{"id":2688,"date":"2011-08-23T12:58:18","date_gmt":"2011-08-23T07:28:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=2688"},"modified":"2011-08-23T12:58:18","modified_gmt":"2011-08-23T07:28:18","slug":"161-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/161-1999\/","title":{"rendered":"Acquittal in 498a – Benefit of doubt due to incredible version of prosecution"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Reserved on 12.02.2007
\nDate of Decision: March 07, 2007
\nCrl.Appeal No.161 of 1999<\/p>\n

Surender Kumar and Another ….. Appellants
\nThrough:Mr. J.B.Dhanda with Mr. Vineet Dhanda Advocates
\nversus
\nThe State(NCT of Delhi) ….. Respondent
\nThrough:Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj, Advocates<\/p>\n

CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
\n2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
\n3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.<\/p>\n

: SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J<\/p>\n

1. By this appeal the appellants have assailed the judgment dated\u00a0 18.3.1999 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge whereby the appellants Surender\u00a0 Kumar and Ashwani Kumar were convicted under Section 308 read with Section 34 of\u00a0 Indian Penal Code and Surender Kumar was convicted under Section 498A IPC as\u00a0 well and against the order on sentence dated 23.3.1999 whereby the appellant\u00a0 Surender Kumar was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs.1000\/-\u00a0 under Section 498A IPC and the two appellants were sentenced to RI for five\u00a0 years and fine of Rs.1000 under Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC.<\/p>\n

2. The case was registered against four persons on the statement of
\ncomplainant Mamta who, in her complaint dated 9.3.1992, stated that she was
\nliving with her family at House No.86\/14, Sector-I, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. She
\nwas married to appellant Surender Kumar on 2.2.1992. Her parents used to live at
\nSarojini Nagar. A day before the incident, her husband had taken her to her
\nparents house and then brought her back to her matrimonial home at 4 pm. On the
\nnight intervening 8th and 9th March, 1992, she was beaten up by her husband and
\nto suppress her cries from outsiders, a tape recorder was played. Daily she
\nused to be told that she had brought less dowry and she should bring more
\ndowry. On the morning of 9.3.1992, she telephoned her father and called him. Her
\nfather and brother came to her matrimonial home to take her to her parents’
\nhouse. When they (she, her father and brother) had come downstairs for going to
\nparental house, her husband called her upstairs to open the lock of Almirah. On
\nher going upstairs, her husband and her Dewar Ashwani Kumar, bolted the door
\nfrom inside and thereafter both of them picked her up and threw her down from
\nbalcony, due to which she received injuries on her body. She further stated
\nthat her mother-in-law, brother-in-law Braham Prakash(elder brother of husband),
\nher husband, her other brother-in-law Ashwani Kumar should be prosecuted as per
\nlaw. A case under Section 498A\/308\/34 IPC was registered against all the four
\npersons namely Surender Kumar, Braham Prakash, Ashwani Kumar and Parmeshwari
\nDevi. All the four were charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC
\nwhile appellant Surender Kumar and Ashwani Kumar were also charged with section
\n308 read with section 34 of the IPC.<\/p>\n

