
\nand her husband were living separate in one room and her entire dowry articles
\nand istridhan was in her own custody and none of the other in-laws had any kind
\nof greed to take away her jewellery or her articles neither her goods were lying
\npacked. The story of demand of Rs.2 ? lac seems to be an invention made by the
\ncomplainant and her father just to make a false case against the accused
\npersons. Her father in his testimony stated that mother-in-law and brothers-in-
\nlaw demanded Rs.2 ? lac from her on telephone much prior to the incident. Had
\nit been so PW 5 in his written application Ex. PW 5\/1 would have mentioned about
\nthis demand because in this application he has mentioned everything possible
\nagainst the accused persons. A demand of Rs.2 ? lac seem to be invented in
\nconsultation before making statement to the SDM and that is why when subsequent
\nstatement was recorded by the SDM of complainant, her father and mother this
\ndemand was included in the statement while prior to that in Ex. PW 5\/1 there is
\nno mention of demand of Rs.2.5 lac neither it is mentioned that boy wanted a
\nshop for him to be established in Chandni Chowk, what mentioned is the abject
\npoverty of the boy and his inability to earn.<\/p>\n

18. I consider that the story of the complainant that she was
\nthreatened by her husband and in-laws for making statement to doctor and SDM
\nabout her accidental burning is palpably false. Her husband was not even at
\nhome when the incident took place. Her husband used to go for his job and
\nperhaps come back home after the arrival of his wife. He was working as a
\nlabour. The son of parties was living at Gurgaon with father of the girl. Her
\nhusband was not a criminal neither it is alleged that he had any criminal
\nbackground. A poor man who was starving for his survival and had to work as a
\nlabour from morning till evening for livelihood, could not have given threats to
\nkill his own son and father-in-law. This story of threat seems to have been
\ndeveloped later on by the complainant in consultation with father. The question
\nwould arise why the complainant would falsely implicate her in-laws. It is
\nundisputed that complainant was not happy with her matrimonial life. Her
\nhusband was an idle man, who earlier was not doing any job. Complainant had to
\nlive at her parents\u2019 house for 8-9 months together because of poverty of her
\nhusband. Complainant\u2019s son was also being brought up by her father because of
\nthe poor financial condition of her husband. Complainant herself had to take a
\njob as a labour. She was living with her husband while her son was living with
\nher father in Gurgaon, miles away. It seems that after the incident her father advised her to call it a day and break this relationship once for all. But
\nsimultaneously it seems that it was decided that the in-laws must be taught a
\nlesson for ruining the life of the complainant as she was got married to a
\nworthless boy. May be some false representations were made at the time of the
\nmarriage about the worth of the boy. It is not uncommon that someone may decide
\nto end the unhappy married life. It looks that the complainant made allegations
\nof threat etc. only to turn a \u2018U\u2019 turn, as she and her parents had decided to
\ncall it a day for the unhappy married life of the complainant.<\/p>\n

19. It must be understood that god had not made any two persons
\nsame with the same ideas, qualities and it must be acknowledged that marriages
\ndo fail and there is a mismatch not only in arranged marriages but even in love
\nmarriages. The mismatch is discovered during the continuation of married life.
\nNo doubt poverty is a curse and a poor man has to suffer in the society at
\ndifferent fronts but I consider that despite poverty being a curse, poverty
\ncannot be made a crime. Neither the failed marriage can be made a crime. In
\nthis case, the poverty was not only a curse for the boy but it made to be a
\ncrime since due to his poor condition he could not provide all that which he
\nshould have provided to the wife and the wife ultimately saw to it that not only
\nhe but everyone of his other family members land in jail. Every marriage that
\nfails does not fail due to dowry demand or cruelties. The marriages do fail for
\nseveral other reaons including the reason of incompatibility of the persons. A
\nfailed marriage is not a crime however, the provisions of Section 498A are being
\nused to convert failed marriages into a crime and the people are using this as
\ntool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible. In many cases, where FIRs
\nare filed under Section 498A IPC, petitions are being filed under Section 482
\nCr.P.C. for quashing of FIRs after settlements between the parties and the
\nallegations made of cruelties etc. are withdrawn the moment a lump sum payment
\nis received. Involving each of the family members of the husband is another
\narm in the armory of the complainants of failed marriages. Not only close
\nrelatives but distant relatives and even neighbours are being implicated under
\nSection 498A and other provisions of IPC in cases of failed marriages. The
\nCourts must be very cautious during trials of such offences. In all these cases
\nin the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her
\nfew relatives nothing is done by police. The police does not verify any
\ncircumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about the claims made by
\nthe complainant. No evidence about giving of dowry or resources of the
\ncomplainant\u2019s family claiming spending of huge amounts is collected by the
\npolice. This all is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law. The
\ninvestigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial and other
\nevidence in respect of claims made by the complainant and similarly Courts
\nshould always be careful in considering the credibility and truthfulness of the
\nstatement of the complainant and relatives.<\/p>\n

20. From the entire documents and the testimony of the witnesses I
\ncome to the conclusion that it is an unfortunate case where the complainant by
\nmaking false statement implicated the entire family in offences of under Section
\n307 and 498 A IPC. The Trial Court was not cautious enough to even look to
\nadmitted documents on record before convicting the family on mere statement of
\nan estranged wife. Trial Courts should guard themselves from being swayed by
\nemotions. They should consider entire circumstances and should carefully
\nanalyze the entire evidence. Poverty should not be allowed to become a crime.
\nNeither failed marriage be permitted to be a crime.<\/p>\n

21 I allow these four appeals. All the persons\/appellants are acquitted of Section 498A and Section 307 IPC.<\/p>\n

22. The appellants, namely, Gyan Prakash in Crl.Appeal No.787\/2004 and Smt.Jeevani Devi @ Jamuna Devi in Crl.Appeal No.749\/2004 are directed to be released forthwith.
\nA copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.<\/p>\n

November 01, 2007 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 03.9.2007 Date of Order: 01.11.2007 Crl.Appeal No. 696\/2004 01.11.2007 Narender Kumar and Anr.…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[47,128,129],"class_list":["post-134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-498a","tag-justice-dhingra","tag-narender-kumar"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}