3. Mrs. Mamta appeared as PW-1 before the Trial Court and in her testimony
\nbefore the Court she did not restrict herself to the statement given by her
\ninitially to the police and made a lot of improvements in that. Before the
\nCourt, she stated that all the accused persons harassed her and tortured her for
\nnot bringing sufficient dowry. Accused Surinder used to tell her that she would
\nmeet the same fate as wife of Narender. Accused Braham Prakash also used to say
\nsame thing and they used to say that her parents were supposed to pay huge
\namount of dowry. Regarding 8.3.1992, she deposed that on that day she had gone
\nto her parents house as she was told by her husband that she should bring
\nRs.25,000\/- from her parents as he was to purchase a scooter. Her husband
\nSurender left her at her parents’ house. She told her parents to give her
\nRs.25,000\/- but her parents had no money to give her. She brought certain
\ncertificates along with her from her parents’ house since she was to clear SSC
\nExamination. Accused Surender had also told her and threatened her to return
\nfrom her house within 15 minutes otherwise he would kill her. She was then taken
\nto her matrimonial house at Preet Vihar and there her mother-in-law asked her if
\nshe had brought Rs.25,000\/- from her parents house. She told her mother-in-law
\nthat she had not brought money as her parents were not in a position to pay the
\namount. On this, her husband Surender switched on a tape recorder on high pitch
\nand gave her beatings and told that she would be given more beatings when
\nAshwani would come. On 9.3.1992, on her making a telephone call, her father and
\nbrother came to her in-laws’ house at about 8 am and she told them that she was
\nbeaten and should be taken away from the house. The accused persons told her
\nfather and brother that she would be sent in the evening or on the next day.
\nHowever, she was not prepared to remain in the house of her husband as she
\nfeared for her life as earlier her husband Surender had told her that acid would
\nbe thrown on her person and he had brought acid for that purpose. When she tried
\nto pack her clothes, accused persons did not allow her to do so. However, she
\ncame downstairs despite resistance of accused persons. They used to live at 3rd
\nFloor. Accused Ashwani and Surender (appellants in this case) came downstairs
\nand told that their mother was calling her and wanted to know where the keys of
\nalmirah were kept. She, therefore, went upstairs. On her reaching upstairs in
\nthe room, Surender bolted the door from inside. Accused Ashwani, Surender and
\nParmeshwari Devi were in the room. Her mother-in-law Permeshwari Devi did not
\nallow her to go to her parents’ house but she requested her to allow her to go
\nto her parents’ house. On this, she was given beatings with fists and slaps. She
\nwas not allowed to escape from there and then accused persons told her that she
\nwould be allowed to go from different passage. She was then dragged to the
\nbalcony and accused Surender, Ashwani and her mother-in-law physically lifted
\nher and thrown her on the ground floor from 3rd floor. She sustained injuries
\non her legs, her back bone and other parts of body. She lost consciousness but
\nregained it in the hospital. She was removed to Modi Hospital. From there she
\nwas removed to Safdarjung Hospital on 10.3.1992 where she remained admitted up to 1.5.1992.<\/p>\n

4. During cross examination, she admitted that after 3 days of her
\nmarriage her husband had taken her to her parents’ house and both of them came
\nback on the same day. She admitted that thereafter she and her husband had gone
\nto Nainital for honeymoon. They stayed in hotel ‘Madhuban’ at Nainital for five
\ndays. She admitted that both of them enjoyed their honeymoon and they had
\nprepared photographs of the tour. After they came from honeymoon, her brother
\ncame to her in-laws’ house to take her but her husband and mother-in-law did not
\nsend her with her brother. She admitted that there were four flats at each
\nstorey but stated that none of the family came to her rescue. The reasons for
\nnot coming to her rescue by neighbours as given by her is that the appellant
\nSurender had beaten up all the neighbours and all the neighbours were afraid of
\nhim. There was no telephone connection either at the house of her parents or at
\nthe house of her in-laws. She further admitted that she was going out for
\nshopping from her matrimonial home right from the day one of her marriage. She
\nused to be sent for purchasing vegetables daily. She did not give any telephone
\nmessage to her parents regarding beatings by accused prior to 9.3.1992. She went
\nto her parents house after 5\/7 days of coming from Nainital and she told her
\nfather about the beatings but her father neither told this fact to any other
\nrelative nor reported the matter to the police. Next day at around 12 am, her
\nhusband Surender came to her parents’ house with her and talked to her parents.
\nHe threw bedsheet on them saying that same was of sub-standard quality. Her
\nparents told her not to go back with her husband but since she wanted to settle
\nherself in husband’s family, she went along with her husband against the advise
\nof her parents. However, on the same night she was beaten up by accused Surender
\nand Ashwani and she became unconscious. Again she improved herself and stated
\nthat she had not become unconscious. She used to be beaten till the accused
\npersons got tired. During these beating sessions, she sustained injuries on her
\nhead and blood came out. However, she did not go to hospital or doctor or did
\nnot undergo any dressing. She admitted that she had been going to learn typing
\nand shorthand from her matrimonial home and in her class there were 50 students
\nin the batch. She did not tell any of her colleagues about the ill-treatment
\nmeted out to her. She stated that police had not recorded her statement ever, so
\nshe had not told about demand of Rs.25,000\/-. She had not told her father about
\nthe demand of Rs.25,000\/- or that her husband would kill her. She told that she
\nwas afraid of telling these things to her father as her husband always used to
\nkeep revolver with him. She telephoned her father in the morning of 9.3.1992 at
\nabout 6.45 am when she went to take milk from the milk booth. She had telephoned
\nat the house of a neighbour of her parents house. Though she was apprehending
\ndanger to her life but she made no effort to go to her parents house despite
\nhaving opportunity to go to her parents house from the milk booth directly. She
\nfurther stated that her mother and father had reached her ‘in -laws’ house at 8
\nam and they sat in the drawing room. Ashwani and Surender were in the drawing
\nroom and they all talked in her presence. In the presence of her father, the
\naccused persons talked nicely as if they were having lovely relations with her.
\nThe talks continued till 12.30 pm and it was only at 12.30 pm when she told that
\nshe was going with her father and mother, accused persons told her that they
\nwere not willing to send her with her parents but if she wanted to go, she may
\ngo. She denied that suggestion that her husband had made a complaint to her
\nparents that she was having illicit relations with somebody who used to come to
\nmeet her in his absence when he was in the office. She denied that when her
\nhusband made this complaint, she ran speedily and fell down from stairs and
\nreceived injuries on her person. She admitted that she had decided not to live
\nat her in-laws’ house after sustaining injuries. She admitted that accused
\npersons used to visit her in the hospital but stated that they used to visit to torture her.<\/p>\n

5. Her father appeared as PW-5 and in his testimony he admitted that
\nbefore marriage the accused persons had told him that he should not spent a
\nsingle paisa on marriage. He admitted that after marriage Surender and Mamta had
\ngone for honeymoon to Nainital and they had come back happily. He admitted that
\nhis statement was recorded by the police at the hospital and he did not state to
\npolice that on 9.3.1992 her daughter told him on phone that she was beaten up on
\nprevious night by her in laws. He admitted that in his statement to the police,
\nhe had got recorded that the accused persons had agreed to sent Mamta with him
\nafter exchange of hot words. In cross examination, he further admitted that
\nMamta and Surender were living in a separate house and rest of the accused
\npersons were living in a separate house with their family. He, however, stated
\nthat mother-in-law of Mamta was living with Mamta and Surender. Accused Ashwani
\nwas a constable in Delhi Police. He denied that Ashwani was not present on the
\nplace of occurrence on 9.3.1992. He admitted that the accused Surender was in
\nthe hospital when he reached there after admission of Mamta. Other accused
\npersons had also come to the hospital. He stated that after seeing her daughter
\nin injured condition, he decided not to send her to her in-laws house. He denied
\nthe suggestion that appellant Surender had told him that one boy used to come to
\nvisit his daughter in his absence.<\/p>\n

6. Brother of Mamta who was allegedly present at the time of this
\noccurrence has not been examined on the ground that he was not in India.
\nProsecutrix Mamta stated that she became unconscious after she fell and she
\nregained consciousness only in the hospital. Same is the statement of father of
\nthe prosecutrix that he became unconscious on hearing his daughter fell from the
\n3rd floor and he regained consciousness after sometime. Thus, neither PW1 nor
\nPW5 are the witnesses as to who took Mamta to hospital. Their testimony that
\nAshok, brother of Mamta, took her to hospital is baseless. On the contrary, DD
\nNo.8 was recorded on 9.3.1992 at about 1.30 pm by the Duty Officer wherein it is
\nstated that doctor of Modi Hospital through telephone gave information at about
\n1.30 pm that Mamta wife of Surender r\/o 86\/14, Sector-I, Pushp Vihar was
\nadmitted to the hospital by her husband Surender since she had injured herself
\nby falling from the stairs and somebody should be sent. From this DD, it is
\nobvious that it was husband of Mamta who got her admitted in the hospital. It
\nhas come in the testimony of PW-5 that Surender was present in the hospital when
\nhe reached the hospital. I consider that there was no reason that doctor at the
\nhospital had any motive to give false information to police that Mamta was
\nbrought to hospital by Surender, her husband.<\/p>\n

7. It is admitted by PW-5 that before marriage of Mamta, Surender,
\nappellant, and his relatives had told him that he need not spend even a single
\npaise on the marriage. If the appellants, or any of their relations were dowry
\nseekers, they would not have told this to the father of the complainant. They
\nwould have rather welcomed if dowry was given. Appellants specifically telling
\nthe father of the complainant that he need not spent a single paise on the
\nmarriage, proves that they were not dowry-seekers. A list of articles of dowry
\nreceived back by the complainant show the articles as kitchen utensils, one
\nsewing machine, one double bed, one steel almirah, one wrist watch, ladies
\npersonal articles, one sofa and a central table. This would show that the
\nparties to the marriage belonged to middle class family. Both of them were not
\nhaving telephone at their houses and they were living a lower middle class standard.<\/p>\n

8. The marriage took place on 2.2.1992. It is obvious that she would have
\nreached her matrimonial home on 3.2.1992. She went to her parents house after 3
\ndays of marriage. Surender accompanied her and in the evening they come back.
\nAfter a day or so they proceeded for honeymoon to Nainital. They stayed at
\nNainital in a hotel for five days. There was no problem between them and they
\ncome back happily. She went to her parents’ house after 5-7 days of honeymoon
\nand stayed there over night. She makes no complaint to her parents either of
\nbeatings or dowry demand. Her allegations that she used to be beaten after
\nevery three days, black and blue till the accused persons got tired of beating
\nher, does not find support from circumstances and her own conduct. She used to
\ngo every morning for bringing milk and vegetables from the milk booth. She also
\nused to go for shopping. She daily used to go for learning typing and shorthand.
\nObviously her traveling had to be by bus. She went to her parents house after
\n5\/7 days of coming from honeymoon and then on 8.3.1992. Her husband accompanied
\nher on both occasions. If she had been beaten black and blue as told by her ,
\nthere was no reason for her to come back to her matrimonial home. She could
\nhave refused to accompany her husband from her parents house and reported the
\nmatter to police. Her testimony that her husband was keeping revolver with him
\nand had brought acid and in order to suppress her cries he played the tape
\nrecorder, are not supported by any of the recoveries made from the house. She
\ndid not tell all these facts to the police in her complaint. No recovery of tape
\nrecorder, acid or revolver is made from the house of appellant. There was no
\ntape recorder in her own dowry articles.<\/p>\n

9. The total stay of the prosecutrix at her matrimonial home is hardly 35
\ndays. Out of these 35 days, first 10 days, she stated, she lived very happily,
\nrest 25 days she was going to learn typing and shorthand almost daily. She was
\ngoing to market to bring vegetables, milk etc. She visited her parents’ house
\nminimum twice and stayed there overnight once. Her husband accompanied her to
\nher parents’ house both the times. In her complaint to the police, no specific
\ninstance of dowry demand is stated by her and the only allegation made by her is
\nthat she used to be told that she had been given less dowry. She did not state
\nanything about throwing of bed sheet complaining that the bed sheet was of poor
\nquality or of demand of Rs.25,000\/- for scooter. In her statement to the
\npolice, she made allegations only against her husband about taunts. She made no
\nallegation against any other person about dowry demand but asked for action
\nagainst her Dewar, Jeth and mother in law as well, apart from her husband. In
\nher statement before Court she even implicated Braham Prakash who was living
\nseparately with his family. Even her mother-in-law Parmeshwari Devi was not
\nliving with them. She was also living separately. Her father, in her testimony,
\nadmitted that Parmeshwari Devi and Braham Prakash were living in separate
\nhouses. In her complaint to the police, she did not mention that Parmeshwari
\nDevi was present on 9.3.92 at the house. She only stated that her husband and
\nAshwani had lifted her up and thrown her from balcony. Her entire testimony
\nshows that she had not deposed truthfully.<\/p>\n

10. The real cause of dispute between husband and wife was something else.
\nIf her husband had been demanding more dowry, he would have readily agreed to
\nsend her back to her parents house and told her that she would not come back
\ntill she brings dowry. But her statement is that her husband was resisting her
\ngoing to her parents house. Her father does not say a word as to what transpired
\nbetween him and her husband from 8 am till 12.30 pm when both talked. He
\nremained in the house of appellants from 8 am to 12.30 pm. He had come there
\nwith his wife or son and kept on discussing something in the presence of her
\ndaughter. What was the topic of discussion is not disclosed to the Court. It is
\nnot his case that during these four hours any demand of dowry was made or he was
\ncounseling to her daughter to adjust or to her in laws not to be greedy or he
\nhad made any proposal. It is admitted by prosecutrix that during this period her
\nhusband has been talking nicely as if he was having lovely relations with her.
\nHis statement that his daughter was beaten earlier also due to dowry demand and
\ndespite that he did not make any complaint to any one and allowed his daughter
\nto go to her matrimonial home does not inspire confidence being contradictory to
\nhis statement to police. The statement of prosecutrix that she was beaten after
\nevery 2\/3 days black and blue to the extent that she got injuries on her body
\nand to the extent that she became unconscious or accused persons got tired of
\nbeating her is unbelievable in view of the fact that she used to go to learn
\ntyping and shorthand everyday and used to go for purchasing vegetables and milk
\nin the morning and had an opportunity to go to her parents house at any time or
\nto the police station at any time. Her this statement is also contradictory to
\nher earlier version. It is apparent that something else was going on between
\nthe couple which culminated into some altercation on the night of 8th and 9th
\nMarch,1992 with the result that she called her parents either to settle it down
\nor to take her back. Since truth is not disclosed to the Court, something is
\namiss and Court cannot imagine what was the real cause but certainly dowry was
\nnot the cause. Neither the testimony of prosecutrix about beatings is trustworthy.<\/p>\n

11. Now I come to incident of 9.3.1992. She stated in the complaint to
\nthe police that when she was going with her brother and father, her husband
\ncalled her to open the Almirah and she went up stairs. This itself shows that
\neven when she was going with her parents, she was not going after a quarrel. If
\nshe had come down after a quarrel, she would not have gone upstairs at 3rd Floor
\nsimply to open an alimrah. After she goes up, she submits in her complaint and
\nthat her husband and Dewar picked her up and threw her down the balcony. There
\nis no talk of her Dewar being in the house prior to this. In the complaint she
\ndoes not say that her Dewar had done anything prior to that. Or he had talked
\nwith her parents. While in her statement before the police, she named husband
\nand Devar, in the Court she added one more name and stated that her husband,
\nDewar and mother-in-law; all three picked her up and threw down from balcony.
\nThe presence of mother-in-law, for the first time, is shown in the house only
\nduring the testimony in the Court. In the complaint, there is no talk of
\nmother-in-law being present there. Even in the statement under Section 161
\nCr.P.C. made by father of Mamta, he does not say that Parmeshwari Devi was in
\nthe house. He simply submits that he and his son Ashok Kumar came downstairs and
\nthereafter her son-in-law called her daughter for giving keys of almirah. So
\nher son and daughter both went upstairs and after some time, he heard a sound of
\n?Thud? and her son raised a cry that Mamta had been thrown down. In his
\ntestimony before the court, he states that he and his son remained standing on
\nthe ground floor and only Mamta had gone up and thereafter he sent her son to
\nfind out what was the matter and then his son heard some shouts from inside the
\nhouse. When attention of witness to contradictions between statement made to the
\npolice and made in the Court was drawn, he simply stated that he had not made
\nany statement to the police. Testimony of Mamta giving account of what happened
\nwhen she again went upstairs is full of falsehood. She stated her mother-in-law
\ntold her not to go to her parents’ house. Once she was told that she could go to
\nher parents’ house if she wanted, why would she be again told not to go there by
\nher mother-in-law who was not even present in the house as per her earlier
\ncomplaint to police. No reason has been given why her going to her parents’
\nhouse was being resisted by the appellants. If her story of dowry is to be
\nbelieved, the appellants would have readily told her to go to her parents’ house
\nand bring dowry. Non examination of Ashok Kumar as a witness in the court,
\nraises serious doubts about her story. It is to be noted that despite the fact
\nthat Ashok Kumar was with Mamta when she went upstairs, and when she fell on
\nground from 3rd floor, he did not get her sister admitted to hospital and then
\nhe did not appear before the court to support the story of her sister. It seems
\nhe was privy to facts different from what was being sought to be projected and
\nhe kept himself away deliberately.<\/p>\n

12. Investigating Officer in this case reached the hospital after DD No.8
\nwas marked to him. He found Mamta conscious in the hospital and made an
\napplication Ex.PW9\/A to the CMO for recording statement of Mamta. The
\napplication reads as under:
\nIt is requested that Smt. Mamta wife of Surender Singh resident of H.No. 86\/14,
\nSector-I, Pushp Vihar has been admitted in hospital in injured condition after
\nshe jumped from Balcony of the house. Permission be granted to record her
\nstatement.
\nSd\/-<\/p>\n

13. The Investigating Officer testified that after reaching hospital he
\nfound Mamta conscious and after talking to her made application for recording
\nher statement. It is obvious that initially he was told by her that she jumped
\nfrom balcony. Her husband’s stand constantly had been that she fell from stairs.<\/p>\n

14. After recording statement of Mamta, he visited the spot and made
\nenquiries from neighbours about the truth but he did not place on record
\nstatements of any of the neighbours. He did not find brother of Mamta in
\nhospital. Mother of complainant is not produced in Court as a witness although
\nshe is also stated to have accompanied her husband to appellants’ house. It has
\ncome in appellants’ testimony that from 8 am till 12.30 pm her parents were at
\nher in-laws’ house and talks were normal and husband and in-laws talked as if
\nthey had lovely relations with her. There seemed to be no acrimony even
\nthereafter since on the calling of her husband, she went three stories upstairs
\njust to open an Almirah. Considering entire sequence and facts, a grave doubt
\narises on her version that suddenly she was picked up and thrown down the
\nbalcony. The version of the incident given by complainant seems to be an
\nafterthought and incredible. The version given by accused persons and by one
\ndefence witness that complainant rushed out of the door and she entangled in the
\nrailing also does not seem to be true.<\/p>\n

15. From the entire evidence and circumstances, two views are possible (i)
\nthat despite the cordial atmosphere which was there from 8 am to 12.30 pm and
\nthe complainant was told that though appellants were not in favour of her going
\nto her parents’ house but she if wanted could go to her parents house, the
\nappellants suddenly lost balance of mind and became mad and picked her up and
\nthrew her from the balcony. The other view which is possible is that the
\ncomplainant had called her parents because of some allegations regarding her
\ncharacter by the appellants and when allegations were made, even before her
\nparents, she decided to go to her parents house along with her parents. She then
\nwent upstairs to open the almirah and there again some exchange of allegations
\ntook place and she in a huff jumped from the balcony.<\/p>\n

16. The efforts of the criminal courts had to be to find out the truth,but this is not always easy, especially when parties develop vindictive attitude. Where there is a reasonable doubt and when two incredible versions confront the Court, the Court should give benefit of the doubt to the accused and it is not safe to sustain conviction ( AIR 2005 SC 97 State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay). The proof which the Court of criminal justice has to require must be proof which affirms moral certainty to the judge. The Courts must give advantage to the accused if, after considering the entire evidence and the entire circumstances, a Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains a grave doubt regarding guilt of the accused. In the instant case, although the complainant received injuries but the entire story put forward by the complainant leading to the entire episode does not inspire confidence and does not seem credible. I have serious doubts about the prosecution version that the appellants picked up the complainant and threw her down from the 3rd floor from balcony. I,therefore, consider that appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt under Section 308 of the IPC.<\/p>\n

17. In view of my foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The conviction under Section 498A\/308\/34 is hereby set aside. The appellants are set free. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.<\/p>\n

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
\nMarch 07, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on 12.02.2007 Date of Decision: March 07, 2007 Crl.Appeal No.161 of 1999 Surender Kumar and…<\/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":[15685,15692,1035,15686,15695,15687,144,211,15696,15697,2048,13759,15691,4638,15689,15688,1389,1689,213,15693,15694,15690],"class_list":["post-2688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-acquittal-in-498a","tag-ashwani","tag-ashwani-kumar","tag-benefit-of-doubt","tag-braham-prakash","tag-incredible-version-of-prosecution","tag-ipc","tag-justice-shiv-narayan-dhingra","tag-mr-j-b-dhanda","tag-mr-vineet-dhanda","tag-ms-richa-kapoor","tag-ms-sukriti-bhardwaj","tag-parmeshwari-devi","tag-prosecutrix","tag-section-308","tag-section-308-of-the-ipc","tag-section-34","tag-section-498a","tag-shiv-narayan-dhingra","tag-surender","tag-surender-kumar","tag-testimony-of-prosecutrix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688","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=2688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}